Frankenfood: Genetically Modified Foods

The term genetically modified food (also known as biotech or genetically engineered food) refers to crop plants that have been modified in the lab to enhance certain traits, such as resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. Experts say this science, like any other, has no guarantees. Risks include:  Introducing allergens and toxins to food  Accidental contamination between genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods  Antibiotic resistance  Harmfully changing the nutrient content of a crop  Creation of "super" weeds and other environmental risks Benefits include:  Increased pest and disease resistance  Drought tolerance  Increased food supply Is Regulation Too Soft? So you might ask, what's the big deal? The U.S. government wouldn't allow a product on the market without strict testing and approval, right? It seems genetically modified foods are a bit of a scientific difference, a creature that U.S. regulation agencies aren't quite sure how to efficiently manage. Regulation for genetically modified foods falls under three jurisdictions: The FDA, EPA, and USDA. But industry experts say the green light on market approval is left mostly to the companies creating the technology. Monsanto Co. dominates the industry, accounting for a 90% share of genetically modified crops worldwide. Dow Chemical Company and Syngenta AG, among others, control the rest. Despite differing opinions on genetically modified food safety, most experts agree on one point: The regulation system is flawed. "Clearly I think the regulation system in the U.S. could be greatly improved," says Gregory Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit, public advocacy group that supports the use of this biotechnology. But he says a CSPI study released in January 2003 showed that biotech companies don't always voluntarily comply with federal requirements. "They did not do state-of-the-art tests when they needed to do those. In some instances they had errors in their submissions, and the agency did not do a thorough review of those. Our view is that there should be a mandatory, premarket approval process by the FDA before biotech foods go on the market; that the public is entitled to have the FDA determine that the food is safe and not relying on [companies such as] Monsanto telling us the food is safe." The FDA test for genetically modified food safety is based on a policy that states genetically modified foods are largely the same as non-modified foods. "No serious scientist in the world would stand behind that unless they're on the payroll of the biotech companies. If they're substantially the same, why do these companies have a patent on them?" says Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association and author of the book, Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers. "You can summarize it in three words: Genetically modified foods are unpredictable, they are untested, and they are unlabeled." Monsanto states that genetically modified foods are "more thoroughly tested than any other food on the grocer's shelves to date" and "there have been no adverse (bad) effects documented from food produced from biotech crops." Among industry supporters of this technology are heavy hitters such as the American Medical Association. Source: Wedmd Engineering Food for All Nina V. Fedoroff: Times New Roman Food prices are at record highs and the ranks of the hungry are growing once again. A warming climate is beginning to eat at crop yields worldwide. The United Nations predicts that there will be one to three billion more people to feed by 2050. Yet even as the Obama administration says it wants to fuel originality by eliminating unnecessary regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency wants to require even more data on genetically modified crops, which have been improved using technology with great promise and a track record of safety. The process for approving these crops has become so costly and heavy that it is choking off innovation (originality). Civilization depends on our growing ability to produce food efficiently, which has accelerated thanks to science and technology. The use of chemicals for fertilization and for pest and disease control, the induction of beneficial mutations in plants with chemicals or radiation to improve yields, and the mechanization of agriculture have all increased the amount of food that can be grown on each acre of land by as much as 10 times in the last 100 years. These extraordinary increases must be doubled by 2050 if we are to continue to feed an expanding population. As people around the world become more wealthy, they are demanding diets richer in animal protein, which will require ever more healthy feed crop yields to sustain. New molecular methods that add or modify genes can protect plants from diseases and pests and improve crops in ways that are both more environmentally kind and beyond the capability of older methods. This is because the gene modifications are crafted based on knowledge of what genes do, in contrast to the shotgun approach of traditional breeding or using chemicals or radiation to induce mutations. The results have been spectacular. For example, genetically modified crops containing an extra gene that gives resistance to certain insects require much less pesticide. This is good for the environment because toxic pesticides decrease the supply of food for birds and run off the land to poison rivers, lakes and oceans. The rapid adoption of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant soybeans has made it easier for farmers to park their plows and skip tilling for weed control. No-till farming is more sustainable and environmentally safe because it decreases soil wearing away and shrinks agriculture’s carbon footprint, meaning less pollution. In 2010, crops modified by molecular methods were grown in 29 countries on more than 360 million acres. Of the 15.4 million farmers growing these crops, 90 percent are poor, with small operations. The reason farmers turn to genetically modified crops is simple: crops increase and costs decrease. Myths about the horrible effects of genetically modified foods on health