Mothers will choose embryos based on
sex, intelligence, disease risk even musical ability
*African scientists call for more control of their continent’s genomic data,
issue guidelines
Most infants will be ‘designer babies’ in as little
as 20 years, a professor claims.Within 20-to-40 years, hopeful mothers will be
able to choose the embryos implanted into their wombs based on their
preferences for sex, intelligence, musical ability or disease risk, according
to Professor Henry Greely from Standard University, who works in bioethics.
Professor Greely, who wrote “The End of Sex and the
Future of Human Reproduction”, said: “The majority of babies of people who have
good health coverage will be conceived this way.”A designer baby is an embryo
that is genetically engineered for specifically selected traits before being
implanted into a woman via In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF).Although initially a
sci-fi concept, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis already routinely determines
if embryos are at risk of diseases such as cystic fibrosis in the United
Kingdom (UK) and United States (US). Designer babies are illegal in the UK.
While The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs
supports genetic selection if it benefits a child’s wellbeing, critics argue
choosing ‘preferred’ traits that do not boost health is unethical.Supporters of
the practice argue parents can already influence their child’s tastes via
lifestyle choices, such as taking them to concerts, and should therefore have
the right to “prenatal autonomy”.
What are designer babies? And what are the pros and
cons? A designer baby occurs when hopeful parents chose desirable qualities for
embryos via genetic screening.The embryos are then implanted into women’s
uteruses via IVF.Traits that may be selected could include choosing a daughter,
a child without a risk of sickle cell disease or a son who is musically gifted.
Supporters argue genetically altering embryos could
increase individuals’ life expectancies by only keeping their healthy
genes.Deoxy ribonucleic Acid (DNA) that increases the risk of certain
conditions, such as Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s, could be discarded.Some
believe selecting for traits such as intelligence may also improve people’s
quality of life.Supporters also claim parents already have an influence on
their children’s personalities, such as taking them to music concerts.
They add parents should also have “prenatal
autonomy”.But critics argue it is unethical for children to be genetically
engineered to have certain traits, such as blue eyes, that do not benefit their
health.Such genetic screening is also still in its early stages and therefore
may not be completely safe.Parents may also not get the outcomes they were
hoping for due to chemical modifications affecting genes after embryos are
implanted in the uterus.
Critics also argue people’s upbringings and life
experiences have a substantial impact on traits such as intelligence.In
addition, genes that control intelligence may also influence ‘negative’ traits,
like anger.Some also point out only wealthy people could likely afford such
genetic screenings.Health insurers may also reject patients who did not undergo
genetic selection out of concerns they have a higher disease risk.
Meanwhile, as the genomics revolution finally turns
its attention to Africa and northern researchers flock there to collect data,
scientists from the continent are demanding a larger role in projects.On 18
April, a group of Africa-based researchers issued guidelines for the ethical
handling of samples for genomic studies. The voluntary rules are an effort to
combat ‘helicopter’ research, in which foreign scientists take samples and data
from communities and then return to their home institutions. The guidelines
also aim to ensure that African citizens see health benefits from research.
In recent years, researchers have begun sequencing
the genomes of Africans in large numbers. The data offer insights into
humanity’s past as well as predisposition to disease and potential reactions to
drugs in African populations — the world’s most genetically diverse.But because
few institutions on the continent have the equipment to handle large genomic
data sets, African scientists wanting to work on such projects have often had
to accept terms offered by foreign partners, says Jantina de Vries, a
bioethicist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa and co-author of the
guidelines. “African research has been held over a barrel.”
The rules were issued by the ethics working group
of the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) Initiative, a
health-genomics consortium that supports research in African institutions. It
is funded by the US National Institutes of Health and the biomedical research
charity the Wellcome Trust.
H3Africa is spending US$188 million over 10 years
to fund Africa-led genomics projects, train bioinformaticians and create
biobanks. South Africa has also invested in genomics facilities.The document
calls for “meaningful and substantive” African intellectual contributions to
research that draws on African samples. It says that researchers might be able
to take specimens out of the continent in some cases, but projects should
involve African scientists and build their capacity to work independently.
Research should also respect African values and should benefit citizens, says
de Vries’s team.
