Extended Project Dissertation
The Concept of Designer Babies
is no different to Hitler creating
an Aryan Race
Word count: 7380
Candidate Number: 0282
Centre Number: 64906
1
Contents
Abstract
3
Introduction
4
Main Body
7
Conclusion
24
Evaluation
26
Bibliography
28
2
Abstract
The idea of designer babies has been around for centuries, but recent
scientific technologies have begun to shed light on a path towards
achieving the technology to create designer babies. This means it is
imperative that the public understands the science and ideals behind their
creation. Some types of designer baby can be seen as negative, but they
are not all indisputably negative. There are some modern genetic
engineering techniques that could lead to the creation of designer babies
for the wrong reasons if they are developed further. However, many
procedures allow for the removal of genetic disease to prevent suffering,
so ruling out all types of designer babies would not be the best solution.
There have been many events in history linked to eugenics and designing
babies that would need to be studied in order to predict the future of
genetic engineering and allow judgements to be made. Hitler’s Aryan race
is not always associated with designer babies, but it is very closely linked
due to mass extermination resulting in the limitation of the gene pool.
3
Introduction
Throughout this essay I aim to explore the present and future prospects
of genetic engineering in humans. This will include looking back at groups
in history who have tried to create a ‘perfect humanity’, such as the Nazis
and the American government. The general public do not have positive
views of such a concept, as the media present extreme views of worsecase outcomes. Thus there is considerable objection to any step forward
in human genetic engineering. A well-known view of eugenics comes from
the implications of ‘negative eugenics’, which refers to the eradication of
undesired characteristics, demonstrated by the eugenics movements in
the US and Germany during the 20th Century. However, ‘positive
eugenics’ is not necessarily all bad. It involves enabling the desired
characteristics, such as encouraging healthy, intelligent people to breed
together so that their genes can be passed onto the next generation.
Although both types count as eugenics and are regarded as morally wrong
by many people, the subtle differences between them can create the
border between what is perceived to be right and wrong.
I chose this title for my project because I want to discuss ethical issues
associated with scientific developments. The concept of designer babies
creates a moral argument involving scientists, philosophers and the rest
of society. This means that I am able to incorporate many different
people’s views into my essay, but can also talk about the effect that the
media and governmental propaganda has on public opinion. By referring
to Nazi Germany, I can explore the history of the eugenics movement and
compare people’s present views to those of the past. I feel that my
project is important because we can learn a lot by the mistakes that
people have made in the past. The history of eugenics is riddled with what
could be perceived to be mistakes, but without them we may not have the
genetic technology that we have today.
4
The term ‘eugenics’ is derived from “eu” (the Greek word for good) and
“genos” (meaning offspring), so it essentially means “good offspring”
[Hix, 2009]. A good definition is “the study of methods of improving the
quality of the human race” [The Free Dictionary, 2003]. This implies that
everything that is described as ‘eugenics’ is done with the belief that it
will benefit humanity. Herein lies the problem that people have faced
throughout recent history; they believe they are doing the right thing. But
what does ‘the right thing’ mean? As morals are subjective, people’s
views are likely to differ. The International Congress on Eugenics (1921)
defined eugenics as: “the self-direction of human evolution” [International
Congress, 1921], which can be viewed as a positive view of eugenics, but
it can also be seen as negative because some people believe that it is not
our job or right to direct our own evolution.
The term ‘designer baby’ has many different meanings. In 2010, the
Oxford Dictionary defined it as “a baby whose genetic makeup has been
artificially selected by genetic engineering... to ensure the presence or
absence of particular genes or characteristics” [Oxford Dictionary, 2010].
I will discuss how my views on this definition change at the end of my
essay, but originally I believed this to be a good definition because it
encompasses
many
different
techniques
for
genetic
engineering.
Generally, the reason why people object to the creation of designer
babies is because it could result in people choosing to have their baby’s
intelligence and physical attributes altered. However, many applications of
genetic testing and engineering allow parents to ensure that their child
will not inherit genetic disorders or be affected by chromosomal defects,
such as Down’s syndrome. One could also say that the creation of many
embryos by IVF (In Vitro Fertilisation), screening them and choosing the
‘best’ embryo(s) to be implanted (e.g. the ones without genetic defects)
is effectively creating a designer baby because the embryo is being
selected on the basis of desired characteristics, even though the actual
5
genetic makeup has not been changed, instead it has been chosen
because it is ‘good’ in the first place.
6
What is Perfection?
There are probably few people who think that there is such a thing as
‘perfect’ humanity and fewer still who think it would be a good thing if it
did exist. Much of today’s society encourages us to strive to be perfect,
but what is perfection? The well-known phrase “beauty is in the eye of the
beholder” [Hungerford, 1878] is, in essence, the only answer to this
question; perfection is subjective, so there is no right answer to the
question. Some people may also argue that there is no such thing as
perfection, or at least that it would be impossible for humans to reach,
but should this stop us from striving for it? Surely nearing perfection
would be better than not even trying? For Christians at least, this is what
they are taught to strive for. The Bible teaches that Christians should
endeavour to be “Christ-like” [Philippians 2:5] and “perfect” like God is
perfect [Matthew 5:48]. In this case, it is probably referring to leading a
sin-free life, but could be interpreted in other ways. Similarly, Dr. Siddiqi
(Director of the Islamic Society of Orange County) claimed that “A Muslim
is not claiming that he is perfect, but he is striving to reach that goal”
[Mystic World Fellowship, 2000]. These are examples of how people come
to believe they should change themselves to achieve some kind of
perfection. Another example is modern society’s obsession with being
physically perfect, through the media promoting the virtues of being thin
and having cosmetic surgery. These factors all add up to people believing
humanity needs to be flawless and may have been the catalyst for events
such as the American and German Eugenics Movements.
