Melissa Ottenbacher
Mr. Phillip Block
English 201
24 February 2008
The Ongoing Technological Battle
To what lengths would you go to be able to determine the gender of your baby? Would you be willing to sacrifice $18,000 or possibly even more just to have a baby boy or girl? In the twenty-first century, this has become possible with new technological advances of today. However, this technology comes with some big issues regarding ethics. This new technology also comes with failure rates and a concern with population ratios among the sexes. Despite the advantages that this technology has, it has to stop before it gets taken too far and gets out of control. Through this essay, one will be able to see the advantages and disadvantages of this advancing technology and understand how science has been taken one step too far.
Some of the moral and ethical issues that have come to mind with this new technology, called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), involve differing religious views on what to do with the embryos that were created and that science is going to take this too far. Some religions believe that a baby should only be created naturally by a man and wife and that a child is a precious gift from God no matter what sex the child is. “Many people instinctively react against the idea of tinkering with genetics. It evokes fears of playing God, of technological experimentation gone horribly awry, even of the end of humanity as we know it” (Tuhus-Dubrow 40). The issues of the embryos that are created in the laboratories pose a problem when it comes to disposal. Should the embryos be destroyed, frozen for later use, donated to scientific laboratories, or where should they end up? These are all ethical and moral questions that are a result of the new PGD technology.
Another issue pertaining to gender selection is the failure rate. Although the female is supposedly implanted with a female or male embryo, depending on what the family chooses, does that guarantee the scientists were correct? The answer to this question is no. Although some people were lead to believe they were having a female/male, they ended up having the gender they did not specifically choose. This goes to show that this technology has flaws leading to failure.
There is also another technology called “MicroSort technology -created originally by the Department of Agriculture to sort livestock sperm- works by mixing sperm with a DNA-specific dye that helps separate X’s from Y’s. The majority of couples who use MicroSort for gender selection have no fertility problems and use standard artificial insemination to conceive” (Kalb 3). Many couples who have used this approach have had to use more than one attempt to get pregnant. Also, “at last count, 91 percent of couples who requested an “X sort” gave birth to a baby girl and 76 percent who chose a “Y sort” produced a boy” (3).
The population could also be affected by gender selection throughout the world. Some countries favor a certain sex, such as China preferring males over females. With strong preferences towards one gender or the other, the population could soon become infiltrated with a large number of one sex but not the other. “One of the most vexing concerns is what some consider gender selection’s implicit sexism. When you choose one sex, the argument goes, you reject the other. In Asia girls have been aborted or killed and populations skewed, because of favoritism toward boys. Could the same thing happen here?” (Kalb 3). This is a very good question that could create problems down the road relating to the ratio of males to females throughout the world.
In addition to this new technology, cost is a huge factor. What would you be willing to pay just to have a child of your choice? Would you be willing to pay somewhere around $18,000 for PDG technology? (Kalb 2). MicroSort technology is cheaper at about $2,500; however, it usually takes more than one attempt to become pregnant (Kalb 3).
On the other side of the spectrum, this technology has had some breakthroughs for families who have desired a baby of a specific sex. Some families have a distinct history of males or females. So, after numerous children of the same sex, some families would like a baby of a different sex to bring joy to their family.
Another positive outcome that PDG and MicroSort offer is the ability to eliminate embryos that are abnormal. This could potentially increase the number of healthy babies born each year by detecting diseases within the embryo early on. Some families who know they carry a specific gene for a disorder could prevent passing it on to their children through PDG technology. “Initially, PGD targeted severe childhood diseases, such as Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia. Now, more parents use it to screen out genes for late-onset, treatable diseases, such as colon cancer” (Tuhus-Dubrow 37). “PGD has been used to test for more than 100 different genetic conditions to date” (Huang 2).
Audrey Huang with the Genetics and Public Policy Center goes on to say that “PGD has been used to diagnose chromosome abnormalities as well as single gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis, Tay Sachs disease, Marfan syndrome, muscular dystrophy, sickle cell and Fanconi anemias, and thalassemia” (Huang 1). According to Elpida Fragouli, “the number of diseases diagnosed has increased dramatically, as have the different patient groups who used PGD to achieve a healthy pregnancy” (Fragouli 201). Using PGD to test for chromosomally abnormal embryos is one thing, but “more controversial is the use of PGD to test for the sex of the embryo, or for late onset disorders such as Alzheimer disease, or for genetic susceptibility to diseases like hereditary breast cancer” (Huang 1).
