The Concept of Designer Babies is no different to Hitler ...fluencycontent-schoolwebsite.netdna-ssl.com/File... · in history who have tried to create a ‘perfect humanity’, such

1

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

2

Contents

Abstract 3

Introduction 4

Main Body 7

Conclusion 24

Evaluation 26

Bibliography 28

3

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.

4

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 worse-

case 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.

5

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

6

genetic makeup has not been changed, instead it has been chosen

because it is ‘good’ in the first place.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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 well-

defined 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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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.

17

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 over-

exaggerated 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

18

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

19

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.

20

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

21

‘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.

22

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?

23

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.

24

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

25

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.

26

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

27

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.

28

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.

29

• 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-Soldiers-able-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/research-digest/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-designer-babies.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/article-2139708/The-designer-baby-factory-Eggs-beautiful-Eastern-Europeans-Sperm-wealthy-Westerners-And-embryos-implanted-desperate-women.html> [Accessed 27th September 2012].

30

• 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-roots-and-fruit-of-the-eugenics-movement-eugenics-is-the-self-direction-of-human-evolution/> [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-eugenics-movement-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-catalogue-

31

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/health-12055034> [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/pgd-fertility.html> [Accessed 2 November 2012].

• World Wide Words (2007) <http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-sav1.htm> [Accessed 19 October 2012].