and the environment abound, but they have not held up to scientific study. And, although many concerns have been expressed about the potential for unexpected consequences, the unexpected effects that have been observed so far have been kind. Contamination by fungal toxins, for example, is as much as 90 percent lower in insect-resistant genetically modified corn than in nonmodified corn. This is because the fungi that make the toxins follow insects that live inside the plants. No insect holes, no fungi, no toxins. Yet today we have only a handful of genetically modified crops, primarily soybeans, corn, canola and cotton. All are commodity crops mainly used for feed or fiber and all were developed by big biotech companies. Only big companies can muster the money necessary to steer through the government’s three oversight agencies: the E.P.A., the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Decades ago, when molecular approaches to plant improvement were relatively new, there was some rationale for a cautious approach. But now the evidence is in. These crop modification methods are not dangerous. The European Union has spent more than $425 million studying the safety of genetically modified crops over the past 25 years. Its recent, lengthy report on the matter can be summarized in one sentence: Crop modification by molecular methods is no more dangerous than crop modification by other methods. Serious scientific bodies that have analyzed the issue, including the National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society, have come to the same conclusion. It is time to relieve the regulatory load slowing down the development of genetically modified crops. The three United States regulatory agencies need to develop a single set of requirements and focus solely on the hazards — if any — posed by new traits. And above all, the government needs to stop regulating genetic modifications for which there is no scientifically credible evidence of harm. Nina V. Fedoroff, who was the science and technology adviser to the secretary of state from 2007 to 2010, is a professor of biology at Pennsylvania State University. Say no to genetically engineered salmon Rick Moonen: CNN Las Vegas, Nevada (CNN) -- I am and always will be completely against any food that has been altered genetically for human consumption. And never, in the 30-plus years I have been a chef, has one customer requested a GMO for dinner. This is why I was alarmed to learn early this month that the Food and Drug Administration announced with "reasonable certainty" that a new genetically modified Atlantic salmon posed "no harm" to humans who might soon have the opportunity to buy it and eat it as though it were a fish from nature. The announcement brings this "Frankenfish" one step closer to your table. But make no mistake. The creation of this fish is just another tactic for big industry to make bigger, faster profits with no consideration for the impact it will have on our personal health and the health of our environment and ecosystem. The fish, an Atlantic salmon, contains growth hormone from a Pacific species, the Chinook salmon, as well as genetic material from another species, the ocean pout, that causes the "transgenic" salmon to grow at twice the normal speed. The claim made by its developer, AquaBounty Technologies, is that this altered fish is as safe to consume as farmed Atlantic salmon. This argument doesn't convince much, since farmed salmon aren't really that safe to eat. They have been found to have higher concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls than wild salmon, which gets into their bodies from the concentrated fish meal used to create their feed. AquaBounty also plans to sell the eggs of its fish to fish farms. As we have learned over time, farmed Atlantic salmon is horrible for the environment. The fish are grown in overcrowded, open- net pens in the ocean, placing an unnatural stress on the surrounding ocean environment as well as on the fish themselves. In those conditions it becomes necessary to use antibiotics on an already unstable fish in order to control bacterial infections and other diseases -- and to protect the investment of carnivorous fish farming. The byproducts of all this -- a wonderful stew of feces, unconsumed fish food and dead fish called, sweetly, "effluent" -- create a suffocating blanket that spreads across the ocean floor, resulting in a massive dead zone surrounding the farming area. It kills clams, oysters, eel grasses -- where young fish feed and grow -- and more. If the point of genetically engineering fish is to produce more salmon faster, introducing these fish into the fish farm scenario will only magnify an already big problem. And it will create a larger demand for smaller species of wild fish to be used for fish feed necessary to support these constantly feeding frankenfish. Wild species don't stand a chance. It has also been proven that these farm fish escape their nets that keep them inside. These fish have a huge appetite that has no regard for season or feeding cycle. What could happen? Estimates of farmed salmon escapes in British Columbia from 1991 to 2001 total at least 400,000 fish. The wild salmon population is already severely endangered. If escaped, the farmed -- and now free-swimming aggressive gluttons -- will compete for the food that is essential for wild stocks to survive, further threatening this already endangered species (nearly all Atlantic salmon sold now comes from fish farms). What process has the FDA used to determine whether the genetically modified fish is safe for human health and the environment? We did not know during most of the agency's evaluation process. FDA regulations allow genetically modified animals to be evaluated under the same rules as veterinary pharmaceuticals. So the information given to the agency by the applicant is confidential; in the case of this fish, the information was not posted on the FDA website until the announcement on safety was made in early September. The FDA will hold a public meeting on February 21 to discuss how the fish should be labeled. I don't trust this fish. It is an overweight fish being introduced to an already obese