Our Biotech Future - An exchange.(opposing opinions on genetic engineering of children)

Ronald Bailey:

Enabling parents to genetically enhance their children is not going to be as easy as some of us might hope, nor will it happen as soon as we might wish, but Dinesh D'Souza is right when he claims in his article "Staying Human" (Jan. 22) that one day it will be possible. This prospect frightens him. Why? First, let's note that D'Souza is not against using genetic technology to cure genetic diseases, or using germline interventions to eliminate genetic diseases in future generations, or even using human cloning to overcome infertility; what he opposes is the use of "enhancement technologies to shape the destiny of others, and especially their children." D'Souza denounces such parents as "totalitarians" engaging in "despotism" and "tyranny."

But his opposition to this practice is fundamentally misconceived. First of all, he asserts that those of us who see no moral objection to genetic enhancements "speak about freedom and choice, although what [they] advocate is despotism and human bondage." This is nonsense. D'Souza has evidently adopted a notion of hard genetic determinism that is simply not warranted by biology. A gene that enhances one's capacity for music doesn't mean that its possessor must become another Scott Joplin or Keith Jarrett; genes simply don't work that way. D'Souza, like all of us, has many capacities stemming from his specific genetic endowment. He could, for example, have become a professional rugby player or a computer engineer, but he chose not to develop those particular abilities despite the fact that his specific complement of genes could have allowed him to.

Giving children such enhanced capacities as good health, stronger bodies, and cleverer brains, far from constraining them, would in fact give them greater freedom and more choices. It's a strange kind of despotism that enlarges a person's abilities and options in life.

But D'Souza is wrong even on his own terms. He has no objection to fixing genetic diseases and disabilities, because one can assume that the beneficiary-the not-yet-born, possibly even not-yet-conceived child-would happily have chosen to have those flaws corrected. Let's say a parent could choose genes that would guarantee her kid a 20-point IQ boost. It is reasonable to presume that the kid would be happy to consent to this enhancement of his capacities. How about plugging in genes that would boost his immune system and guarantee that he would never get colon cancer, Alzheimer's, AIDS, or the common cold? Again, it seems reasonable to assume consent. These enhancements are general capacities that any human would reasonably want to have. In fact, lots of children already do have these capacities naturally, so it's hard to see that there is any moral justification for outlawing access to them for others.

Instead of submitting to the tyranny of random chance, which cruelly deals out futures blighted with ill health, stunted mental abilities, and early death, parents would be able to open more possibilities for their children to have fulfilling lives. Genetic enhancements to prevent these ills would not violate a child's liberty or autonomy, and certainly do not constitute the slavery depicted in D'Souza's overwrought analogy.

"The power they seek to exercise is not over 'nature,' but over other human beings," claims D'Souza. Actually, most of those who want access to genetic technologies for their children are motivated by exactly the opposite desire: What they seek is the power to defend their children against the manifold cruelties and indignities that "nature" so liberally dispenses, and thus make it possible for their children to have fulfilling lives. The good news is that would-be tyrannical parents who buy into D'Souza's erroneous notions of hard genetic determinism will be disappointed. Their children will have minds and inclinations all distinctly their own, albeit genetically enhanced.