Designer baby

Saviour siblings are conceived through IVF and then screened using PGD to analyze genetic similarity to the child needing a transplant, to reduce the risk of rejection.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a process in which DNA sequences are amplified to produce many more copies of the same segment, allowing screening of large samples and identification of specific genes.

In contrast, the United States federal law does not regulate PGD, with no dedicated agencies specifying regulatory framework by which healthcare professionals must abide.

[28][29][30] Human germline gene therapy in contrast is restricted to in vitro experiments in some countries, whilst others prohibited it entirely, including Australia, Canada, Germany and Switzerland.

[33] Research of this sort is currently using non-viable embryos to investigate the efficacy of germline gene therapy in treatment of disorders such as inherited mitochondrial diseases.

As well as the higher efficiency of NHEJ making inadvertent knockouts likely, CRISPR can introduce DSBs to unintended parts of the genome, called off-target effects.

[32] In February 2016, scientists at the Francis Crick Institute in London were given a license permitting them to edit human embryos using CRISPR to investigate early development.

Chinese authorities have announced stricter controls will be imposed, with Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping and government premier Li Keqiang calling for new gene-editing legislations to be introduced.

[59] His research was conducted in secret until November 2018, when documents were posted on the Chinese clinical trials registry and MIT Technology Review published a story about the project.

[57] Although the information available about this experiment is relatively limited, it is deemed that the scientist erred against many ethical, social and moral rules but also China's guidelines and regulations, which prohibited germ-line genetic modifications in human embryos, while conducting this trial.

[64] Inciting that the ethical and legal aspects should indeed be revisited G. Daley, representative of the summit's management and Dean of Harvard Medical School depicted Dr.

[60][67] The director of the NIH, Francis S. Collins stated that the "medical necessity for inactivation of CCR5 in these infants is utterly unconvincing" and condemned He Jiankui and his research team for 'irresponsible work'.

[61] Other scientists, including geneticist George Church of Harvard University suggested gene editing for disease resistance was "justifiable" but expressed reservations regarding the conduct of He's work.

[70][71][72] The Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences responded to the controversy in the journal Lancet, condemning He for violating ethical guidelines documented by the government and emphasising that germline engineering should not be performed for reproductive purposes.

[73] The academy ensured they would "issue further operational, technical and ethical guidelines as soon as possible" to impose tighter regulation on human embryo editing.

Editing embryos, germ cells and the generation of designer babies is the subject of ethical debate, as a result of the implications in modifying genomic information in a heritable manner.

[74] Despite regulations set by individual countries' governing bodies, the absence of a standardized regulatory framework leads to frequent discourse in discussion of germline engineering among scientists, ethicists and the general public.

Arthur Caplan, the head of the Division of Bioethics at New York University suggests that establishing an international group to set guidelines for the topic would greatly benefit global discussion and proposes instating "religious and ethics and legal leaders" to impose well-informed regulations.

[79] Theologian Ronald Green of Dartmouth College has raised concern that this could result in a decrease in genetic diversity and the accidental introduction of new diseases in the future.

Geneticist George Church claims that he does not expect germline engineering to increase societal disadvantage, and recommends lowering costs and improving education surrounding the topic to dispel these views.

Jackie Leach Scully, professor of social and bioethics at Newcastle University, acknowledges that the prospect of designer babies could leave those living with diseases and unable to afford the technology feeling marginalized and without medical support.

[8] However, Professor Leach Scully also suggests that germline editing provides the option for parents "to try and secure what they think is the best start in life" and does not believe it should be ruled out.

Similarly, Nick Bostrom, an Oxford philosopher known for his work on the risks of artificial intelligence, proposed that "super-enhanced" individuals could "change the world through their creativity and discoveries, and through innovations that everyone else would use".

[83] The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said in 2017 that there was "no reason to rule out" changing the DNA of a human embryo if performed in the child's interest, but stressed that this was only provided that it did not contribute to societal inequality.

[84] Philosopher and Director of Bioethics at non-profit Invincible Wellbeing David Pearce[85] argues that "the question [of designer babies] comes down to an analysis of risk-reward ratios - and our basic ethical values, themselves shaped by our evolutionary past."

Green stated that although the technology was "unavoidably in our future", he foresaw "serious errors and health problems as unknown genetic side effects in 'edited' children" arise.

He stated that it "will be considered in principle as desirable provided that it tends to the real promotion of the personal well-being of man, without harming his integrity or worsening his life conditions".

A survey conducted by the Mayo Clinic in the Midwestern United States in 2017 saw that most of the participants agreed against the creation of designer babies with some noting its eugenic undertones.

[96] Social aspects also raise concern, as highlighted by Josephine Quintavelle, director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics at Queen Mary University of London, who states that selecting children's traits is "turning parenthood into an unhealthy model of self-gratification rather than a relationship".

[97] One major worry among scientists, including Marcy Darnovsky at the Center for Genetics and Society in California, is that permitting germline engineering for correction of disease phenotypes is likely to lead to its use for cosmetic purposes and enhancement.