Would you choose gene editing for your children to give them an advantage?

[workwoes123]

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/intelligence-squared/id708371900?i=1000517334125

Fascinating discussion of the discovery and possible use of CRISPR technology, and the ethical dilemmas that it throws up.

If money was no object and safety was completely assured, would you choose to give your children advantages in this way? To make them a few inches taller / cleverer / stronger / faster? To remove an obesity gene or to make them less introverted or more confident? To make them prettier / more handsome?

YANBU - I’d take advantage of this to help my children get ahead and have a better life
YABU - I wouldn’t do this (and why not?)

No.
But I would make sure that none of them had the BRCA2 gene that ensured I got breast cancer at 36 because they have a 50:50 chance of having it. I had my children before cancer.
And I'd make sure that my lovely DS1 didn't have the nasty genetic condition he was born with and now has a 50:50 chance of passing to any children.
HTH.

Wouldn't use it to change personality traits but if I could have made sure my DD inherited her dad's 20/20 eyesight instead of my astigmatism then I would have considered it.

For all the examples you gave, the only one I’d consider is an obesity gene (is there such a thing?), because that’s a health issue.
I certainly wouldn’t want a world where everyone removed “introverted-ness” genes. That would be hell.

Wouldn't they be completely different people though?

This is just eugenics by technology, isn’t it?

My great grandmother considered her son a perfect specimen & disinherited him for marrying my grandma, because she was short sighted & might breed children handicapped by short sight...

That's a such a hard one!

DS is a wonderful young man who makes me proud every day. His autism overwhelms him at times and he feels cursed by it. But he wouldn't be who he is without it.

No I wouldn't. We don't have a clear understanding yet of how different genes interact. For example, we've identified the breast cancer gene mentioned by weebarra - but not everyone with the gene gets breast cancer, although it does mean you're much more likely to. We don't yet understand why. Messing around with one / some genes could have unintended effects.

So hard because genes could have a chain reaction down stream
I'd perhaps do it if the chances of contracting Huntington's or BRCA2 gene etc were very high. However, you can bet your life designer babies would start appearing

I would consider genetic modification for clear health reason (removing a genetic illness for instance) but not for looks no. Beauty is subjective anyway. Intelligence is also such a varied concept it couldn't be tweaked really - what intelligence? Academic? Emotional? I cant see the benefit of height or not being introverted. Or indeed being strong, fast or confident. It can easily backfire.

Hmmm, would these attributes be so valued if they were commonplace? If everyone had access to the same technology and we could go ahead and ensure our children were tall, stunning, polymaths we’d probably find some other rare “lucky” trait to aspire to.

The only thing I would use it for is DD... she had IUGR and its left her very stunted in height relative to her genetic potential based on DH and I. If this could do anything to help her reach an average adult height, I'd maybe think about it. But I think that's because I'd see it not as changing what she is but restoring what she was supposed to be. Even then I think I would struggle long and hard with that decision.

I hate my sons genetic condition and carry the guilt of giving it to him every day because he has struggles every day. But I honestly do not know if he would be the same boy without it. There’s also the issue that some people are mildly affected, some moderately (ds) and some severely and you can’t tell at birth.

It’s an interesting question. Our eldest is profoundly deaf, genetic, both DH and I carry a gene for deafness, so any children we have have a 25% chance of being deaf. We’ve got one deaf child and one hearing child. I would not consider this kind of technology to ensure any future children were hearing, I honestly wouldn’t. I agree with the above poster, it’s too close to eugenics for me. We’re not planning any more kids, and one of the reasons is the possibility of deafness. But if I really wanted one, I would roll the dice rather than go crispr. However, if the gene we carried was for Huntingtons, or one of the awful genetic conditions that cause degeneration and death in childhood, then I of course would consider it.

It’s an absolute ethical minefield isn’t it!

I know it probably won’t get a favourable response but I’d remove autism from both my children. Their lives are very hard and they suffer with extreme anxiety. A simple trip out is incredibly difficult for them. Anything that you think they’ll enjoy is often overshadowed by their anxiety.

Yes.
If I could get rid of my children's autism I would do it in a heartbeat.

My dh is a carrier for cystic fibrosis. I'm clear, but if i wasnt then we might have been offered selective ivf. So that's kind of the same thing. Still undecided as to whether i would have done it. If i could remove cf from the world and stop anyone suffering with it, i would. But i don't think id genetically modify my children, especially not for the things this society deems is important (extra height, slim, intelligence etc) . They are who they are.

It's hard.

I'd like to say no, but if it became the norm, what then? Would I stick by my principles and have an 'average' child who then had to live and compete in a world where the majority of children had been selectively enhanced?

Wasn't there a movie about this with the Bourne Identity bloke in it?

It totally is eugenics. And atm we are still collectively working out how to handle it. Unless we manage to put some globally agreed controls in place that are enforceable at the national level, those who can afford it will be able to buy these services.

And who wouldn’t want their kids to be taller, faster, stronger, with quicker reactions? Sounds like a great way to achieve sporting success. Or to be more confident, more outgoing, more intelligent? Sounds like a way to get ahead in pretty much any high earning field. Or prettier, slimmer etc? A lot of «success» falls to attractive people.

(I did try to stay away from medical conditions as the ethical implications are different but the technology can potentially be applied to all of the above).

I've been offered NHS selective IVF to screen out embryos with the genetic condition I have.

Perfectly reasonable really - it's expensive, incurable, and brings no benefits whatsoever to my life.

In your scenario, I'd also make them average height and hope they followed after me for academic intelligence.

What if you made your kid tall but they wanted to be a jockey or gymnast?
We wouldn't be human if we didn't have "flaws". And there will always be something else we want to change. I don't like the idea of fiddling with genes for superficial reasons

Isn't this the premise of the new Kazuo Ishiguro novel?

For inherited disorders like cystic fibrosis or huntingdon's, yes. For any other reason, no, it's horrific

I think I would say yes and remove DD1's autism.
She has been particularly challenging today and anxiety ridden so maybe if you caught me on a better day I'd say no. Tricky one.

@katy1213

Isn't this the premise of the new Kazuo Ishiguro novel?

Yes and it doesn't go all that well!

I think that as long as it was only available to the rich it would be seen as desirable. If it became available to all, then it would be downmarket and some other things would become the standards of perfection.