Meanwhile, most wish to leave children’s fate “in
God’s hands”. Despite Professor Greely’s predictions, Dr. Louanne Hudgins, who
studies prenatal genetic screening at Stanford, expects only a ‘very small
minority’ of parents will want designer babies, with most preferring to leave
their fate “in God’s hands”.Dr. James Grifo, from the New York University
Fertility Center, who has been performing IVF since 1988, added: “No patient
has ever came to me and said, ‘I want a designer baby’.”
Professor Greely doubts many parents will wish to
influence their child’s intelligence or athleticism, but insists they may want
to avoid childhood diseases.He adds parents will likely have less interest in
conditions that typically appear in later life, such as
Alzheimer’s.Designer-baby critics argue only wealthy people could likely afford
such screening.
In the future, health insurers may also reject
patients who have not undergone genetic selection out of concerns they have a
higher disease risk.Dr. Louanne Hudgins, who studies prenatal genetic screening
and diagnosis at Stanford, adds genetically screening foetuses for diseases is
not supported by medical associations and therefore health insurers will
unlikely pay for such treatment in the near future.
Parents may also not get the outcomes they were
hoping for due to chemical modifications affecting genes after embryos are
implanted in the uterus.Critics add people’s upbringings and life experiences
also have a substantial impact on traits such as intelligence. Dr. Richard
Scott Jr, a founding partner of Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey,
added: “Your child may not turn out to be the three-sport All-American at
Stanford.”
Fertility technique could cause celebrities to
unwittingly become parents. Designer babies aside, Professor Greely, is
developing a technology that enables ordinary cells to be transformed into
sperm or eggs.Although only done in mice to date, the technique may benefit
infertile couples if eggs could be produced from, for example, a woman’s skin
cells.
Professor Greely envisions the method could yield
hundreds of eggs, which may be screened for genetic traits before couples
choose one or two to implant.Dr. Amander Clark, from the University of
California, LA, believes the technique may enable people who are infertile due
to cancer treatments to become parents.Critics of Professor Greely’s vision
argue obsessive celebrity fans may unwittingly turn stars into parents if they
collect skin cells from, for instance, a discarded coffee cup.
Are designer babies legal in the UK and US?
Designer babies are illegal in the UK. The US does not have specific rules
preventing genetically engineering embryos, however, federal funds cannot be
used for such research.In 2016, the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority (HFEA) allowed a certain team of scientists to genetically edit human
embryos. The researchers, from the Francis Crick Institute in London, were able
to ‘turn off’ genes that prevent IVF success and cause miscarriages.
They had to specifically apply to the HFEA for
permission before going ahead with their research.They only analysed the
embryos’ early development, with the cells not being allowed to grow into
babies. No other researchers have been granted HFEA approval for such
experiments.In 2015, the US National Institutes of Health said it “will not
fund any use of gene-editing technologies in human embryos”.
At the end of that year, a United Nations Education
Scientific Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) panel of scientists, philosophers and
lawyers called for a halt on genetic editing until its effects are better
understood.In April 2015, Chinese scientists tweaked the genes of 28 embryos to
try and prevent a life-threatening blood disorder.They encountered many
challenges, concluding that such technology has a long way to go before it can
be safely used in humans.
Meanwhile, De Vries hopes the framework will
empower local scientists in negotiations with foreign partners. African
scientists could avoid being scooped by overseas teams with superior
computational facilities, for instance, if project terms include extended
embargo periods during which scientists not involved in collecting the data are
banned from publishing.
Time frames for analysis present a real challenge
for African researchers who lack the computational facilities of the global
north, says Michael Pepper, a coordinator of the Southern African Human Genome
Programme, based at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, who provided
input into the framework. “As soon as it falls into the hands of researchers in
the Northern Hemisphere, we get left behind,” he says.
The framework will also be useful for African
research-ethics committees that are charged with assessing proposals for
studies. Many are unsure how to treat genomic research, de Vries says. For
example, some countries — including Zambia, Tanzania and Malawi — ban or
discourage collection of samples under ‘broad consent’, in which study
participants agree that researchers can keep their samples and use them for
purposes unspecified at the time of collection.