Designer Babies
Reasons for creating designer babies
There are many reasons why people may wish to have a designer baby.
Common reasons are cosmetic; parents may want their children to be
perfect, whether that means having blue eyes and blond hair or being tall
and athletic. These reasons can be very materialistic and lead to
7
discrimination against anyone who is not perceived to be ‘perfect’, but can
also just be parental instinct in wanting the best for their child. Parents
may also wish for their offspring to be intelligent, which may benefit the
child, and the individual family, but may not be beneficial for society as a
whole. This is because a society filled with intelligentsia may not function
well as people may be reluctant to do the more mundane, but equally
essential, jobs.
Another reason for wanting a designer baby is that some people possess
genetic diseases and disorders that are likely to be passed down to their
children. By having their embryos screened, they can ensure that the
baby is clear of the gene[s] linked to in that disease. We can or may be
able to screen for disorders such as Alzheimer’s, many cancers and
medical conditions such as diabetes and obesity. [Johnson, 2012].
Although this prevents the inheritance of diseases and could result in the
complete removal of such diseases, it involves killing the excess embryos,
which means that it has some moral and ethical implications that many
people do not agree with.
Origins of designer babies
The first idea of eugenics came from around 400BC. It was the idea of
Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, who made the suggestion of coupling
parents by class in order to make the human race better. He called for
“provision to be made for men and women of the same natural capacities
to mate” [Galton, 1998]. He thought ‘marriage festivals’ should be
introduced, which were essentially mating rituals. They were to happen
every year and would involve ‘suitable’ young people (men around the
age of 25 and women around the age of 20) getting ‘married’ and
cohabiting for one month. These young people would then remain celibate
for the rest of the year and then would ‘marry’ another partner the next
year. The number of marriages each year would be monitored closely in
order to keep the population constant, meaning more marriages would
8
take place after wars and natural disasters and fewer would take place if
there had been an increase in births. The purpose of these marriage
festivals was to encourage the more ‘superior’ and suitable people to have
children and would essentially prevent people from lower classes from
reproducing. The ‘benefit’ of changing partners each year was that
attachment would be prevented, meaning they wouldn’t be distracted
from their duties in “governing, defending or extending the city state”
[Galton, 1998]. For the same reason, new-born children were to be taken
away and placed into nurseries, where they would be reared by nurses.
This would also allow for any “defective” children to be “hidden away”
[Galton, 1998]. These ideas were not accepted by ancient Greek society
partly due to them being discredited by Aristotle because they did not
take human desires into account; it would be impossible to prevent
people from becoming emotionally attached to their children or partners
[Brake, 2012]. These marriage festivals would not have been very
successful in producing a fully functioning society. Although the most
suitable young people would be chosen to procreate, no record of
parenthood would be referred to before they were paired up, meaning
that a brother and a sister could be paired up without anyone knowing.
Plato would not have known the dangers arising from this, but we now
know that incestuous relations increase the chances of genetic defect, and
incestuous marriages are illegal in many countries as a result of this
[Minkel, 2010].
Sir Francis Galton was an English eugenicist and proto-geneticist, among
many other things. He coined the word ‘eugenics’ in 1865 and was the
first person to publicly discuss eugenics since Plato in 400BC. He believed
that eugenics would benefit the human race and thought it was “religious
duty” to allow eugenics [Galton, 1905]. He, like Plato, believed in ‘eugenic
marriage’ but also had ideas about issues such as whether we should give
money for disadvantaged people’s higher education. He argued that the
reason for the child being disadvantaged in the first place was their
9
unintelligent family, and thus the children were unlikely to be intelligent
either, and would be “intellectually unable to profit by it” [Galton, 1905].
He believed that all of his ideas were the only way forward and that “no
worthier object exists for man than the improvement of his own race”
[Galton, 1905], which is similar to the opinions of both those who were in
charge of the American Eugenics Movement and Hitler. This makes it hard
for people to judge what is right and wrong because everyone is entitled
to their own opinion. It is when extreme opinions are put into practice and
affect the whole of society that problems arise. If Plato and Galton’s ideas
had been accepted and used by the governments of their time, the world
would be a completely different place from what it is now. However, it is
impossible to know if that world would be ‘better’ than ours.
What does current technology allow?
One current method of screening for genetic diseases is Pre-implantation
Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). This technique involves the use of IVF and
allows scientists to find out information about the “genetic constitution” of
an embryo at an early stage [Mayor, 2003]. This is done by removing a
single cell from an embryo and determining the presence/absence of
selected chromosomes. PGD can be used to test for sex-linked genetic
diseases (such as haemophilia), as well as single-gene disorders (such as
Huntington’s disease). The test for haemophilia simply involves ensuring
that any embryo that is implanted is female, because the diseases is
carried on the X-chromosome, so females can be carriers of the disease
but are not affected due to only having one unhealthy X-chromosome and
the other one normal. Based on the information found, the healthy
embryos are selected and either implanted or cryogenically stored
(frozen) for future use. Any unwanted embryos are destroyed or used for
research [The Reproductive Sciences Center, n.d.]. This is an extremely
valuable technique because it enables couples to have healthy children
when there is a low possibility of this happening naturally. However, there
is still the debate over whether it is immoral to kill the unwanted embryos
10
simply because they have a disease. Is it our place to decide that their
lives would not be worth living if they have a genetic disease?