society. Protecting a greedy company's "confidential information" should not be acceptable when you are introducing the first genetically modified animal for human consumption into the marketplace. And I'm terrified to consider that rules are being considered that would allow this fish to be created and then distributed without any kind of mandatory label stating that it is a genetically modified product. In restaurants, chefs are in a position to assure their guests that the food being served to them is not only delicious but also wholesome and safe to consume. How do we do this when there is no required labeling indicating that a fish has been manufactured by science and not a product of nature? If these genetically engineered salmon are approved, it will set a worldwide standard. It will open the door to other kinds of genetically modified animal foods that may pose health or environmental dangers, and the true extent of these might not reveal themselves for years to come. At the very least, given the amount of data that we have seen to date, the creation of these frankenfish for mass consumption should not be approved. It's simply against nature and is a huge step back in the worldwide movement to eat local, organic and sustainably. Bon appétit -- enjoy your dinner. Are GMO’s Safe? Paul Tullis Huffington Post The best innovation to come to many crops in the last generation -- and one of the most widespread -- is genetic engineering. The cultivation of corn and soy today is so scientifically and technologically advanced it would be unrecognizable to a farmer just 40 years ago. Eighty percent of the 86 million acres of corn planted in the United States today -- as well as 92 percent of the soy, and a good deal of the squash, tomatoes, potatoes, canola and a host of other crops -- comes from genetically engineered, or "GE," seed. Yet despite these crops' being everywhere, 60 percent of Americans don't even know they're eating GE foods. Even before GE crops were introduced in 1996, debate raged among scientists, farmers, environmentalists and public health officials and academics regarding their safety, with pro and con sides finding little common ground. "There's now overwhelming evidence that GE foods are unsafe and should never have been introduced," says Jeffrey M. Smith, author of self-published books purporting to show just that. "Foods derived from biotechnology have been eaten by billions of people without a single documented health problem," counters Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, Executive Vice President for Food and Agriculture of BIO, the lobbying arm of the biotech industry. It's difficult to find a scientist knowledgeable on the topic who doesn't have financial ties to the biotechnology industry, and it's equally challenging to find an opponent of GE who seems capable of recognizing its potential and doesn't object to the technology per se. So what's the deal? GE seed contains a gene from a different organism in its DNA, giving the plant it produces desirable traits. Although the biotechnology industry has long promised nutrient-rich and drought- and frost-resistant crops to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among the world's poor (any day now, we're told), the overwhelming majority of GE seed today is modified to tolerate certain pesticides and herbicides -- which in many cases are made by the same companies selling the patented seeds. For instance, St. Louis-based agrochemical giant Monsanto makes Roundup Ready® soy, which is resistant to a pesticide Monsanto sells, enabling farmers to virtually drown their crop in the synthetic chemical. The result is that Roundup® is the most popular agricultural pesticide in the Unites States. Claims by manufacturers that this makes farming more economical and better for the environment by reducing both the amount of work that goes into the crop, and how much farmers have to spray, are supported by honored bodies of science, though some studies place doubt on those findings. Smith's anti-GMO claim is contradicted by the National Academy of Sciences in the Unites States as well as the UK's leading academy of medical science, the Royal Society of Medicine. Lauritsen's claim, however, is unsupportable because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Proving safety would require a massive, longitudinal epidemiological study with a control group that has never been exposed to GE foods, which may be nearly impossible given that the GE toothpaste is out of the tube: GE seeds migrate into fields of non-GE varieties, so they are virtually impossible to avoid. This makes the possible hazards to human health and the environment from GE foods disturbing to some. Alteration of the DNA of GE foods carries the potential to turn them toxic or cause allergic reactions, and their use may actually have led to an increase of spraying of harmful chemicals into the environment. European nations have even banned GE foods in response to public outcry. Who is responsible for ensuring that agricultural products are safe for human consumption and the environment? Should the government commission independent scientific analysis to ensure safety of GE crops to human health and the environment? Should companies be trusted to make their products safe, suffering civil damages if they're later proven otherwise? Or should consumers be left to fend for themselves? GE crops in the United States are approved for use by either the Agriculture Department, the EPA, or the FDA, each with its own process. Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, says the government needs "to improve the regulatory system, which is a rubber stamp designed to enhance public confidence without ensuring safety." But Gregory Jaffe, a lawyer who is director of biotechnology projects at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says "that's misleading. The FDA has a voluntary consultation process, which I think is inadequate." (We've seen what self-regulation has done to financial markets and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.) The USDA, Jaffe says, does "a fairly good job of ensuring it doesn't have an impact on agricultural interests, but the process to [minimize] environmental impact is inadequate." Jaffe rates the EPA tops at ensuring against food safety risk of the crops it oversees, which includes all that corn. Bottom line: For the small percentage of the population that's extremely food-sensitive or has severe allergies, it's probably best to avoid GE foods when possible. That means buying organic anything containing corn, soy, or canola (check your labels -- you'll be surprised to find how many food products this includes). If you care about family farms, personal liberties, or the environment, you should also buy organic -- organic certification means no GE -- wherever practical. They also support crop diversity and petrochemical-free farming by planting varieties farmers have been using for centuries (and not patented by giant corporations), and by keeping chemical formulations and harmful nitrogen-based fertilizers out of the groundwater and agricultural runoff. No matter who you are, you should support legitimate scientific review of new biotech crops coming to market; all three regulating agencies have periods of public comment before they OK a new GE crop, and Congress has the authority to change the way GMOs are OK'd by the government. Designer Babies: A Right to Choose Brandon Keim: Freelance science journalist When a Los Angeles fertility clinic offered last month to let parents choose their kids’ hair and eye color, public outrage followed. On March 2, the clinic shut the program down — and that, says author James Hughes, is a shame. According to Hughes, using reproductive technologies — in this case, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), in which doctors screen embryos before implanting them — for cosmetic purposes is just an old-fashioned parental impulse. If nobody gets hurt and everybody has access, says Hughes, then genetic modification is perfectly fine, and restricting it is an assault on reproductive freedom. "It’s in the same category as abortion. If you think women have the right to control their own bodies, then they should be able to make this choice," he said. "There should be no law restricting the kind of kids people have, unless there’s gross evidence that they’re going to harm that kid, or harm society." Hughes’ views are hardly universal. "I’m totally against this," said William Kearns, the medical geneticist who developed the techniques used by the Fertility Institutes for cosmetic purposes, in a newspaper interview. In the same article, Mark Hughes, one of the inventors of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, called its non-therapeutic use "ridiculous and irresponsible." Wired.com talked to James Hughes and to about genetic selection. Wired.com: What do you think about using reproductive technologies to pick cosmetic traits? James Hughes: It’s inevitable, in the broad context of freedom and choice. And the term "designer babies" is an insult to parents, because it basically says parents don’t have their kids’ best interests at heart. The only people who are consistent about this are the Catholics. They say that you have to accept whatever pops out of your procreative unions. If I’ve got a dozen embryos I could implant, and the ones I want to implant are the green-eyed ones, or the blond-haired ones, that’s a perfectly acceptable choice— and restricting those choices are a violation of our procreative autonomy (independence). I want to see a society in which parents can say, I want my kids to have the best possible options in life. That might include getting rid of obesity genes. Every child should be a loved child, but there is no virtue in accident. Wired.com: But one could argue that obesity is a health problem, not a cosmetic issue. Hughes: So parents are only allowed to have preferences about health conditions? What if we discovered that eating fish oil while pregnant increases intelligence, which it does? We’re not going to say that you can’t make certain dietary choices. In fact, we encourage them. And would we say it was morally inappropriate for parents to stand on their head during conception if it made their children blond? I doubt it. The only reason this is different is because it involves embryo selection. Wired.com: But isn’t this going to produce a super-race of children born to people wealthy enough to afford artificial reproduction? Hughes: Insofar as the choices are eye color and hair color, that’s not going to worsen inequalities in society. It’s a minor way in which greater wealth allows more reproductive choice, but it shouldn’t be a reason to override reproductive freedom. If PGD had the ability to double the IQs of children — which it doesn’t— then that would be the sort of inequality that warranted a social policy against it. I’m worried about that situation, not hair and eye color. Wired.com: Some ethicists say that non-therapeutic reproductive technologies shouldn’t be used until the industry is better- regulated. Hughes: Fertility clinics and reproductive medicine need a complete overhaul of their regulatory structures. Many of the procedures are not being monitored for safety and efficacy. But those are the only two grounds on which to base a legitimate societal regulation. Wired.com: Where do you draw the line? What if I want disabled children? Hughes: We’ve been debating that for five or six years, ever since a deaf lesbian couple in Chicago wanted to use PGD to choose among the embryos they’d fertilized for one that inherited a form of deafness. They said that deafness is a perfectly gentle condition, and that living in the hearing world is like living in the white world as a black person. I argue in Citizen Cyborg that I wouldn’t want to see a law saying you can’t do this, but I’d want to see strong moral sanctions. The reproductive autonomy of parents should be protected at a high level — and that even includes decisions that impose a degree of harm on children. “Designer Babies” Ethical? CBS News For years, reproductive specialists have been helping people become parents, even enabling them to choose the sex of their baby. One fertility doctor is taking things a step further, offering what some are calling "designer babies," as Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman reports.

