We are asked to give a personal consideration regarding biotechnology and the so-called “designer babies.”
Before expressing my reflections on this topic, I must indicate that this field is full of scientific elements about which I do not feel qualified to speak with authority. First, because I am not a medical professional; and second, because this is my first theoretical approach to the subject.
That said, my considerations are essentially personal, based on the videos I have watched, some articles I have had the opportunity to read, and what remained in my mind after the in-person meeting with Professor Andruet.
In this regard, an article published in the Journal of the Costa Rica Institute of Technology provides a clear definition of what genetic treatment consists of. It states that:
“Genetic treatment can be palliative or curative.
The first acts primarily on somatic cells and resembles classical therapy. Curative treatment, on the other hand, is performed on germline cells and aims to ‘cure’ severely defective genes, preventing them from reappearing in the future. Now, when it is intended to remedy a hereditary disease through the DPG technique, it is clear that one is working on germline cells. On the other hand, according to Vidal, somatic cell gene therapy resembles an egg transplant (Vidal, 1998: 156); however, the same can be said of germline therapy.”
Based on this definition, we can observe that biotechnology not only seeks to cure or prevent diseases but also opens the door to modifying human characteristics at very early stages of life. This raises deep ethical questions about the limits of intervention in human nature, who decides what is “normal” or “desirable,” and the possible use of these techniques for purposes that are not strictly medical.
Personally, I feel that the topic of “designer babies” forces us to reflect on human dignity and the social responsibility of science. Although the idea of preventing hereditary diseases is, in principle, positive, the possibility of selecting physical or intellectual traits can create inequalities and a utilitarian view of the human being. Additionally, there is concern that this technology may be accessible only to certain privileged sectors, which would widen social gaps.
In conclusion, although I recognize that biotechnology has great potential to improve quality of life, I also believe that its use must be strictly regulated and guided by ethical and humanitarian goals. Genetic intervention in human beings, especially at early stages, must be approached with caution, responsibility, and an informed public debate.
In the video “What Do Those Who Don’t Think Think?”
A group of experts discusses whether genetic engineering is positive for humanity, whether therapeutic eugenics fits within ethical terms, and whether we are dehumanizing ourselves by creating “designer babies” or “medicine children.” Wouldn’t all genetic engineering have limits? And if it does, what would those limits be?
The discussion of these topics is deep and difficult to approach objectively, at least that is how it seems to me. As I mentioned in the forum, I understand that human capacities and talents have led us to overcome many aspects of life: we have created vaccines that have eliminated deadly diseases, cured leprosy, developed antiretrovirals for AIDS, and invented devices that we now see as normal in our daily lives, such as computers, cars, and even refrigerators. Thinking that none of this existed 100 years ago seems incredible, yet today we live with them naturally.
The discussion about genetic manipulation impacts the lives of our generations, and while I understand that it should not be prohibited due to the potential benefits it can bring to society, I believe it must be deeply regulated.
Thus, my first argument is aimed at establishing that I believe human uniqueness must always be respected. I believe that human intervention in genetics should never allow the birth of a superior category of human beings. Any effort that leads to the emergence of a superior race or a category of superior human beings should be absolutely prohibited by law. I see no difference between this and what happened in Germany, which ended with the mass death of many people and with the attempt to establish the supremacy of one race. The possibility of manipulating human beings and endowing them with special or enhanced abilities should be completely prohibited, in the same way that doping is prohibited in sports.
I fully share the argument of the Catholic Church, in the sense that biotechnology should be viewed as tools that help improve, develop, and complement nature. In that sense, as long as the techniques are meant to complement nature and not to surpass it, I see them as entirely acceptable. I understand that a human being exists from conception and that it is God who allows life to exist even when it begins in a test tube.
And now, regarding “medicine children,” I understand that it is a tragic reality that objectifies human life. When a person donates organs to save another person’s life, it is one of the most noble and beautiful human acts. However, creating a person and predestining them to be the donor for another person is contrary to human dignity, because it objectifies the life of that newborn. No technique that treats a human being as an object can be valid or correct, and this view is not based on my religious beliefs but on the human rights involved in the issue.
Regarding this, I would like to quote what Carlos María Romeo C. states in his article “Genetics and Biotechnology at the Borders of Law”, when he says:
Human dignity is often invoked when ethical and legal aspects affecting biomedical sciences are debated. In this regard, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights expressly proclaims it in several parts of its text: for example, “every individual has the right to respect for his dignity and rights, whatever his genetic characteristics” (art. 2, b); likewise, by considering cloning for reproductive purposes as contrary to human dignity (art. 11); and by rejecting for the same reason germ-line gene therapy (art. 24). For its part, the Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on …
Human Rights and Biomedicine on the prohibition of cloning human beings, dated January 12, 1998, in its Explanatory Memorandum expressly links such a possible practice to human dignity, when it recalls that the purpose of the Convention is to protect the dignity and identity of all human beings (art. 1, para. 1 of the latter).
More and more international legal instruments proclaim the dignity of the person as a predicate of the human being that must remain intangible (10, p. 44), and some constitutional texts also expressly mention it. Relevant examples of the latter, as they reflect different criteria, are the German Basic Law of 1949 (art. 1) and the Constitution of the Swiss Confederation (art. 7), which proclaim it as a fundamental right — in the strict sense indicated above — (…).