In recent years, sperm banks have become more widely used and now
allow “couples to shop for sperm donors like an online dating service”
[Chang, 2007]. It is now possible to choose your sperm donor from online
catalogues, which rank the donors by religion, eye colour, occupation and
many more characteristics. The London Sperm Bank catalogue even
includes the donors’ dress sense [Periscope, 2011]. This means couples
can effectively design their children by selecting the sperm. Many of these
traits aren’t
fully genetic,
for example religion
isn’t
genetic and
intelligence is only partially inherited, so selecting sperm for these
reasons may not be worthwhile.
Surrogacy can be a perfectly acceptable way of creating a child, but
recently this simple method has been taken into the realm of designer
babies. An example of this is a ‘Surrogacy Consultancy’ in India, which is
“nothing less than a baby factory” [Daily Mail, 2012]. Couples (normally
from the Western world) either send their sperm to fertilise the
surrogate’s egg or select their ideal sperm and egg combination from
various countries around the world. These are then fertilised and shipped
to India, where they are implanted into the surrogate. These surrogate
mothers typically make the equivalent of 10 years’ salary per baby they
‘produce’, so it is becoming a popular ‘job’. This obviously raises moral
questions about selling your body, as well as those about choosing your
baby’s characteristics. This is a method that could be used to prevent the
inheritance of a disease, but could also be used for cosmetic reasons;
donors could be chosen based on their physical attributes.
One of the problems with current technology is that traits such as height
and personality cannot be reliably altered and many diseases cannot be
prevented because they “are the result of a complex interaction between
multiple genetic and environmental factors” [Hudson, 2005]. We cannot
11
remove/change the disease or trait without affecting a significant number
of genes and our current understanding and technologies do not allow us
to do this with the confidence that detrimental mistakes won’t be made.
Another problem is that many traits have no known cause, so nothing can
be done to remove the disease because there is no target for
treatment/replacement. For many diseases, it isn’t clear which genes are
involved. For example, in Alzheimer’s, four genes have been identified so
far that are linked to the disease, but these only account for one in a
thousand Alzheimer’s cases [Alzheimer’s Society, 2012]. Nevertheless,
screening for these genes may help to identify some of the people who
are at risk of later development of the disease. Much more research needs
to be done to understand the causes of such diseases in order for embryo
screening to be useful. The complication of DNA was discussed in an
article in Scientific American, which said “genes predict certain welldefined physiological diseases... but when it comes to complex human
behaviours ... the link is tenuous at best” [Charney, 2012]. This was used
in relation to whether voting decisions are genetic, but also could be said
for other traits. This means that changing the genetic makeup of a person
may not affect multifarious traits; the development of such traits may be
partly or completely due to the upbringing of said person.
A very recent application of designer babies is in the case of three-way
IVF treatment [Roberts, 2012]. This method uses three parents to create
a child and aims to prevent the inheritance of mitochondrial diseases.
Much of the DNA in the gametes is contained within the nucleus of the
cells and it is this that is passed onto the embryo. However, the
mitochondria also contain their own DNA, so when an embryo is created,
its mitochondrial DNA will be a replica of the mother’s due to only the
nucleus of the sperm being used. This means that any mitochondrial
disorders that the mother possesses will be passed on to the child, many
of which can cause muscle failure, heart failure and blindness. In the
past, women with mitochondrial diseases were only given the option of
12
using a donor egg in order to prevent their child inheriting the disease,
but now there is another choice. This treatment involves using the
nucleus of the mother’s egg and implanting it into the ‘shell’ of an egg
from a donor with healthy mitochondria. This is then fertilised with the
father’s sperm and implanted into the mother’s uterus. This method
creates a child with purely the mother and fathers’ nuclear DNA, but with
a donor’s healthy mitochondrial DNA. This method has currently only been
used in humans up to just before implantation into the mother, but has
the potential to be used in the future to help couples produce healthy
children. This obviously raises many moral arguments based around who
is the rightful mother. Biologically, the woman whose nuclear DNA has
been used is the mother, but the donor of the ‘shell’ also helped to create
the child, so it may be reasonable to say that they would have some kind
of ‘ownership’ of the child.
Benefits of designer babies
The benefits that arise from being able to reduce suffering are
indisputable. There are some arguments against removing genetic
disorders from the gene pool based on whether we have the right to do
so, is that ‘playing God’? [Holley, 2009]. However, there are a great many
advantages of removing such diseases due to reducing the suffering of a
child and creating a ‘better’ life for them. There are many genetic
disorders that doctors can recognise in an embryo, but currently they can
only be eradicated by killing the embryo, which is where the issues lie. A
solution to all these problems could be to replace or fix the ‘faulty’ gene.
An experimental method known as gene therapy is currently being
researched. This will allow scientists to replace a faulty gene with a
healthy one, make a faulty gene inactive or introduce a new gene into the
body. Gene therapy is a promising treatment, but it is still being studied
to ensure its safety and effectiveness. It is hoped that in the future it will
be used to treat some cancer types and also some genetic disorders
[National Institutes of Health, 2012]. If there were no more children born
13
with the genes that control certain genetic disorders, those disorders
could be eradicated completely from the gene pool, meaning that it would
no longer be possible for anyone to inherit that disease. It would be a
huge success if this were possible, because disorders such as cystic
fibrosis could be completely removed, thus saving anyone else from
suffering the immense pain that comes with these diseases. It would take
a long time to achieve this because, although gene therapy may be
available soon, the genes would not be eradicated until every person with
or carrying that disease had used gene therapy to remove it from their
child. This means that it would take years to completely eradicate the
disease.
