Is the era of designer babies finally here?
Every week, it seems, we're told that this discovery or that technology might lead to "designer
babies." I've heard this so many times that I've stopped taking it seriously. Genetic engineering
always turns out to be more complicated than expected, and our latest technology always turns out
to be less capable than advertised.
But now trait selection seems to be coming into view for real.
Two months ago, the Fertility Institutes, an assisted reproduction company headquartered in Los
Angeles, began advertising the "pending availability" of genetic tests that would offer "a
preselected choice of gender, eye color, hair color and complexion" in artificially conceived children.
On Thursday, Gautam Naik of the Wall Street Journal reported that "half a dozen" potential clients
had contacted the company to request such tests. As of today, the tests still aren't for sale. But
several trends are converging to make aesthetic trait selection an impending business.
1. Embryo screening has become permanently entrenched. By now, tens of thousands of embryos have
been screened for quality and potential disease, thanks to preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
Culturally and politically, there's no going back.
2. Screening is steadily expanding to traits that are less medically important. We're examining and
discarding embryos for flaws that are less lethal, less harmful, less likely to cause disease, and less
likely to strike early in life. Two years ago, British regulators approved PGD to get rid of embryos
that might become grotesquely cross-eyed. At the time, the head of the clinic that pioneered this
use of PGD predicted, "We will increasingly see the use of embryo screening for severe cosmetic
conditions."
3. Aesthetic screening is spreading. Once you're screening for "severe" cosmetic conditions, you can
no longer rule out other cosmetic criteria. The principal gateway to aesthetic use of PGD is sex
selection. Worldwide, the number of embryos and fetuses discarded for being the wrong sex is in
the millions. In this country, the number of clients paying for sex-selective PGD is in the thousands
and growing. Nearly half of U.S. clinics that offer PGD have used it for nonmedical sex selection, and
40 percent of Americans approve of this practice. The Fertility Institutes explicitly frames eye,
hair, and skin color selection as an extension of sex selection.
4. A market for nonmedical trait selection is emerging. Naik points to a New York University survey
of patients seeking genetic counseling. In the survey, published three weeks ago, 10 to 13 percent of
respondents said they would use PGD to select height, athletic ability, or intelligence. NYU spins this
as a tiny minority. But in raw numbers, it's easily enough to attract opportunistic entrepreneurs.
5. Aesthetic trait selection is becoming feasible. This used to be the sticking point in bringing the
technology to market. No more. Naik reports:
In October 2007, scientists from deCode Genetics of Iceland published a paper in Nature Genetics
pinpointing various [genes] that influence skin, eye and hair color, based on samples taken from
people in Iceland and the Netherlands. Along with related genes discovered earlier, "the variants
described in this report enable prediction of pigmentation traits based upon an individual's DNA,"
the company said. … William Kearns, a medical geneticist and director of the Shady Grove Center for
Preimplantation Genetics in Rockville, Md., says he has made headway in cracking the problem. In a
presentation made at a November meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics in
Philadelphia, he described how he had managed to amplify the DNA available from a single embryonic
cell to identify complex diseases and also certain physical traits. Of 42 embryos tested, Dr. Kearns
said he had enough data to identify [genes] that relate to northern European skin, hair and eye
pigmentation in 80% of the samples.
Kearns isn't offering his method for aesthetic PGD. He doesn't have to. He's just the trailblazer
who's inadvertently showing less scrupulous followers how they could make it work.
6. Doctors have an easy way to talk themselves into offering the service. Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg,
medical director of the Fertility Institutes, sees trait selection as a natural extension of the road
his profession is already traveling. "This is cosmetic medicine," he tells the Journal. Watch
Steinberg's promotional video, and you'll see how easy it is to sell trait selection as just another
consumer service. Reproductive technology can "help fertile and infertile couples choose the gender
they've always wished for," the video's female narrator promises. Steinberg appears on camera,
assuring potential customers that his personnel are experts at "evaluating embryos and making sure
that people get their request for a boy or a girl." You want a girl? We'll get you a girl. You want a
blonde? We'll get you a blonde.
7. Patients have an easy way to talk themselves into buying the service. You don't have to request
PGD just to screen your embryos for eye or hair color. That might feel icky. Instead, Steinberg
offers you a package deal:
Patients having genetic screening for abnormal chromosome conditions in their embryos will be able
to elect expanded testing that can greatly increase the odds of achieving a healthy pregnancy with a
preselected choice of gender, eye color, hair color and complexion, along with screening for
potentially lethal diseases, screening for cancer tendencies (breast, colon, pancreas, prostate) and
more.
See how smooth the transition can be? You're already screening for diseases. Why not add one more
factor while you're at it? So now you'll know which embryos are male and which are female, just in
case two of them turn out to be healthy and you're lucky enough to be able to choose which one to put
in the womb. And if you're checking sex, why not throw in eye color and complexion? You don't have to
do anything with the information yet. Just run the test and find out what your options are.
8. Globalization thwarts regulation. "A large majority of industrialized countries—including Canada,
the UK, most of Europe, Japan, Israel, China, and Australia—prohibits non-medical sex selection,"
notes the Center for Genetics and Society. But the United States doesn't, and according to CGS
Associate Director Marcy Darnovsky, Steinberg exploits this gap by "offering travel packages so
that people can come to the US to dodge laws in their home nations." CGS wants tougher U.S. laws.
Good luck with that: Steinberg already has a satellite clinic in Mexico.
This is how revolutions happen: Technology matures, trends converge, and cultural changes pave the
way. By the time Steinberg opens his trait-selection business and does for that practice what he's
already doing for sex selection, it'll be too late to stop him. In fact, before you know it, we'll be
used to it.
