Sam Baldwin
English 1010, 1st
11/19/13
Bibliography
Baird, Stephen L. “Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options?” Technology
Teacher. 66 (2007): 12-13. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Baird starts off explaining the constant push for human self-modification and how this
comes off as powerful, enticing, and hard to resist. Baird makes the claim that in the
future, we will be picking the characteristics of our future children’s personality and
physiology. Warning of the ethic and social problems are greatly noted. Baird says that
once we have headed down the road of genetic engineering of “designer babies,” there
will be no turning back. The technology for this is profound, and many will not approve.
Others see it has taking control of the human race’s evolution.
Barros, Alberto and Sousa, Mario. “A Moral Case Study for Discussion: Designer Babies and
Tissue Typing.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare Limited) 9
(2004): 372. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Barros and Sousa begin with explaining the history behind the science of designer
babies. They input some predictions that society, in the future, will not only be able to
select traits for children, but allow. With this prediction, they say that society will have
reached the point of bettering our species. But of course, they acknowledge that the
freedom of choice will still be in hand when talking of these dramatic changes. Barros
and Sousa claim the technology to improve a baby will be available to everyone, if they
choose to do it, and pay for the expenses. In strong closing, Barros and Sousa state that
people shouldn’t fear the start of the new era of technological science of designer
babies.
Brownlee, Shannon. “Designer Babies.” Washington Monthly 34.3 (2002): 25. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Brownlee explains that now-a-days, parents can spend thousands of dollars to choose
the sex of their child, and to discard genes with mutations to insure a healthy baby. She
claims that in the future, parents will design their unborn babies and that fertility clinics
will have that new science that will alter the human species. People can realistically
imagine their future children to have genetically enhanced intelligence, musical talent,
great personalities, and good looks. Future possibilities that Brownlee goes over is that
the genetic traits of what parents believe to be undesirable could be discarded out of
the gene pool, such as shyness and baldness. The problems brought up about this new
technology are the ethics of “playing God” and many others.
Darnovsky, Marcy PhD. “One Step Closer to Designer Babies.” Bioethics. (2011): n. pag. Science
Progress. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Darnovsky pushes off with a statement about how the new science of gene testing and
altering could change pregnancy and parenting experiences. She goes on to say that this
new practice draws concerns for sex selection and “perfect” child expectations from
parents. Marcy claims that gene tests are not worth the money spent. Darnovsky talks
about parents who are having a baby that are getting gene test, and how are they
suppose to process the results, and understand them to make the “right” choices. It’s a
hard thing to do, especially when it concerns your unborn baby. Darnovsky predicts that
society will start seeing adds to design your unborn child for hair color, eye color, skin
tone, etc. which already happened in a Los Angeles fertility clinic in 2009.
De Wert, Guido. “Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: The Ethics of Intermediate Cases.” Human
Reproduction. 20 (2005): 3261-3266. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
De Wert opens up with talk of some countries banning preimplantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD) and other allowing it, and other countries, like the United States, who
are unsure. De Wert asserts his opinion that PGD should only be used for medical
reasons and not for social reasons. He talks about the opinion of some groups who
agree with him about only using PGD for the medical model, as some people nick-name
it. While other groups want the new technology to grow into the designed model. De
Wert also mentions the psychological risks involving designer babies. But he goes on to
say that if society and science allow the medical model, then there is no argument left
to exclude the designing of an unborn child.
Edwards, RG. “A Burgeoning Science of Embryological Genetics Demands a Modern Ethics.”
Reproductive BioMedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare Limited) 15 (2007): 34-40.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
Edwards observes that many ethic problems come with preimplantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD) about when a baby or embryo is counted as a living human. But with
this science, which may cause ethical questions, scientists can enhance future
generations of children. Edwards states that this new science is evolving quickly. Some
people believe to solve some ethical problems of “designer babies” is to slow or stop
the discovery and testing of this new knowledge. Edwards explains how the need of new
scientific knowledge will not be held back. Beside the ethical issues, this new science
could select healthy, more superior genes to be transmitted to the embryo for better
children.
Edwards, RG. “Ethics of PGD: Thoughts on the Consequences of Typing HLA in Embryos.”
Reproductive BioMedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare Limited) 9.2 (2004): 222-224.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
Edwards starts off with the question of when does an embryo deserve to be recognized
as a human being. Many embryos have been discarded when using PGD technology.