Despite using PGD and MicroSort technology to detect abnormal embryos, the technology has made improvements; however, “MicroSort reports, 2.4 percent of its babies have been born with major malformations, like Down syndrome, compared with 3 to 4 percent in the general population” (Kalb 4). Therefore, this new technology is reducing some diseases, but it is really not decreasing them that much when one looks at the numbers.
Although there are no easy answers to this technology, there are a few simple solutions to gender selection. One alternative to gender selection is adoption. There are numerous children out there that need homes, so why not adopt? It seems like a logical answer to this technological dilemma facing our world today.
All in all, Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow sums the issue up saying “it appears inevitable that genetic technologies of all kinds will become one of the major issues of this century” (Tuhus-Dubrow 43). What will happen next? Will people be able to determine eye color, intelligence, hair color, and every aspect of their new baby? Nobody knows the exact answer to this question, although technology is becoming more and more advanced, so it is likely that it could be possible in our lifetime. Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow says that, “less certain, but plausible, is that scientists will be able to identify genes for more complex traits, such as intelligence and homosexuality. Genetic engineering, which will enable not merely the selection but the insertion of desired genes in on the horizon” (Tuhus-Dubrow 37). However, there is just a point where it is going to far. However, there are no simple answers to this new advancement, and it is likely to only get more complicated with all of the scientific research.
Works Cited
Fragouli, Elipida. “Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: present and future.” J Assist Reprod Genet 24 (2007): 201-207. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. U. of South Dakota, I.D. Weeks Lib., Vermillion, SD. 19 February 2008.
Huang, Audrey. “Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis.” Genetics and Public Policy Center, Feb. 2006.
Kalb, Claudia. “Brave New Babies.” Newsweek 26 Jan. (2004): 45-53. Rpt. in Child Growth and Development 14th edition. Ed. Ellen N. Junn and Chris J. Boyatzis. Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill Contemporary Learning Series, 2007. 2-4.
Tuhus-Dubrow, Rebecca. “Designer Babies and the Pro-Choice Movement.” Dissent (2007): 37-43. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. U. of South Dakota, I.D. Weeks Lib., Vermillion, SD. 19 February 2008.
Mr. Phillip Block
English 201
24 February 2008
The Ongoing Technological Battle
To what lengths would you go to be able to determine the gender of your baby? Would you be willing to sacrifice $18,000 or possibly even more just to have a baby boy or girl? In the twenty-first century, this has become possible with new technological advances of today. However, this technology comes with some big issues regarding ethics. This new technology also comes with failure rates and a concern with population ratios among the sexes. Despite the advantages that this technology has, it has to stop before it gets taken too far and gets out of control. Through this essay, one will be able to see the advantages and disadvantages of this advancing technology and understand how science has been taken one step too far.
Some of the moral and ethical issues that have come to mind with this new technology, called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), involve differing religious views on what to do with the embryos that were created and that science is going to take this too far. Some religions believe that a baby should only be created naturally by a man and wife and that a child is a precious gift from God no matter what sex the child is. “Many people instinctively react against the idea of tinkering with genetics. It evokes fears of playing God, of technological experimentation gone horribly awry, even of the end of humanity as we know it” (Tuhus-Dubrow 40). The issues of the embryos that are created in the laboratories pose a problem when it comes to disposal. Should the embryos be destroyed, frozen for later use, donated to scientific laboratories, or where should they end up? These are all ethical and moral questions that are a result of the new PGD technology.
Another issue pertaining to gender selection is the failure rate. Although the female is supposedly implanted with a female or male embryo, depending on what the family chooses, does that guarantee the scientists were correct? The answer to this question is no. Although some people were lead to believe they were having a female/male, they ended up having the gender they did not specifically choose. This goes to show that this technology has flaws leading to failure.
There is also another technology called “MicroSort technology -created originally by the Department of Agriculture to sort livestock sperm- works by mixing sperm with a DNA-specific dye that helps separate X’s from Y’s. The majority of couples who use MicroSort for gender selection have no fertility problems and use standard artificial insemination to conceive” (Kalb 3). Many couples who have used this approach have had to use more than one attempt to get pregnant. Also, “at last count, 91 percent of couples who requested an “X sort” gave birth to a baby girl and 76 percent who chose a “Y sort” produced a boy” (3).