If you could design your baby's features, would you? According to L.A.'s Fertility Institute, prospective parents can select eye color, hair color and more. The technology is called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or PGD. It was created to screen for disease, then used for gender selection. Now this clinic plans to allow parents to select physical traits.

"I would predict that by next year, we will have determined sex with 100 percent certainty on a baby, and we will have determined eye color with about an 80 percent accuracy rate," said fertility specialist Dr. Jeff Steinberg, director of Fertility Institute. Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg is a pioneer in in-vitro fertilization. "I think it's very important that we not bury our head in the sand and pretend these advances are not happening," Dr. Steinberg said.

Kirsten and Matt Landon used his clinic to select the sex of their daughter. Choosing other genetic traits intrigues them. "I would have considered trait selection as an option, but not necessarily have gone with it," Matt Landon said.

A recent U.S. survey suggests most people support the notion of building a better baby when it comes to eliminating serious diseases. But Dr. Steinberg says using technology for cosmetic reasons shouldn't scare people away.

"Of course, once I've got this science, am I not to provide this to my patients? I'm a physician. I want to provide everything science gives me to my patients," Dr. Steinberg said.

"But is that a good thing?" Early Show co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez asked Dr. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

"Let me quote Dr. Steinberg. He just said he predicts we will have determined sex with 100 percent accuracy and eye color with 80 percent accuracy in the next year. Does that give you pause at all?" Rodriguez asked.

"It does. I think he's wrong. I don't think we're going to get to eye color and hair color and freckles for a couple more years. But he's right in principle. We're headed that way. It is going to be possible to pick traits, not because of diseases or avoiding dysfunction, but because somebody has a taste for a particular child or a preference for a particular child," Dr. Caplan said.