A saviour sibling is: “a child selected as a result of genetic screening to
have some innate characteristic that will help save the life of an existing
brother or sister” [World Wide Words, 2007]; their parents use a
treatment such as IVF in order to make sure that the child will be a
genetic match. The common reasons for wanting to produce a ‘saviour
sibling’ are in the cases of genetic blood disorders and leukaemia. The
saviour sibling donates stem cells, either through the use of the umbilical
cord or through bone marrow donations. Firstly, embryos are fertilised in
the lab and then are checked for a genetic match. Any that are a match
are implanted into the mother. The main problems with this method of
treatment arise when the parents treat the saviour sibling as almost a
stem cell dispenser; they do not value the child as much as they would if
it was born naturally. Another objection is that the child is then born
without any choice over whether they want to help their sibling or not;
there is no sense of free will. This is illustrated in Jodi Picoult’s novel, My
Sister’s Keeper, where Anna (the saviour sibling) resents not being
treated like a real person by her parents and refuses to help save her
sister’s life [Picoult, 2004]. Walsh (2010) argues that the saviour sibling
“owes his life to his capacity to be of therapeutic use”. This is partially
true because, had his genetic make-up been slightly different, he wouldn’t
14
have been chosen and the embryo would just have been discarded. The
method of using the umbilical cord is generally more ethical than that of
using the bone marrow because once the child has been born and the
umbilical cord has been cut, no further donations are necessary and they
are able to live their life as a normal child. However, in the case of using
bone marrow, the saviour child has to undergo painful extraction of their
bone marrow in order to donate it to their sibling. This results in moral
questions over whether it is right to put a second child through pain in
order to save the life of the first.
Disadvantages of designer babies
It is popularly believed that even allowing the most common forms of
designer babies, for example IVF and saviour siblings, creates a slippery
slope and thus not a good idea. This view is normally based on what has
happened in the past, through Nazi Germany and the American eugenics
movement for example. New technologies are likely to encourage “a
consumerist attitude towards children” [Tizzard, 2002, p.41]. This would
have a detrimental effect on people’s views of their children, resulting in
children being “less likely to be offered unconditional love by their
parents” [Lee, 2002, p.78]. Through this, the parent-child relationship
may change, becoming unnatural and superficial. Parents would have
unreasonable hopes for their child; they would expect them to be perfect
in ways that are not humanly possible. If this was to happen, much of
society would change because many morals are based around love for
one another,
so in
removing
that,
society may become entirely
egocentric. This is an outcome that would be unlikely to benefit society; it
would probably have unfavourable effects on the way society operates.
Some treatments such as IVF can involve the ‘disposal’ of unwanted
embryos, which can be regarded as murder. Anything involving potential
deaths results in huge moral arguments. The main arguments against
designer babies are based around the moral stance on murder and mercy
15
killing, “one should no more destroy an embryo...than one should destroy
a child” [Warnock, 2002, p.32]. In George Bush’s famous speech
regarding stem cells, he said “like a snowflake, each of these embryos is
unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being”
[American Rhetoric, 2001]. It is interesting that he didn’t describe the
embryo as being an “individual human being”, just that they have the
potential to be. This is a widely accepted argument for the killing of
embryos as a result of treatments such as IVF. Some people argue that if
it is decided that killing an embryo for the sake of creating a more
‘perfect’ life is a morally acceptable thing to do, then that leaves the
opportunity
for
a
slippery
slope
towards
accepting
human
experimentation and towards the ideals of people such as Hitler. The main
disagreements in the case of IVF treatment are associated with the point
at which life actually begins; this is imperative to the morals because it
affects at what stage people believe it becomes killing a child, rather than
simply disposing of a group of cells. Different groups of people have
different ideas about when life begins, based on social, environmental and
religious reasoning. Some people believe life begins at conception
because a fertilised egg has all the characteristics of a living thing; one
example of this is the Association of Pro-Life Physicians [Association of
Pro-Life Physicians, n.d.]. Others believe life begins at birth or at some
point during pregnancy. For many of these people, disposing of an
embryo is no different to losing blood from a cut because both cases just
involve cells, not actual lives. These conflicting views obviously have a
huge effect on the public view of IVF treatments. In essence, there is no
way of knowing for definite when life begins, it is something that people
decide for themselves based on religion and morals, rather than biological
fact. This means that there aren’t very many balanced arguments on this
issue; most of the resources are very subjective, so cannot be used as
reliable scientific evidence.
16
Designer Babies in Science Fiction
Many views of designer babies are based on historical events or science
fiction. Many of these portray a dystopian society once some aspect of
designer babies has been allowed to flourish. For example, in many
science fiction novels/films, the world becomes a place where ‘perfect’
humans are normal and natural, imperfect humans become outcasts. This
is demonstrated in the popular sci-fi film Gattaca [1997], where
genetically engineered people control the whole world, while ‘God
Children’ (those born without modification) are predestined to have a
menial job and have no hope of climbing the social/career ladder due to
their genetic makeup. This idea of discrimination is something that scares
many people enough to make them think that designer babies shouldn’t
be allowed at all. This view is reasonable in some respects because it is
discrimination such as this that was the main focus of Hitler’s eradication
of the Jews; he thought they were inferior beings because of their
ancestry, so took measures to rid the world of them. This was a very
extreme response, but in theory it could happen if people were able to
make ‘perfect’ children. Because some people would believe it wasn’t right
(much like the main character’s parents in Gattaca), they would have
their child naturally, resulting in them being different to everyone else,
thus being outcast and discriminated against. However there is no real
way of knowing what would happen to society, this is all just overexaggerated speculation and cannot be used as evidence because it was
created by the writer’s imagination. On the other hand, history can
provide some clues as to what society would become.
