Eugenics, 21st Century Style

Genocide based on racial or physiological differences has been so thoroughly (and rightly) lambasted in our society that even the idea of it is execrable.

But when economic incentive is introduced, no act of murder is too vile to withhold from the unborn and defenseless.

We have evidently arrived at that anticipated (and dreaded) point in history at which point "designer babies" have begun to emerge as available for purchase.

The LA Fertility Institutes run by Dr Jeff Steinberg, a pioneer of IVF in the 1970s, expects a trait-selected baby to be born next year.

His clinic also offers sex selection.

How convenient. You can just pick out a baby that has the traits you in your wisdom deem most desirable for the upcoming generation. But perhaps there are some negative aspects to this technology?

The science is based on a lab technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD. This involves testing a cell taken from a very early embryo before it is put into the mother's womb.

Doctors then select an embryo free from rogue genes - or in this case an embryo with the desired physical traits such as blonde hair and blue eyes - to continue the pregnancy, and discard any others.

"Discard any others". That is to say, they find the embryo out of that batch that they want, and let the other ones die. Now for those who argue that a 6-cell embryo is not yet human, I have two questions. First, if it's not human, what other form of life is it? Second, is it not brazen sophistry (let alone blatantly hypocritical) to say that the technology is there for people to pick out hair and eye color for their child, then in the same breath say that it's not a child?

Now of course, such a ground-breaking step is fraught with controversy within the scientific community.

"It's technically feasible and it can be done," says Mark Hughes, a pioneer of the PGD process and director of Genesis Genetics Institute, a large fertility laboratory in Detroit. However, he adds that "no legitimate lab would get into it and, if they did, they'd be ostracized."

But Fertility Institutes disagrees. "This is cosmetic medicine," says Jeff Steinberg, director of the clinic that is advertising gender and physical trait selection on its Web site. "Others are frightened by the criticism but we have no problems with it."

Mark Hughes is either being outrightly deceptive, or a victim of wishful thinking. Jeff Steinberg represents the future of this clinic. There is unbelievable profit within this technology. How many parents would pay to make their child more intelligent, taller, more athletic, etc, if the means to do so was readily available to them?

A recent poll taken shows that there are already a number of them that would.

In a recent U.S. survey of 999 people who sought genetic counseling, a majority said they supported prenatal genetic tests for the elimination of certain serious diseases. The survey found that 56% supported using them to counter blindness and 75% for mental retardation.

More provocatively, about 10% of respondents said they would want genetic testing for athletic ability, while another 10% voted for improved height. Nearly 13% backed the approach to select for superior intelligence, according to the survey conducted by researchers at the New York University School of Medicine.

And this is just the beginning. Once the technology begins to be more widely used, and if it displays consistent results, imagine the clamoring of competitive parents for their offspring to have the advantage that other parents are giving theirs. Imagine the testimonials of proud parents touting their gene-selected children's success in school.

Now of course, all this is not so simple. Success in anything is not merely the genes one brings to the table. One can argue whether leaders are born or made, but the truth is that at least a great number of them have been made. The same is true of the rest of life. While success in school often comes to very intelligent children, it comes arguably more consistently often to children who have parents who love them, discipline them, and reinforce their education.

Athletics, one of the prime fields I can imagine this technology being advertised for, is the same. How many "sports dads" can be persuaded into taking this route just by being asked "What if you prevent your son from a future in sports by withholding this advantage from him?"

Of course, the other way of phrasing the question: "Are you willing to kill off several to many future children in exchange for having one with a possible slight advantage?" will never be asked.

A Brave New World indeed.

-()4|<.