"He says that if it is available, why not offer it to his patients? He says he has the obligation as a doctor to do so. Do you agree with that?" Rodriguez asked.

"I disagree completely. There are really three things to think about. One is, when you move away from diseases, who's to say what's the better trait? Is it better to be red-headed than it is to be brown-haired? Is it better to have freckles or not? Those sorts of things are subjective and in some ways driven by our culture," Caplan said.

"Secondly, you're going to have the rich using these technologies, and that's going to advantage them further. It's not going to be something the poor get to do. Lastly, you've got a problem here, why are doctors in this business at all? He said (Dr. Jeff Steinberg), 'I have to serve my patients,' but is this just a cash business where you'd say, you know, 'I want a child with short arms. I want a kid with athletic ability.' Okay. Well, we'll do that. Is everything and anything for sale at the fertility clinic?" Dr. Caplan asked.

The case of Nadya Suleman, who had octuplets, has raised so many debates like this. The doctor who implanted six embryos is being criticized. A lot of people say there should be a law prohibiting that, Rodriguez pointed out. "Do you think there should be laws prohibiting this?" she asked.

"Absolutely. And the time to start this discussion is right now. For example, I don't think you should get any of these traits offered to you without some counseling so you can think about, is that important to me? Is this really going to make that much difference?" Caplan said. This can lead to false expectations on children, he explained. The parents may pick a child to be smart, and he or she doesn't succeed, then they become upset because they invested money and didn't get what they want.

"We need more oversight of this industry, and I think this will turn out to be one of the biggest issues in the next 10, 15 years, the extent to which we design our babies and who's going to be able to call the shots, if you will, on whether the technology gets used to do it," Caplan said. Designer Babies Debate: Rahul Thadani

“Alpha children wear gray. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is a beastly color. I'm so glad I'm a Beta."

When Aldous Huxley coined this quote in 1932 in his novel 'Brave New World', he had no idea how intense the designer babies debate could become less than a century after. His book was a satirical look into a perfect society, where people were segregated on the basis of genetic modifications that they were subjected to as embryos. The end result was a seriously disillusioned world where these modifications brought back the dark ages.

The designer babies debate today is something that the public eye has been shielded from, and for good measure. Companies like Google and Amazon have banned advertisements of gene modifications in many countries, since this is an issue that really splits opinion. It is in the confines of scientific labs and multinational companies conference halls that this debate is slowly rising and threatening to boil over.

What are Designer Babies

Before we get into designer babies ethical issues, it is crucial to understand what this truly means. Picture a world where parents of a yet unborn child can modify his/her genes, and thus determine his/her physical appearance, cleverness and resistance to disease. It sounds like stuff that science fiction movies are made of, but we are fast approaching a day when this method will be guaranteed to work. What happens to the world after that, remains to be seen.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a designer baby is 'A baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics.' The process involves fertilizing the egg by the sperm in a test tube outside the mothers womb, and altering the genes. Admittedly, the purpose is noble (to get rid of genetic disorders and diseases), but where will the human race really draw the line? Who is to stop rich families (for this is an expensive procedure) from using these methods to change their child's eye color, or to make him a professional football player, or to make her slender and gorgeous? The designer babies debate is more about how we are learning to sidestep nature, and how this could crumble society as we know it today.

The process of selecting the traits and characteristics of children is also known as Pre-implementation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), and here the embryo is checked for genetic deficiencies before it is returned to the mothers womb. Appropriate alterations can be made along the way, and the consequence that this will have is open for debate.

Designer Babies - Ethical Concerns

The designer babies ethical considerations come into play because of the effects this procedure will have. Families that can afford these alterations will be few, and this will only increase the gap between the various social classes. This will ultimately result in a segregation between the superior 'modified' humans, and the pure but inferior ones. Sooner or later, this situation will turn ugly. Moreover, the diversity of the gene pool and human genetics will be affected, and this may even lead to a major percentage of the human race being wiped out completely by some major disease. All this is without even taking into consideration the effect this procedure will have on the child.

