![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jrtomhttp://www.newsweek.com/id/151758
I've asked my father (who's been a pediatrician longer than I've been alive) what he thinks about this.
I think that this is one of those cases in which a little knowledge (in this case, knowing that such studies exist, without knowing whether (and how) they apply to people you know, especially your children) is a dangerous thing. It seems like it would be very tempting to assume that certain behavioral tendencies were genetically driven--not because you have evidence, but because you know it's possible and because it can be comforting to believe that it's Not Your Fault. (Whatever it is.)
I think that it's entirely possible that our children will be the first generation for which most will have fairly comprehensive knowledge of, and possibly limited manipulation of, their own children's genetic makeup. This is not entirely reassuring: the makers of GATTACA made sure of that.
I've asked my father (who's been a pediatrician longer than I've been alive) what he thinks about this.
I think that this is one of those cases in which a little knowledge (in this case, knowing that such studies exist, without knowing whether (and how) they apply to people you know, especially your children) is a dangerous thing. It seems like it would be very tempting to assume that certain behavioral tendencies were genetically driven--not because you have evidence, but because you know it's possible and because it can be comforting to believe that it's Not Your Fault. (Whatever it is.)
I think that it's entirely possible that our children will be the first generation for which most will have fairly comprehensive knowledge of, and possibly limited manipulation of, their own children's genetic makeup. This is not entirely reassuring: the makers of GATTACA made sure of that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Designer babies
Date: 13 August 2008 01:26 (UTC)I want designer baby boomers.
(no subject)
Date: 13 August 2008 02:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13 August 2008 19:24 (UTC)What's scary about this--aside from the possibility of misuse of the information that behavioral differences can be in part genetically determined, to which I alluded earlier--is that the prospect of being able to add, change, or remove such differences for our children is becoming more real. It would be a big responsibility, and arguably one of a different kind than those responsibilities involved in having and raising a child in the first place.
Even more scary, in a way: it's already possible to do amniocentesis to test for things like Down's Syndrome. The more kinds of factors that can be tested for, the more likely it may be that a parent will decide that they don't want to bear a child with (or without) factor X--and if we do not assume the ability to do genetic manipulation in utero, then the only option such parents would have is abortion. Which option will get used in some cases. I'm not in favor of bans on abortion, but this starts to get into some really sticky ethical issues. (Is it OK to abort a fetus because it will have Down's Syndrome? ADHD? Brown hair?)