Historical Examples
How did Hitler aim to achieve a perfect humanity?
Hitler is a good example of the possible escalation involved in wanting
humanity to be ‘perfect’. He tried to eradicate anyone who he deemed to
be imperfect, through making an Aryan Race. Hitler thought that the
17
perfect human (meaning an Aryan) was tall and athletic, with blond hair
and blue eyes; the exact opposite of the stereotypical Jew [Hitler, 1925].
He also thought they should be free of imperfections such as disabilities.
He went to extremes in the case of height; any Nazi soldier over six and a
half feet was awarded a special medal and an instant promotion and
applicants for any part of the Nazi program had to be at least six feet tall.
Hitler believed that he was benefiting humanity and “acting in the sense
of the Almighty Creator” [Burleigh and Wippermann, 1991, p.40], which
shows that many events like the Holocaust that we now deem to be
horrific were done with good intentions. It is only with hindsight that we
can say that they were morally wrong, but at the time many people were
swept up in the propaganda and believed it was the only way forward.
This emphasises the subjectivity of morals and how a situation cannot
fully be judged without having an outsider’s view. This is a worry for
society even now. No matter how morally wrong it might be, if someone
as persuasive and powerful as Hitler tried to convince our society of their
mission, they would probably succeed. Once a few people are swayed,
others will follow and eventually most people will be helping to aid the
‘mission’.
Hitler believed that, in order to please God, he had to eradicate anyone
who didn’t fit the ‘perfect human’ criteria [Joseph, 2003]. The most
infamous example is the eradication of the Jewish community, but Hitler
also removed anyone with physical or mental disabilities and anyone who
had ‘bad blood’ (such as gypsies). In order to eliminate the Jews, Hitler
started by rounding them up and putting them into concentration camps,
where they were used for human experimentation and eventually shot,
gassed or starved to death. He implemented laws that discriminated
against the Jews; they were unable to attend school or run businesses,
causing them to be uneducated and making them live in poverty,
eventually resulting in their eradication because many would die of
starvation due to having no money to buy food. Another method of
18
eradication was a compulsory ancestry test for all members of the public.
They were given a certificate allowing marriage if the State believed that
any offspring produced would be beneficial to society. Those who didn’t
pass the test were deemed to be of “lesser hereditary value”, usually
because of “hereditary illness” or some kind of contagious disease
[Burleigh and Wippermann, 1991, p.49]. This is based around similar
ideas to Plato’s ‘marriage festivals’ and possibly originated there. Anyone
who didn’t ‘pass’ the test was subjected to compulsory sterilisation and
isolation
from
the
community.
This
ensured
that
any
‘negative’
characteristics, such as being Jewish, were not passed on to the next
generation of Germans.
In 1880, Nietzsche wrote “the tendency must be towards the rendering
extinct of the wretched, the deformed, the degenerate” [Goldberg, 2007].
This reflects the general view of powerful Germans during Hitler’s
dictatorship. One of the ways that disability was to be wiped out was
through killing anyone who had a disability, such as children who had a
deformity, who were “transferred to special ‘paediatric clinics’ where they
were either starved to death or given lethal injections” [Burleigh and
Wippermann, 1991, p.144]. In the majority of these cases, the parents
were under the false illusion that their child would have a chance at a
better life if they were sent to one of these clinics. Over the course of this
‘child euthanasia’ programme, more than 5000 children were killed who
would be deemed healthy in today’s society. An alternative to actively
killing ‘unwanted’ people was that “inferior persons should be sent to the
front” during the war [Burleigh and Wippermann, 1991]. This was
effectively killing them, but not in such an active sense as the euthanasia
programmes. It also meant that fewer ‘more valuable’ Germans would be
killed as a result of the war.
19
American eugenics movement
The American eugenics movement was the start of ‘popular’ eugenics; it
arose many years before the Nazi eugenics movement and probably was
the origin of Hitler’s ideas. The main reason why the eugenics movement
was able to grow so much during the early 1900s was due to propaganda.
The American government used propaganda to convince the whole
population of the differences between races and intelligence levels in
society and that there were ‘better’ people who should be allowed to
repress the ‘less valuable’ members of society. The people behind the
eugenics movement thought they were introducing eugenics “as pertain
to humanity’s betterment” [H. Fairchild, n.d.]. This quote is from an
actual letter sent to a company by the American Eugenics Society, so it
reliably shows either the actual view of the society or the message they
want to give to the public.
The American government claimed that the eugenics movement would
improve society and supported “the forcible sterilization of the poor,
disabled and ‘immoral’” [Ordover, 2003]. They tried to encourage the
most ‘fit’ of society to produce many children and discouraged ‘unfit’
people from reproducing. By this they aimed to solve problems facing
American society, such as crime and alcoholism. The American Eugenics
Society was set up in 1922 to try to control the direction of human
evolution in America and never officially ended [PBS, 1998]. The state
sterilization laws were gradually removed, but all of the propaganda and
hatred was never undone.
One method of encouraging eugenics was incorporating it into school
curricula and offering degrees in it. This meant that Americans grew up
knowing that there were different classes of people, so there would be no
opposition to the eugenic laws later in life [Laughlin, 1919]. The
government also used a wide range of propaganda, such as posters
advertising the amount of money that was being ‘wasted’ on caring for
20
‘unfit’ people. This encouraged mass discrimination. Other methods
included “Fitter Family” competitions, where families received medals and
prizes for having children who were ‘free from defects’ [Pernick, 2002].