Edwards explains that there is no black and white when answering ethical questions
involving “designer babies.” He also comments on humans born with genetic illnesses
and the social aspect of them living around people who were altered to not have any
mutations-this is an insanely sensitive issue. Edwards also talks about the patients of
PGD making the choices for their future children. Edwards closes with the fact that this
science and technology has been introduced all over the world, and people are getting
their perfect child, and the families’ form of happiness.
Handyside, A.H. “Twenty Years of Designer Babies.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online
(Reproductive Healthcare Limited) 20 (2010): n. pag. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7
Nov. 2013.
Handyside comes right off to state that from the last twenty years preimplantation
genetic diagnosis (PGD) is well grounded as an alternative pre-birth diagnosis.
Handyside goes on to say that genetic testing will be transformed. But Handyside warns
that multiple variables in the equation of designer babies are being discovered with
unknown consequences. The demand of choosing a parent’s child’s looks and
personality will increase dramatically. Handyside does not, of course, go without saying
that there will be regulations. These regulations would include what traits can be
allowed for inherit, and what information will be open to patients for them to select for
their embryos.
Klitzman, Robert. “Anticipating Issues Related to Increasing Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis
Use: A Research Agenda.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare
Limited) 17 (2008): 33-42. Academic Search Premier. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
Dr. Klitzman starts off his article with what PGD can do-this new science can discard
genes that carry genetic disorders/diseases so a baby can be born healthy. The number
of babies born with mutations has gone down thanks to this new medical technology.
But Dr. Klitzman comments that couples who are get clinical help with PGD to discard
genetic mutations, also use it for social reasons instead of medical. In many countries,
they have banned the science and use of PGD because of its ethics. Italy, and the
influence of the Catholic Church, has banned PGD because of the God-like power it
shows of creating life and enhancing it. A study was shown that 40.8% of women using
PGD science for would also like to select the gender for their child with this technology
for social reasons-this would cause major ethic problems in society. Dr. Klitzman also
notes that if PGD is used socially, as in picking certain traits for the unborn baby, the
parents could disagree about choices for their future child and it could cause stress in
the relationship. Another question raised on the topic is if parents are even valid in
making these decisions.
Tuhus-Dubrow, Rebecca. “Designer Babies and the Pro-Choice Movement.” Dissent (00123846)
54.3 (2007): 37-43. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Tuhus-Dubrow states that sex selection in for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is
becoming popular. She claims that scientists are coming out to say that the choice of
eye color and hair type selections are in the near future. They also mention, with less
certainty but same amount of plausibility, that scientists will be able to identify which
genes are for intelligence and other complex traits. The selection of genes, and the
insertion of genes, will be a whole new science coming forth after the basics of
“designer babies” are a solid technology. Tuhus-Dubrow says that the issues of designer
babies will become a big problem in society. Even though eugenicists claim that this new
science will help society and families with the technology of better the human species.
Tuhus-Dubrow talks about how some parties are against gene altering and that some
believe it to be as radical as genocide to control natural birth and outcome of a child,
and that there are major issues being discussed about designer babies, the main one
being the ethic issue of “playing God.”
Verlinsky, Yury. “Designing Babies: What the Future Holds.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online
(Reproductive Healthcare Limited) 10 (2005): 24-26. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7
Nov. 2013.
In this article, Verlinsky explains how parents will and can be given more control over
their future offspring with their personality, health, etc. With this, there will be ethical
questions of whether or not it should be legalized. But since a parent is going to clinics
so they can have a healthy baby, putting in much time and energy, shouldn’t they
deserve to have the child they want? Verlinsky warns that once we start down this path
of genetic altered children, the return is impossible. With the science of “designer
babies,” will it only be available to the rich? Are parents even fit to decide their baby’s
life for them? Verlinsky goes over many ethical and social questions and problems that
need solutions.
Verlinsky, Yury. “Ethics of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online
(Reproductive Healthcare Limited) 14.1 (2006): 102-103. Academic Search Premier. Web.
12 Nov. 2013.
Dr. Verlinsky talks about sex related genetic diseases and determination of gender for
unborn babies. He comments on how this could be the result of many male births. He
also mentions that 130 genes carrying mutations or diseases have been discarded
resulting in healthy babies. Dr. Verlinsky states that the study and practice of PGD is
growing. And with this growth, the concerns for sex selection, and its ethical problems,
loom in the near future. Dr. Verlinsky also talks, in closing, about certain traits-unrelated
to medical needs-are chosen for the parents’ version of their perfect “designer baby.”
These situations raise even more ethical questions about who decides the traits given to
the unborn child if the characteristics are for social reasons.