The ethical dilemma of designer babies | Paul Knoepfler

Creating genetically modified children is no longer a science fiction fantasy; it's a likely future scenario. Biologist Paul Knoepfler estimates that within fifteen years, scientists could use the gene editing technology CRISPR to make certain "upgrades" to human embryos -- from altering physical appearances to eliminating the risk of auto-immune diseases. In this thought-provoking talk, Knoepfler readies us for the coming designer baby revolution and its very personal, and unforeseeable, consequences.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.

[pawo]

god i'm only watching these things just for my school research

[ricardofg]

That would be a nice Black Mirror episode...

[goofyg]

That laugh after the Kardashian joke had me dying

[dredp]

The question isn't "should we allow it", because it's already happening, it's too late. The question is "how to regulate it and prevent the technology to be monopolized by rich people ?"

[mikhailmikhailov]

My main problem is how can we even raise those kids? If your child is smart enough to be able to do things like hack into NSA at the age of 6, how can we even have any control of their development? Imagine such child in his puberty, a person with remarkable physical and mental abilities above that of most regular humans going through emotional instability inherent to puberty. A remarkable child needs a remarkable parent.

[xertris]

The problem with designer babies is that they will be made to fit what humans want. Not necessarily what will help them survive. Could designer babies out-compete non designer babies? Possibly, but i suspect there will be some harsh downsides to whatever "upgrades" scientists give to them. As we see with everything we genetically modify, what we want does not always equal what an organism needs to survive.

[pratcasley]

Ty comments this helps for my essay 😂😂💀💀

[dariusemmanueltherumblegro]

Wouldn't it be nice to be born without Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, certain cancers and any other genetic diseases?

[imaginamyry]

Very interesting topic. I could see these issues:

1) But it isn't natural and is kind of like cheating to be great at stuff, and will create unfairness. (But there is already an unfairness in natural genetics.) I think it could be seen similarly to steroids, though: such an increase in ability to the point that it drastically widens the gap between those who are GM'd and those who aren't.

2) It could create even more economic inequality. If you have a person who is GM'd they would be preferred over non GMs by colleges, and then, by companies when it comes to employment. And if getting your child GM'd has a price tag, then it will be more available to the rich. Which even moreso gives a leg up to the rich over the poor (rich will continue to get richer).

3) Health and life insurance will probably have a bias for GMs due to their predictability and stability, making prices go up for non GMs.

4) We know that variability is very important when it comes to evolution. When we have a variety of genes in the gene pool, it gives a species a greater chance of survival and success. Limiting our genes lessens variability which could be risky for us as a species.

5) Traits will start to be looked at as "preferences" rather than "gifts". Not saying this is good or bad -- just different. If parents choose their kids' traits, it becomes more like "wow your parents have great taste!!" when someone likes something about you, hahah. Not having a choice in the matter makes natural genetics more about luck.

6) Society would *eventually* have a difficult time functioning if we have people who are amazing and fairly similar. I think this is many, many years into the future... but at some point the government would be forced to regulate what GMs are given to what kids (they can't all be doctors, lol). And when the government starts regulating it, that brings more issues (how do we decide who is designed to be a doctor and who a farmer?).

7) Finally, the issue of just simply having a more boring world. Taking away luck and giving people the chance to design causes less variability, and I could also see it reducing gratitude for what one has. If it was chosen rather than given, I could see *some* people feeling... empty, and ultimately possibly depressed and that they have less meaning. Less reason to celebrate you as a person if you know you were designed to be perfect. *shrug*

[CplConArtist]

I think that one of the un-thought of concerns would be the class divide this would create. Think of the current knowledge divide with the wealthy able to give their children better education and university degrees. This "designer baby" would push this gap into a complete class divide that would shake society.

[johnnyjohnson]

One day, in the future, companies will have to meet quotas for non-GM employees.

[favorites]

How is genetic advantage significantly different from economic advantage? Don't these moral questions currently exist?

[lisadang]

All I could think of is the novel "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley.

[QueerCripple]

I suffer from many chronic illnesses and my own mother died at age 38 from three separate types of cancer. I'm kind of ambiguous about this, because there are definitely pros and cons when it comes to the Improvement of the future of humans.

[kristogirma]

Just a $1M for a GM baby! Get yours today! Isn't the gap between rich and poor is wide enough; now the rich need, beautiful, tall, extremely intelligent designer babies. Competition on a whole different level.

[Dellious]

Frankenstein wasn't the monster, he was the creator. Frankenstein's monster was the monster. Words are hard.

[emil.jansson]

I don’t think humanity should play God, we don’t get to say to some people: ”your kind should not exist”. Thats the big issue with this. Some countries have already tried to ”eradicate” downs syndrome there is something deeply disturbing about that and it is wrong. Its wrong becuse we are all induviduals and we don’t live for others we live for our selfs. We are not here to create a better society we are here becuse we are here. The idea that society is more important than the induvidual is evil.

[TASmith]

Great speech. Of course, that final scenario, where one kid looks and is comparatively better - that already exists. That's just a part of nature. With GM kids you get into the philosophical question of, what does "better" really mean? The future keeps getting stranger.

[bgoods]

Though I agree with his sentiment. I didn't feel like he made the case as compellingly as he could have.

[zai]

I believe many people aren't getting his point. He isn't against genetically modified humans, he just believes that we should make this technology safer and take it safely and slowly