This made it worthwhile having a family that was genetically ‘pure’.
A method of ‘bettering’ society was through compulsory sterilisation of
anyone who was deemed to be ‘unfit’. This originated in 1927 with the
sterilisation of all patients in mental hospitals. Under this regulation, over
64,000 patients were forcibly sterilised. After this, the sterilisation spread
to others, including the lower classes and foreign immigrants [Reilly,
1987]. If ‘unfit’ people managed to avoid sterilisation, there were other
methods of preventing reproduction, such as limiting marriage for ‘unfit’
persons. This meant that anyone who wasn’t deemed 'good' enough
wasn’t allowed to reproduce, thus limiting the gene pool and essentially
designing the next generation of Americans.
There is no doubt that the American eugenics movement influenced the
Nazi eugenic movement in some way. This is evident from the comment
of a superintendent of Virginia’s Western State Hospital on the rise of Nazi
compulsory sterilisations, where he said “the Germans are beating us at
our
own
game”
[Krell,
2011].
This
shows
that
the
Americans
acknowledged themselves as the originators of the eugenics movement.
Not only did the ideas for eugenics transfer from the US to Germany, but
the American government actually funded Germany’s eugenic institutions;
they paid almost $4 million to German researchers, one of whom wrote
the book that gave Hitler the idea for the Aryan race [Black, 2003]. It
could then be said that the Americans were partly to blame for the
Holocaust because, although their ideas were slightly less extreme than
Hitler’s, if it was not for them Hitler may never have come up with the
idea for his mass exterminations.
21
Future Possibilities
One future possibility for designer babies is the idea that whole armies
could be created using genetic engineering, much like Saruman’s orcs in
Lord of the Rings [2003], who are created for the sole purpose of fighting.
They have no families, so there would be no necessary protocol in the
event of their death and it would probably go unnoticed. In the same way,
we could use genetic engineering to create an army of soldiers, all of
whom are specifically designed to be skilled and agile in a fight, but also
would not be ‘tied’ to anyone back home. The US Army has apparently
been researching this possibility and, according to Simon Conway (a
novelist who had access to the Pentagon’s defence research plans), these
soldiers would not need to eat or sleep and would be able to “re-grow
limbs that were destroyed by enemy fire” [Gucciardi, 2012]. This
information, having come from a novelist who may be prone to
exaggeration, may not be reliable, but there is the possibility that such
research may happen in the future, even if it hasn’t been conducted so
far. These “Super Soldiers” [Gayle, 2012] sound like a good idea, because
it would prevent our friends and family having to give up their lives to
save our country, but many people have reservations about this concept.
Some people fear (perhaps not irrationally) that these soldiers could turn
against us and end up destroying the whole of humanity. Another
argument is that, no matter how they were created, they (unlike
Saruman’s orcs) are still human beings and do not deserve to be sent off
to war with no choice.
A problem that may be encountered in the future is parents choosing
attributes that may hinder their child, or at least not benefit them.
Currently, parents can name their child almost anything, but that is the
only ‘damage’ they can do and names can easily be changed. What would
happen to society if the kinds of people who name their child “Blanket”
were allowed to choose what their child looks like? Surely that wouldn’t
be fair to the child?
22
Currently, the stereotypical designer baby (which has its eye colour, hair
colour, height and attributes such as athleticism chosen for it by its
parents) cannot be made by altering the genetic makeup. This is because
these characteristics are hard to change as they are affected by many
genes and manipulating all of these genes is beyond our current scientific
capabilities [D. Simmons, 2008]. However, considering recent scientific
advancements, there is every possibility that this may happen in the
future; people may be able to choose their baby’s appearance. But there
are huge moral implications that go along with this; is it right to choose?
Surely you should love your child regardless of their appearance or
attributes? But if you decide to leave everything to chance, your child will
be ‘normal’, while most of the people around them will be what their
parents perceive to be ‘perfect’, so they may feel left out.
23
Conclusion
According to the Oxford Dictionary, a designer baby is “a baby whose
genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering... to
ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics”
[Oxford Dictionary, 2010]. While today’s technological advances did not
exist during Hitler’s dictatorship or at the height of the American eugenics
movement, one could still consider these events to have caused the
creation of designer babies. No actual genes were altered, but the gene
pool was limited by the sterilisation/deaths of certain groups in society,
thus essentially designing a race through elimination of undesired
characteristics. There are two different types of eugenics; positive and
negative. Hitler’s aims mainly involved negative eugenics; he aimed to
remove ‘bad’ genes from the gene pool. This is normally perceived to be
inhumane, but positive eugenics could be seen in a good light because it
includes simply encouraging well-bred families to produce more children;
it does not have to involve killing anyone. For this reason, I do not think
that eugenics is completely immoral; ‘improving’ society may be a good
idea because it may help it to function better, but I personally do not
believe that it could be achieved without escalation into other things due
to the majority of humans not being able to possess power without
abusing it.
The ethical arguments surrounding current genetic engineering are
completely different to those surrounding Hitler’s Aryan race, but should
they be? The public were made to believe that the Nazis and the
American government were implementing eugenic laws because it was in
the best interest of the people and was a necessary step forward in
science. It is mainly for these reasons that the public view them in a
negative light, because we no longer perceive the ideas to be a benefit to
society. This is a valid argument, but our current scientific advances may
be viewed in exactly the same way in another 70 years. I do not believe
that we can completely rule out genetic engineering, but equally we
24
should be cautious about advances that do not completely agree with
public morals. It would be quite easy to change your morals based on
what someone you trust says, but that would lead society to the problem
that faced the German and American societies in the 20th Century.