People involved in designer babies debates sometimes forget to think about the effects these alterations will have on the children. After all, if you are tweaking one gene here, then another gene somewhere else must be shifting to balance the event. This could ultimately lead to a situation where each child is programmed to do certain tasks, and is unable to do anything else, much in the way Mr. Huxley predicted.

The human race must stop trying to play God by messing with genetics and embryo alterations, and this is exactly what the designer babies debates are all about. Though it is too late to eliminate these procedures entirely, we can still do our best to control the situation. The purpose may be noble (to get rid of genetic diseases), but in the wrong hands this knowledge could be devastating. And human beings do have a tendency to allow such knowledge to ultimately fall into the wrong hands. Pros of Designer Babies

Genetic screening can reduce the baby's chances of being born with several serious diseases like down syndrome, spinal muscular atrophy, cystic fibrosis, familial hypercholesterolemia, rare blood disorders such as Diamond-Blackfan anemia, etc. Adam Nash was the world's first known designer baby, born by the revolutionary 'preimplantation process' in the year 2000. Scientists genetically selected his embryo, so that he would possess the right cells to save his dying sister's life. His sister suffered from Fanconi's anemia (blood disorder), and mostly the chances of Adam getting that disorder was also very high. An embryo was chosen, which did not have Fanconi's anemia. Adam became a donor to his sister, which doubled her chances of survival. Same was the case with Charlie Whitaker, who suffered from Diamond-Blackfan Anemia. His parents wanted to have a designer baby to save Charlie's life. Since they were denied the right in UK, they went to US, to have their baby. In 2003, Charlie's baby brother was born and the stem cells from his umbilical cord would be used to treat Charlie.

Families with inherited medical conditions like diabetes, obesity, hypertension, etc. or diseases like parkinson's disease, thalassemia, cancer, arthritis, hypothyroidism, alzheimer's disease, etc. may want to go in for designer babies to prevent the next generation from inheriting genes with these diseases. Disease- bearing genes can be screened for and only those without the disease can be implanted into the uterus. With the help of this new technology, parents can be assured their children won't have to struggle with the same illness they or their family members are going through.

Cons of Designer Babies

The adoption of genetic engineering for cosmetic reasons, for genetic enhancements has spearheaded a lot of controversies. People have begun asking the question, "Is it ethical to create designer babies with enhanced physical ability and appearance?" Critics point out that the level of biodiversity in the human race will drop, which can result in long-term disaster.

Eugenics is defined as "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits." Adolf Hitler was on a quest to create a race of Aryan Blond, blue-eyed and tall people. Creating designer babies is believed to be on the same lines. The question arises, which skin color and physical features are to be chosen. The arrival of designer babies will affect biodiversity. Moreover, traits decided by parents, eliminates the say of the child in his or her life. Parents passionate about sports, would have the athletic ability engineered into the child, however, the child may not want the same. This reduces the child's freedom to choose.

Genetic engineering, if accepted, will have a negative impact on the society. It will result in increase of unreasonable fear or hatred towards foreigners or anyone who appears different. People with genetic defects will be socially rejected. They will be called 'gene poor' and will be separated from the society too. Today, people who have genetic defects are already treated differently and cast out from society in several parts across the world. Designer babies concept, will lead to discrimination on the basis of certain qualities or traits. Kids of rich families will receive genetic enhancement, leading to genetic aristocracy. This gives them an unfair advantage over the other children. People unable to afford genetic engineering will be looked down upon, thereby, creating a greater gap in society. Moreover, most parts of the world are still male dominated, and sex or gender determination of the baby, can lead to gender discrimination across the globe.

Then again, using the preimplantation process to screen embryos for any genetic disease and eliminate it is understandable, however, how does one explain deliberate crippling of children. Is it ethical to allow parents to choose disabilities for their children? A deaf lesbian couple, Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough, from the US, used this method of genetic engineering to create their deaf designer baby. Their old deaf friend was their sperm donor, who came from a family with five generations of deafness. However, how ethical is this? Although the deaf lesbian couple feel that deafness is not a disability, instead a cultural identity, is deliberately choosing deafness for their child, the right thing to do? Aren't they playing God?