The population could also be affected by gender selection throughout the world. Some countries favor a certain sex, such as China preferring males over females. With strong preferences towards one gender or the other, the population could soon become infiltrated with a large number of one sex but not the other. “One of the most vexing concerns is what some consider gender selection’s implicit sexism. When you choose one sex, the argument goes, you reject the other. In Asia girls have been aborted or killed and populations skewed, because of favoritism toward boys. Could the same thing happen here?” (Kalb 3). This is a very good question that could create problems down the road relating to the ratio of males to females throughout the world.
In addition to this new technology, cost is a huge factor. What would you be willing to pay just to have a child of your choice? Would you be willing to pay somewhere around $18,000 for PDG technology? (Kalb 2). MicroSort technology is cheaper at about $2,500; however, it usually takes more than one attempt to become pregnant (Kalb 3).
On the other side of the spectrum, this technology has had some breakthroughs for families who have desired a baby of a specific sex. Some families have a distinct history of males or females. So, after numerous children of the same sex, some families would like a baby of a different sex to bring joy to their family.
Another positive outcome that PDG and MicroSort offer is the ability to eliminate embryos that are abnormal. This could potentially increase the number of healthy babies born each year by detecting diseases within the embryo early on. Some families who know they carry a specific gene for a disorder could prevent passing it on to their children through PDG technology. “Initially, PGD targeted severe childhood diseases, such as Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia. Now, more parents use it to screen out genes for late-onset, treatable diseases, such as colon cancer” (Tuhus-Dubrow 37). “PGD has been used to test for more than 100 different genetic conditions to date” (Huang 2).
Audrey Huang with the Genetics and Public Policy Center goes on to say that “PGD has been used to diagnose chromosome abnormalities as well as single gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis, Tay Sachs disease, Marfan syndrome, muscular dystrophy, sickle cell and Fanconi anemias, and thalassemia” (Huang 1). According to Elpida Fragouli, “the number of diseases diagnosed has increased dramatically, as have the different patient groups who used PGD to achieve a healthy pregnancy” (Fragouli 201). Using PGD to test for chromosomally abnormal embryos is one thing, but “more controversial is the use of PGD to test for the sex of the embryo, or for late onset disorders such as Alzheimer disease, or for genetic susceptibility to diseases like hereditary breast cancer” (Huang 1).
Despite using PGD and MicroSort technology to detect abnormal embryos, the technology has made improvements; however, “MicroSort reports, 2.4 percent of its babies have been born with major malformations, like Down syndrome, compared with 3 to 4 percent in the general population” (Kalb 4). Therefore, this new technology is reducing some diseases, but it is really not decreasing them that much when one looks at the numbers.
Although there are no easy answers to this technology, there are a few simple solutions to gender selection. One alternative to gender selection is adoption. There are numerous children out there that need homes, so why not adopt? It seems like a logical answer to this technological dilemma facing our world today.
All in all, Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow sums the issue up saying “it appears inevitable that genetic technologies of all kinds will become one of the major issues of this century” (Tuhus-Dubrow 43). What will happen next? Will people be able to determine eye color, intelligence, hair color, and every aspect of their new baby? Nobody knows the exact answer to this question, although technology is becoming more and more advanced, so it is likely that it could be possible in our lifetime. Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow says that, “less certain, but plausible, is that scientists will be able to identify genes for more complex traits, such as intelligence and homosexuality. Genetic engineering, which will enable not merely the selection but the insertion of desired genes in on the horizon” (Tuhus-Dubrow 37). However, there is just a point where it is going to far. However, there are no simple answers to this new advancement, and it is likely to only get more complicated with all of the scientific research.
Works Cited
Fragouli, Elipida. “Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: present and future.” J Assist Reprod Genet 24 (2007): 201-207. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. U. of South Dakota, I.D. Weeks Lib., Vermillion, SD. 19 February 2008.
Huang, Audrey. “Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis.” Genetics and Public Policy Center, Feb. 2006.
Kalb, Claudia. “Brave New Babies.” Newsweek 26 Jan. (2004): 45-53. Rpt. in Child Growth and Development 14th edition. Ed. Ellen N. Junn and Chris J. Boyatzis. Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill Contemporary Learning Series, 2007. 2-4.
Tuhus-Dubrow, Rebecca. “Designer Babies and the Pro-Choice Movement.” Dissent (2007): 37-43. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. U. of South Dakota, I.D. Weeks Lib., Vermillion, SD. 19 February 2008.