In my opinion, designer babies should be used to reduce suffering by
removing genetic diseases. We use medical drugs to reduce suffering,
which isn’t much different to removing disease before birth. Obviously
changing
someone’s
genetic
makeup
is
different
to
giving
them
treatment, but I think the same kind of arguments can be used for both.
It would also save money due to not having to support people with
disabilities through treatments. However, I don’t think that allowing
parents to choose the appearance of their child is a good way forward for
society because parents should love their child regardless of their
appearance. It also introduces an unrealistic expectation of perfection, as
well as a consumerist attitude towards children, which would completely
change the dynamics of family life and possibly even the functionality of
society.
25
Evaluation
I thoroughly enjoyed writing this project because it allowed me to delve
into a subject that was unrelated to my A-Level subjects, whilst
developing my scientific knowledge and essay-writing skills.
Writing
this
project
has
taught
me
skills
in
time
management,
organisation, referencing and researching. Time management was a skill
that I quickly discovered I needed to improve because this was the first
big project that I had a deadline for, so I had no previous experience of
planning and managing my time. All of these skills will be useful later in
life, especially for university. I have learnt about how important it is to
have completed all of your research and put it into a logical order before
thinking about writing the essay. I tried to start writing before I had
ordered my information, which made it very difficult and meant that I had
to go back and order it before continuing.
If I was to do this project again, I would organise my sources as I found
them and evaluate their reliability at that point, rather than having to go
back and evaluate at the end. I would also make sure I had a complete
understanding of everything before writing because I occasionally found
myself writing about something that I didn’t fully understand and had to
go back to the source to comprehend the process before being able to
discuss it.
My project could be extended by looking further into areas such as the
effect of the popularisation of eugenics on the rest of the world. For
example, I had discovered that there were archives for the British
Eugenics Society in the Wellcome Centre, but did not have time or space
to include anything about them. This information was also not completely
important to the title and to Hitler’s actions. The impression on modern
society as a result of Hitler and the eugenics movements could also be
discussed, for example groups in society who currently have similar views
to Hitler and the Nazis, such as the Danish People’s Party and the British
26
National Party. The political stance and laws in different countries
surrounding genetic engineering and designer babies and their effect on
public opinion could also be discussed.
27
Bibliography
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alzheimer’s Society (2012) Genetics and Dementia [Internet] London, Alzheimer’s
Society. Available from:
<http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=168>
[Accessed 5 November 2012].
American Philosophical Society (1930) Letter from Field Secretary, American
Eugenics Association to Fair Associations asking education exhibit space [Internet],
USA, Eugenics Archive. Available from:
<http://old.dnalc.org/ddnalc/ben/index.html?id=704> [Accessed 22nd November
2012].
Association of Pro-Life Physicians [n.d.] When Does Human Life Begin? [Internet],
Ohio, Association of Pro-Life Physicians. Available from
<http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm> [Accessed 25th September 2012].
Black, E. (2003) Eugenics and the Nazis – the California connection. San Francisco
Chronicle, November.
Brake, E. (2012) Marriage and Domestic Partnership [Internet] California, Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from:
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marriage/> [Accessed 15th November 2012].
Bush, G. (2001) Remarks on Stem Cell Research [Internet], America Rhetoric: Online
Speech Bank. Available from:
<http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbushstemcell.htm> [Accessed 26th
October 2012].
Chang, J. & Apton, D. (2007) Designing Babies? Embryos from ‘PhD Sperm’ and
‘Attractive Eggs’ for Sale [Internet], ABC News. Available from:
<http://abcnews.go.com/Business/LifeStages/story?id=2895615&page=1> [Accessed
27th September 2012].
Charney, E. & English, W. (2012) The Voting Gene. Scientific American, 307 (5)
November, p.12.
Dolan DNA Learning Centre (n.d.) Eugenics Archive [Internet], Dolan DNA Learning
Centre. Available from: <http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/> Accessed [27th
September 2012].
The Free Dictionary [Internet] Available from:
<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eugenics> [Accessed 24 September 2012].
Galton, D.J. (1998) Greek theories on eugenics Journal of Medical Ethics, 24 (4)
August, pp.462-467.
Galton, F. (1905) Studies in Eugenics. American Journal of Sociology [Internet], 11
[1] July, pp. 11-25. Available from:
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2762356.pdf?acceptTC=true> [Accessed: 14
October 2012].
Galton, F. (1905) Studies in Eugenics. American Journal of Sociology, pp.11-25.
28
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gattaca. [1997] Directed by Andrew Niccol. USA, Colombia Pictures [Film:DVD].
Gayle, D. (2012) Army of the Future The Mail Online [Internet] August. Available
from: <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2187276/U-S-Army-Soldiersable-run-Olympic-speed-wont-need-food-sleep-gene-technology.html> [Accessed 2
November 2012].
Gland, J. (1910) Eugenics and the Jew. The Jewish Chronicle [Internet], July, p. 16.
Available from:
<http://whatwemaybe.org/txt/txt0001/Galton.Francis.1910.Eugenics_and_the_Jew.
pdf> [Accessed 14 October 2012].
Goldberg, J. (2007) Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the Left from Mussolini to
the Politics of Meaning. London, Penguin Books.
Gucciardi, A. (2012) US Army: ‘Super Soldier’ Genetically Modified Humans Won’t
Need Food, Sleep [Internet], Global Political Awakening. Available from:
<http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.co.uk/p/contact-us.html> [Accessed 2
November 2012].
