By: YAHYA AMIR SHARIFF
In the rapidly evolving world of science and technology, the ability to edit human DNA has opened the door to an idea that once belonged purely to science fiction: designer babies — a controversial yet fascinating development in biotechnology. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines a designer baby as “a baby whose genetic makeup has been selected in order to eradicate a particular defect, or to ensure that a particular gene is present” (2005). These babies originate from embryos created outside the human body (in vitro fertilisation) and undergo genetic interventions to produce pre-implantation embryos in order to influence the traits of the resulting children (Pang, 2016). Proponents of the legalisation of designer babies view the matter through a medical lens, arguing that by editing an embryo’s genes, professionals could provide resistance to genetic diseases coded by mutations in DNA, as well as genetic disorders, while also allowing parents to produce saviour siblings. However, there are reasons for it being kept illegal, such as the significant ethical concerns involved, and the safety risks, such as the low reliability of the technology and technique involved.
For the purpose of this essay, I would like to clarify the two types of technologies involved. New Hope Fertility Center explains that designer babies can be produced via genetic modification, which is possible due to the advancement of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology, which can add or remove certain genes from a molecule of DNA (2017). Otherwise, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis is taken advantage of. A process where “embryotic genetic defects are identified preimplantation and only embryos devoid of certain genetic disorders are implanted”.
The first and most significant benefit of editing a baby’s genes is the potential to provide resistance against genetic diseases. These include HIV, which is carried by one percent of the U.S. population; sickle cell anemia, which affects about 100,000 Americans; and hemophilia, with about one in every 5,000 babies in the U.S. born with classic hemophilia (Lander, 2015). The credibility of this source is irrefutable, as it was published in an essay for the New England Journal of Medicine, however, the statistics are limited in the sense that they are restricted to America. Nonetheless, it succeeds in conveying the fact that genetic diseases claim a multitude of victims every year. Abhijit Mitra, former Head of the Department of Marine Science at The University of Calcutta, explicitly stated that “with the alteration of an individual’s genome, inheritable diseases and disorders can be prevented from being passed on to future generations” (Mitra, 2021). A publication from Seisen International School in Japan asserts that genetic editing could pave the way for future generations to become naturally immune to diseases that are currently life-threatening (Sunny, 2020). Although Sunny is not a qualified expert due to her limited experience as a student, her claims align with those of Mitra, a PhD holder in science and a gold medalist in M.Sc., who has published 720 scientific papers in various national and international journals. Mitra’s proficiency makes Sunny’s statements somewhat more contextualized and supported because, by preventing these diseases from being passed down, humans could attain natural immunity. Consequently, there is no doubt that successful genetic modification can vastly improve the survival rates of children and increase the life expectancy of adults, regardless of their geographical location. Potentially, solving the crisis of genetic diseases would be revolutionary in the medical field, enabling doctors to research and work towards finding solutions to other threats facing the human population. This demonstrates that designer babies offer significant benefits to humanity, providing compelling reasons for why their legalization should be considered.
Furthermore, by determining the qualities of a designer baby, the concept of savior siblings can be explored. Savior siblings are a form of designer babies, created by PGD, and are described as “children who are conceived with assisted reproduction techniques to save the life of a sibling affected with a fatal disease” (Lucascio, 2025). Mark Lucascio elaborated that in a study involving 57 saviour siblings, no complications were reported in 77.3% of cases. He is proven to be a credible writer due to his substantial experience in this field. With a documented history of achievements in the biotech and stem cell banking sector, he was even honored as one of Illinois’ top 32 CEOs in the biotech industry in 2022. However, his study is limited in the sense that only 57 cases were recorded, and a majority of the cases involved bone marrow and umbilical cord blood transplants. A larger and more varied selection of specimens would have increased the reliability of the findings. Nevertheless, it still stands that the procedures were successful in 77.3% of cases, demonstrating that savior siblings are a viable source of transplants for their older siblings. An example of this, as reported by The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), is that of Kavya Solanki, India’s first savior sibling. Kavya was born in 2018, and at the age of 18 months, her bone marrow was extracted and transplanted into Abhijit, her seven-year-old brother, who suffered from thalassemia major. When the family’s bone marrow, including Abhijit’s older sister’s, was not a match, they decided to explore the possibility of a savior sibling. The technique utilised for Kavya’s birth was preimplantation genetic diagnosis, and it reportedly took more than six months to create the embryo, screen it, and match it with Abhijit’s (Pandey, 2020). In conclusion, reliable reports from the BBC and Mark Lucascio, including his use of specific statistics, work side by side to provide evidence for the success of saviour siblings and, in turn, designer babies, which allowed parents to save their children. Given these considerations, there are some compelling arguments for why designer babies should be legalised.
