Designer Jeans from designer genes? 

On October 30^th this year Britain opened a national sperm bank. Its purpose is to aid those wishing to have babies and where the traditional delivery route of the sperm is for some reason not an option. Another reason for a national sperm bank is to help meet the demand which has outstripped supply the report said.

Many of these sperm donations will be used in in vitro fertilization or IVF which again was pioneered by the Brits when in 1978 the first so-called ‘test-tube’ baby was born, although it must be quickly clarified that Louise Brown spent almost all of her nine months developing as an embryo in her mother’s womb just like any other baby, and not in some large glass jar. It is just that for some reason Louise could not be conceived in the old-fashioned way; but by bringing her parents’ egg and sperm together in vitro as the Latin goes – in a glass container – and then putting the fertilized egg – after it has shown itself viable as a ball of cells called a blastocyst – into the mother’s womb. Since 1978 millions of babies around the world have found life in this way. After the initial shock and inevitable condemnation from ultra-conservatives, such a procedure is now generally viewed as just another way in which modern medical science can help bring life and happiness to grateful mothers and couples. 

Since 1978, and particularly the last fifteen years, advances in human genetics have brought a new dimension to the story, and further moral dilemmas. Once the fertilized egg has reached the blastocyst stage, and before it is inserted into the mother-to-be, it is safely possible to extract one cell from the ball of cells and to study the cell’s chromosomes. A common reason for such screening is this: if the technician can see in the cell that there are three copies of chromosome 21, instead of the normal two, this means with certainty that the child will suffer from Down’s syndrome.  Many will simply opt not to use this blastocyst. Other genetically based diseases can be detected.

I drive a twenty year old Honda. My ire is sometimes roused when a guy cuts in front of me in his brand new Mercedes or Cadillac. But in my calmer moments I do not advocate that fancier cars not be made simply because I can’t afford them. I admire their beauty and performance, and also know that these top-end cars pull up the engineering in our less expensive cars. But cars are not human beings so what’s my point. The human body is not a perfect design either, but it’s pretty darned good, and we evolved into this condition surprisingly fast. That means only one thing: evolutionary pressure, which is a euphemistic phrase for a very high death rate amongst our ancestors – culling in a ruthless way the not-so-fast, the not-so-strong, the not-so-smart etc.  

But this cruel mechanism of nature no longer applies to us humans thank goodness. Modern medicine achieves greater and greater miracles all the time, even giving sight and hearing to otherwise blind or deaf children, and curing all sorts of diseases and ailments that afflict many of us. Most of us knew someone who died of cancer. We cry out for a cure as if there can be an all-cancer vaccine or something. For some forms there are genetic predilections for these cancers. Why not nip them in the bud? 

Despite being well made, our bodies are not perfect, and that goes for the genes that control the blueprint. Too many people suffer from imperfections they did not choose, and their parents had no idea they were passing on to us. If wild nature’s ‘survival of the fittest’ technique is no longer an option, then medical science should continue to look for ways of curing at the source and not just treating the problem later.  

Improvements in the human race in future could well be through genetic selection and modification. It sounds pretty scary right now perhaps. At present straightforward IVF is still expensive, let alone genetic work on top, and therefore in the near future only rich people will be able to order healthier, even better-looking and more intelligent ‘enhanced children’. Perhaps it sends shudders down your spine. This left-leaning liberal democrat is going to play devil’s advocate here and ask - is it really so much different from the rich person who can buy a better-looking, better performing, even safer automobile? And house and lifestyle? If it sounds unfair and elitist, remember that just over a hundred years ago only rich people could afford cars; now most of us have one. Just maybe, genetically improved babies will become not so unusual a century from now, and therefore in time, as these better genes spread, improve the general health of the population, as evolutionary pressure did in earlier times.