Güvercin, C.H. & Arda, B. (2000) Eugenics Concept: From Plato to Present. Human
Reproduction and Genetic Ethics, 2043 (0469), pp.20-26.
Historacle, n.d. Hitler’s Supermen Historacle [Internet]. Available from
<http://historacle.org/hitlers_supermen.html> [Accessed 19 October 2012].
Hitler, A. (1925) Mein Kampf. No.1. Munich, Eher Verlag.
Hix, L. (2009) Modern Eugenics: Building a Better Person? Science in Society
[Internet], July. Available from:
<http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/content/articles/2009/researchdigest/eugenics/modern-eugenics-building-a-better-person> [Accessed 19 October
2012].
Hudson, K., Baruch, S. & Javitt, G.H. (2005) Genetic Testing of Human Embryos:
Ethical Challenges and Policy Choices. New York, Springer.
Hungerford, M.W. (1886) Molly Bawn. London, Smith, Elder, & co.
Institute of Ideas [2002] Designer Babies: Where should we draw the line?. London,
Hodder & Stoughton.
Johnson, P. (2012) Pros and Cons of Designer Babies [Internet]. California, Buzzle.
Available from: <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-designerbabies.html> [Accessed 2 November 2012].
Jones, D. (2012) The designer baby factory: Eggs from beautiful Eastern Europeans,
sperm from wealthy Westerners and embryos implanted in desperate women.
[Internet], Daily Mail. Available from: <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article2139708/The-designer-baby-factory-Eggs-beautiful-Eastern-Europeans-Spermwealthy-Westerners-And-embryos-implanted-desperate-women.html> [Accessed
27th September 2012].
29
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Joseph, R. (2003) Hitler’s Diaries: The Mind God of Adolf Hitler. California,
University Press.
Kariosfocus (2012) Unwelcome history: the roots and fruit of the eugenics
movement [Internet], Uncommon Descent. Available from:
<http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/unwelcome-history-the-rootsand-fruit-of-the-eugenics-movement-eugenics-is-the-self-direction-of-humanevolution/> [Accessed 31 October 2012].
Krell (2011) Hell on Earth: The American Eugenics Movement and the Fernald Boys
Home [Internet], Round Tree 7. Available from:
<http://www.roundtree7.com/2011/07/hell-on-earth-the-american-eugenicsmovement-and-the-fernald-boys-home/> [Accessed 27th September 2012].
Laughlin, H. (1919) The Relation of Eugenics to Other Sciences. Eugenics Review, 11
(2) July, p.p.52-64.
London Sperm Bank (n.d.) London Sperm Bank Catalogue [Internet], London,
London Sperm Bank. Available from
<http://www.londonspermbankdonors.com/category_s/60.htm> [Accessed 27th
September 2012].
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. [2003] Directed by Peter Jackson.
USA, New Line Cinema [Film:DVD].
Mayor, S. (2011) Preconception genetic testing should be more widely available,
says UK commission [Internet], British Biomedical Journal. Available from:
<http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2324> [Accessed 27th September 2012].
Minkoff, E. & Baker, P. (2004) Biology Today: An Issues Approach. 3rd ed. New York,
Garland Publishing.
Mystic World Fellowship (2000) Islam [Internet], Spiritual World. Available from:
<http://www.spiritualworld.org/islam/print.htm> [Accessed 22 October 2012].
National Institutes of Health (2012) What is gene therapy? [Internet] USA, U.S.
National Library of Medicine. Available from:
<http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/therapy/genetherapy> [Accessed 2 November
2012].
Ordover, N. (2003) American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of
Nationalism. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Oxford Dictionary of English.(2010) 3rd ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PBS (1998) Eugenics movement reaches its height 1923 [Internet]. Virginia, Public
Broadcasting Service. Available from:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dh23eu.html> [Accessed 22nd
November 2012].
Periscope (2011) Sperm bank’s new online catalogue details donor’s fashion sense
and personality traits [Internet], The Periscope Post. Available from
<http://www.periscopepost.com/2011/07/sperm-banks-new-online-catalogue30
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
details-donors-fashion-sense-and-personality-traits/> [Accessed 27th September
2012].
Pernick, M. (2002) Taking Better Baby Contests Seriously. Am J Public Health, 92 (5)
May, p.p. 707-708.
Petersen, T.S. (2003) Just diagnosis? Preimplantation genetic disorders and
injustices to disabled people [Internet], Copenhagen, British Biomedical Journal.
Available from <http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/4/231.full> [Accessed 27th
September 2012].
Picoult, J. (2004) My Sister’s Keeper. Kent, Hodder & Stoughton.
Reilly, P.R. (1987) Involuntary sterilization in the United States: a surgical solution.
Quarterly Review of Biology, 62 (2) June, p.p. 153-170.
Roberts, M. (2012) Three-person IVF trial ‘success’ [Internet], BBC News. Available
from: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20032216> [Accessed 2 November
2012].
Simmons, D. (2008) Genetic Inequality; Human Genetic Engineering. Nature
Education, 1 (1).
Walsh, F. (2010) First successful saviour sibling treatment for UK. BBC News
[Internet], December. Available from: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health12055034> [Accessed 19 October 2012].
Warnock, M. [2002] Making Babies: Is there a right to have children?. Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
Wood (n.d.) Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) [Internet]. California, The
Reproductive Sciences Center. Available from: <http://www.fertile.com/pgdfertility.html> [Accessed 2 November 2012].
World Wide Words (2007) <http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tpsav1.htm> [Accessed 19 October 2012].
31