However, others argue that the production of designer babies involves numerous social issues. A publication from The Indonesian Institute of Science and Technology Research explores a social implication: if this technology were to become an accessible and realistic medical practice, it could generate a rift between those who can afford the service and those who cannot (Hisan, 2023). Urfa Khairatun Hisan, a credible source due to her experience as a lecturer at the Faculty of Medicine at Ahmad Dahlan University, Indonesia, and her research interests in medical bioethics, elaborates that gene editing technology will be costly, leaving only affluent families able to afford the enhancement of their children.. As a result, economic distinctions may evolve into genetic distinctions, with social divisions alienating regular human beings from their enhanced counterparts. Designer babies would likely excel in certain aspects of life, such as employment, making it increasingly difficult for natural humans to thrive, which in turn could lead to greater income inequality as well. Moreover, it is plausible that genetic engineering may heighten parental expectations. An article from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation elaborates that if the selected qualities do not materialise, or if the child fails to make use of them, the disappointment of the parents could lead to the rejection of their children (Thompson, 2019). The sacred bond between parent and child would be heavily compromised due to the expectations set in place via gene manipulation. This is in accordance with Jenna Thompson, who is a Professor of Philosophy, La Trobe University. Also, having published books on reparative justice and intergenerational justice, Thompson proves to be a reliable source. In this way, Urfa Hisan and Jenna Thompson illustrate the social concerns surrounding designer babies, such as inequality and unfair parental expectations, highlighting why the production of designer babies should be illegal.
Lastly, it is argued that the production of designer babies is associated with a plethora of risks. Specifically, gene editing, as done with CRISPR technology, raises many safety concerns. Nicholas Agar, Ph.D, is a senior lecturer at the University of Wellington, New Zealand. His research hones in on the ethics of new genetics and how they may alter human beings. He explains that, as of right now, genetic modification introduces genes at random locations in the genome, which may disrupt the functioning of other genes that are necessary for our survival. Moreover, many genes have multiple effects. The intended effect could be accompanied by others, of which we become aware only later. For example, the gene HBB can provide resistance to malaria, but simultaneously may induce sickle cell anemia (Agar, 2006). His research is proven to be reliable, due to his credibility as a writer on biotechnology and because his research was published in ActionBioscience, an educational website dedicated to bridging the gap between science and society by making complex biological issues, regarding genetics, biotechnology, evolution, etc, understandable and relevant. Moreover, if any slight change were to occur in an embryo’s genetics, there would be an increased chance of erroneous results, as stated by the Science Repository (an open-access British journal that serves the global academic community). Regarding mistakes in genetic editing, there is a significant lack of knowledge about what could happen in humans due to insufficient testing. If any unanticipated outcomes were to arise, doctors and scientists may not know how to address them, leading to serious complications. Consequently, unwanted and irreversible genetic modifications would be passed onto future generations, haunting individuals for years to come (Science Repository, 2021). Thus, Nicholas Agar and the Science Repository collaboratively convey the risks associated with producing designer babies, specifically those involving genetic modification. These risks include disrupting the function of essential genes, the edited gene having more than one effect, and the possibility of erroneous results. With light shed on these arguments, there are some notable reasons for designer babies to be illegal.
