"Which Kid is the Favorite?” is Now a Life and Death Question

It is now reality. We can choose the traits of our children--boy, girl, blond, brunette, blue eyes, green eyes, brown eyes…. Before you get to excited, let us look at it a little closer. Like most things, paradoxically, the closer you get, the less clear things become.

How is it done? A number of eggs are fertilized. By taking a sample from each egg, the doctors identify genetic markers in each egg that will likely result in certain traits. The parents then pick the egg with the combination of traits they like best. The rest of the eggs are likely discarded. Do we want to live in a country where (for instance) the blond haired, blue-eyed boy gets to live while the brown eyed, brown haired girl does not? Let me put it this way: If this technology had been around in the late 1930's and early 1940's, the Nazis would have applied it with gusto.

Besides the moral question of determining who lives based on eye or hair color, there are practical considerations. Our species has been honed over the millennia by evolution (which is not a theory but a fact, period—no debate). Over time, a tapestry of genes and traits was woven that made our species more robust. Genetic mutations and different combinations of genes resulted in a more diverse gene pool (and thus more diverse traits) that made annihilation of the species by one disease or circumstance less likely. Some traits are linked with other traits, so when eye color, hair color or sex are manipulated, other seemingly unrelated traits are manipulated as well, affecting more than just appearance. For contemporary society, research has shown that, as politically correct as it sounds, some traits are more popular than others. What happens when we start to manipulate which genes get passed down and which genes do not? Are we unknowingly manipulating other traits (disease resistance, cancer susceptibility)? I am not a geneticist, but it seems possible.

While there are possible health-related consequences, there are also social consequences. What if boys are more desirable than girls? In many parts of the world (and subcultures within our own country), they are. Will we end up like China, where their 28 year-old policy of one child per family has resulted in female babies being aborted and a CURRENT ratio of 120 men for every 100 women? By one account, 70% of aborted babies in China are female. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508) While females are less “desirable” as a child, they are still desirable as a mate (that is putting it gingerly). Female abductions and trafficking are skyrocketing in China. As a man, I can state unequivocally that the consequences of that giant block of men without mates will cause problems for that society MUCH bigger than just part of its population merely being unfulfilled. As a result, women, and the entire society, will be adversely affected.

I am not saying we should stop or hinder science. It is great that we have this knowledge and ability. However, just because we have the knowledge does not mean we should use it trivially. Our knowledge in these fields is nascent, and we should proceed with extreme caution.

(This blog posting was inspired by this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html.)