John Stossel: Designer babies — the real X-Men? | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: Designer babies — the real X-Men?

John Stossel
1280757_web1_gtr-cmns-Stossel-061519

Soon, some of you will try to make “better babies.”

Already, people pay labs to examine embryos so they can pick ones with DNA they like. Some screen for gender or eye color. Some screen out certain diseases.

So far, they’ve been limited to selecting genes that exist in the parents. They haven’t designed genes. But that is about to change.

Chinese scientists recently altered DNA in human embryos.

The designed babies — twin sisters — were born with immunity to common strains of HIV, claims the scientist responsible. (The added gene might also shorten lifespans. Most scientists say it’s too soon to gene-edit humans safely.)

“He was put under house arrest … and the Chinese are right to punish that scientist,” says Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts’ medical school.

Most Americans agree.

In one STAT-Harvard poll, 83% said creating more intelligent or stronger babies via gene-editing should be illegal.

“Of course they say that,” says Georgetown philosophy professor Jason Brennan. “When you have any kind of intervention into the body that’s new, people think it’s icky. And they take that feeling of ‘ickiness’ and they moralize and think it’s a moral objection.”

Those intuitions threaten medical innovation, says Brennan.

We already give our kids music lessons, braces, tutoring, karate lessons — any advantage we can. Why not also give them better genes?

Imagine, says Brennan, a world where people are much smarter — maybe smart enough to avoid wars, to take us easily to other planets and to do other things we can’t even imagine.

“Maybe we’ll turn them into X-Men,” he says, referring to the mutant superheroes.

It would be good to have real X-Men around, saving lives.

Another objection to “customizing” babies is that at first only rich people will be able to pay for it. “This is going to be a new way to create disparities in wealth,” says Krimsky.

Brennan counters that you could say this about most new things.

“Every bit of technology that we enjoy today follows the same pattern. You look in your automobile, and you have a CD player or an MP3 player and a GPS. … All of these things, when they first became available, were incredibly expensive. … The rich pay the infrastructure to develop the technologies, and then they spread … become commonplace for everybody to have.”

While the rich do often get there first, they also pay for the expensive failures, and they help fund the technologies that get everyone else there second.

Rich people got airplane travel and Lasik surgery first, but I wouldn’t want those things banned because of that.

A free, competitive market is the best way to ensure prices come down.

“Even if the price came down for this,” claims Krimsky, “it would create more injustice.”

I accused Krimsky of being an old fuddy-duddy who likes serving on government committees and fears change. In the ’70s, he opposed in vitro fertilization.

“I love change!” he responded. “But … there are some things we shouldn’t be fiddling around with.”

Most countries’ governments agree. They’ve banned creation of designer babies.

But it’s going to happen anyway.

The U.S. bans selling kidneys, observes Brennan, but “that doesn’t mean people don’t buy kidneys. They just go and buy them elsewhere.”

Banning designer baby technology, he predicts, “will just guarantee that it will be available only to the super-rich and only to the politically well-connected.”

I think Brennan’s right. Designed babies are coming.

The U.S. shouldn’t keep this technology from those of us who want to give it a try.

Our descendants should have the right to use science to make themselves all that they can be.

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.