Both perspectives on the legalisation of designer babies held logical claims backed by credible sources. Those conveying the benefits of this practice were strengthened by the statistics on the success of saviour siblings, logically connecting that to an increase in the occurrence of more successful transplants. Before my research, I was unaware of what the production of designer babies truly entailed, only considering them on a very surface level basis. Once I began researching the resistance it brought to genetic diseases along with the concept of saviour siblings, I tended to favour the legalisation of this practice. I continued to find a specific example of a successful savior sibling and international opinions from America, Australia, Britain, India, Indonesia, Japan, and New Zealand that outlined the advantages of designer babies, furthering my belief in this practice. I also considered varied sources such as those from medical experts, students, university lecturers, researchers, and fertility centers. However, as I continued investigating this notion, I found that the production of these babies was unethical, along with unsafe, making me doubt whether the production of designer babies was even viable on a large scale. I now believe that the creation of such babies should be limited to those conceived through Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, while geneedited babies remain illegal.Since the babies are not genetically modified, many safety risks and ethical concerns can be avoided. At the same time, several advantages remain, such as preventing genetic diseases and enabling the production of saviour siblings. Due to the fact that modifying the genes of a human embryo is currently an illegal practice, statistics and relevant human data were not able to be collected. Therefore, I was unable to support the plausibility of my claims that gene editing could prevent genetic diseases or produce savior siblings, nor include their success rates. However, further research into how genetic modification has worked in lab animals such as mice may have offered insight into the practicality of genetic manipulation, along with success rates of certain genetic changes, allowing for more appropriate conclusions.
Bibliography
- Agar, N. (2006). Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations. [online]
ActionBioscience. Available at: https://downloads.regulations.gov/FDA-2016-P2955-0176/attachment_10.pdf [Accessed 17 Apr. 2025]. - Are designer babies the future reality? | the prospect of designer babies. (2021).
Science Repository. [online] Available at:
https://www.sciencerepository.org/are-designer-babies-the-future-reality
[Accessed 19 Apr. 2025]. - Knoepfler, P. (2016). You can’t retract a designer baby: CRISPR, social justice, &
risks – The Niche. [online] The Niche. Available at:
https://ipscell.com/2016/03/you-cant-retract-a-designer-baby/ [Accessed 19
Apr. 2025]. - Lander, E.S. (2015). Brave New Genome. New England Journal of Medicine,
373(1), pp.5–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp1506446. - Locascio, M. (2025). Cord Blood Banking Blog. [online] MiracleCord. Available
at: https://miraclecord.com/news/savior-siblings/ [Accessed 12 Apr. 2025]. - MiracleCord. (2022). Mark Locascio | MiracleCord. [online] Available at:
https://miraclecord.com/mark-locascio/ [Accessed 12 Apr. 2025]. - Mitra, A. (2021). (PDF) Designer Babies: Pros and Cons. [online] ResearchGate.
Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354555167_Designer_Babies_Pros
_and_Cons [Accessed 7 Apr. 2025]. - New Hope Fertility (2017). Designer Babies. [online] Newhopefertility.com.
Available at: https://www.newhopefertility.com/designer-babies/ [Accessed 10
Apr. 2025]. - Pandey, G. (2020). India’s first ‘saviour sibling’ cures brother of fatal illness. BBC
News. [online] 27 Oct. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asiaindia-54658007 [Accessed 12 Apr. 2025]. - Pang, R.T.K. (2016). Designer Babies. Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive
Medicine, [online] 26(2), pp.59–60.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogrm.2015.11.011. - Rainie, L., Funk, C., Anderson, M. and Tyson, A. (2022). Americans Are Closely
Divided over Editing a Baby’s Genes to Reduce Serious Health Risk. [online]
Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Available at:
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/americans-are-closelydivided-over-editing-a-babys-genes-to-reduce-serious-health-risk/ [Accessed 14
Apr. 2025]. - S, S. (2020). Designer Babies, The Key To A Better Developed World. [online]
www.seisen.com. Available at: https://www.seisen.com/student-life/seisenpost/features/~board/seisen-post/post/designer-babies-the-key-to-a-betterdeveloped-world [Accessed 5 Apr. 2025]. - Thompson, J. (2019). Want a perfect baby? Soon you’ll be able to order one.
ABC News. [online] 20 Feb. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-
02-20/what-we-risk-as-humans-if-we-allow-gene-edited-babies/10824860
[Accessed 25 Apr. 2025]. - Urfa Khairatun Hisan, U. (2023). Designer Babies are No Longer Science
Fiction: What are The Ethical Considerations? [online] The Indonesian Institute
of Science and Technology Research. Available at:
https://journal.iistr.org/index.php/BST/article/view/437/353 [Accessed 24
Apr. 2025].