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives
Won the Abortion War.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2211390/
Next
Every week, it seems, we're told that this discovery or that technology might lead to "designer
babies." I've heard this so many times that I've stopped taking it seriously. Genetic engineering
always turns out to be more complicated than expected, and our latest technology always turns out
to be less capable than advertised.
But now trait selection seems to be coming into view for real.
Two months ago, the Fertility Institutes, an assisted reproduction company headquartered in Los
Angeles, began advertising the "pending availability" of genetic tests that would offer "a
preselected choice of gender, eye color, hair color and complexion" in artificially conceived children.
On Thursday, Gautam Naik of the Wall Street Journal reported that "half a dozen" potential clients
had contacted the company to request such tests. As of today, the tests still aren't for sale. But
several trends are converging to make aesthetic trait selection an impending business.
1. Embryo screening has become permanently entrenched. By now, tens of thousands of embryos have
been screened for quality and potential disease, thanks to preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
Culturally and politically, there's no going back.
2. Screening is steadily expanding to traits that are less medically important. We're examining and
discarding embryos for flaws that are less lethal, less harmful, less likely to cause disease, and less
likely to strike early in life. Two years ago, British regulators approved PGD to get rid of embryos
that might become grotesquely cross-eyed. At the time, the head of the clinic that pioneered this
use of PGD predicted, "We will increasingly see the use of embryo screening for severe cosmetic
conditions."
3. Aesthetic screening is spreading. Once you're screening for "severe" cosmetic conditions, you can
no longer rule out other cosmetic criteria. The principal gateway to aesthetic use of PGD is sex
selection. Worldwide, the number of embryos and fetuses discarded for being the wrong sex is in
the millions. In this country, the number of clients paying for sex-selective PGD is in the thousands
and growing. Nearly half of U.S. clinics that offer PGD have used it for nonmedical sex selection, and
40 percent of Americans approve of this practice. The Fertility Institutes explicitly frames eye,
hair, and skin color selection as an extension of sex selection.
4. A market for nonmedical trait selection is emerging. Naik points to a New York University survey
of patients seeking genetic counseling. In the survey, published three weeks ago, 10 to 13 percent of
respondents said they would use PGD to select height, athletic ability, or intelligence. NYU spins this
as a tiny minority. But in raw numbers, it's easily enough to attract opportunistic entrepreneurs.
5. Aesthetic trait selection is becoming feasible. This used to be the sticking point in bringing the
technology to market. No more. Naik reports:
In October 2007, scientists from deCode Genetics of Iceland published a paper in Nature Genetics
pinpointing various [genes] that influence skin, eye and hair color, based on samples taken from
people in Iceland and the Netherlands. Along with related genes discovered earlier, "the variants
described in this report enable prediction of pigmentation traits based upon an individual's DNA,"
the company said. … William Kearns, a medical geneticist and director of the Shady Grove Center for
Preimplantation Genetics in Rockville, Md., says he has made headway in cracking the problem. In a
presentation made at a November meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics in
Philadelphia, he described how he had managed to amplify the DNA available from a single embryonic
cell to identify complex diseases and also certain physical traits. Of 42 embryos tested, Dr. Kearns
said he had enough data to identify [genes] that relate to northern European skin, hair and eye
pigmentation in 80% of the samples.
Kearns isn't offering his method for aesthetic PGD. He doesn't have to. He's just the trailblazer
who's inadvertently showing less scrupulous followers how they could make it work.
6. Doctors have an easy way to talk themselves into offering the service. Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg,
medical director of the Fertility Institutes, sees trait selection as a natural extension of the road
his profession is already traveling. "This is cosmetic medicine," he tells the Journal. Watch
Steinberg's promotional video, and you'll see how easy it is to sell trait selection as just another
consumer service. Reproductive technology can "help fertile and infertile couples choose the gender
they've always wished for," the video's female narrator promises. Steinberg appears on camera,
assuring potential customers that his personnel are experts at "evaluating embryos and making sure
that people get their request for a boy or a girl." You want a girl? We'll get you a girl. You want a
blonde? We'll get you a blonde.
7. Patients have an easy way to talk themselves into buying the service. You don't have to request
PGD just to screen your embryos for eye or hair color. That might feel icky. Instead, Steinberg
offers you a package deal:
Patients having genetic screening for abnormal chromosome conditions in their embryos will be able
to elect expanded testing that can greatly increase the odds of achieving a healthy pregnancy with a
preselected choice of gender, eye color, hair color and complexion, along with screening for
potentially lethal diseases, screening for cancer tendencies (breast, colon, pancreas, prostate) and
more.
See how smooth the transition can be? You're already screening for diseases. Why not add one more
factor while you're at it? So now you'll know which embryos are male and which are female, just in
case two of them turn out to be healthy and you're lucky enough to be able to choose which one to put
in the womb. And if you're checking sex, why not throw in eye color and complexion? You don't have to
do anything with the information yet. Just run the test and find out what your options are.
8. Globalization thwarts regulation. "A large majority of industrialized countries—including Canada,
the UK, most of Europe, Japan, Israel, China, and Australia—prohibits non-medical sex selection,"
notes the Center for Genetics and Society. But the United States doesn't, and according to CGS
Associate Director Marcy Darnovsky, Steinberg exploits this gap by "offering travel packages so
that people can come to the US to dodge laws in their home nations." CGS wants tougher U.S. laws.
Good luck with that: Steinberg already has a satellite clinic in Mexico.
This is how revolutions happen: Technology matures, trends converge, and cultural changes pave the
way. By the time Steinberg opens his trait-selection business and does for that practice what he's
already doing for sex selection, it'll be too late to stop him. In fact, before you know it, we'll be
used to it.
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives
Won the Abortion War.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2211390/
Next
 | |  | |  |