We’ve seen genetically modified foods are a controversial topic in news so what if there were to be genetically modified humans? That would surely raise a contentious debate simply due to the questionable ethics and medical implications. There are researchers who’ve founded a new fertilization technique that aims to keep mothers from passing on genetic diseases to their children, a noble purpose reached by unacceptable means. Of course, no one wants their child to have to a severe disability, but altering the child’s DNA by adding a third person’s is just not biologically correct, not to mention it may have implications on the pro-life argument. Of course, this is not as simple as whether genetic modification in humans is right or wrong because there are related issues like “designer babies” that need to be considered too.

Researcher Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the University of Oregon defends his research by labeling it “gene correction” and not “gene mutation.” He was present at a Food and Drug Administration conference devoted to deciding whether this procedure of altering DNA should be allowed or whether it should be nixed. Apparently, he had successfully tested his procedure and had produced five healthy monkeys with “corrected” DNA. He explains that since defective mitochondrial DNA is passed on only from the mother and not the father, nucleus DNA can be taken from a healthy donor’s eggs and can replace the biological mother’s mitochondrial DNA. With this specific technique, only the defective DNA is replaced so the baby will still inherit eye color and other traits from the real mother, just not the mutated genes. This insertion of genes from a third party is where the “three DNA” babies and genetically modified human labels come in along with the controversy.

As mentioned, the purpose of preventing mutated DNA from being transferred to the unborn child makes sense at face value because no parent wants their child to have a disease or something that will keep them from being healthy but this purpose raises a whole other issue. It slightly relates to the pro-life argument because it is altering the child that would have won in the “lottery of life.” If the baby had naturally been conceived from the thousands of the mother’s eggs, it deserves the chance to be born as it is naturally fertilized. This procedure is essentially changing the baby that would have been carried because it is not the fetus that would have naturally been born. Also, what happens to the donor’s eggs? They have genes missing and obviously they are not going to be replaced with the defective genes. So are those eggs just thrown away after use? There goes that potential child’s chance to live. All technicalities aside, a child is not meant to have the DNA of three people. The human reproductive model includes a mother and a father, and the child that is made is a combination of the two, mutations and all. The model does not include picking and choosing which parts the parents want to keep or trash. If our grandparents’ generation didn’t have this luxury then we shouldn’t either.

On the topic of our technological luxuries, it is worth discussing designer babies as related to the controversy. This sort of cutting and pasting of genes is flirting with the issue that is designer babies. Designer babies and gene correction are denying certain children from being born because science is catering to the parent’s desires. If the parents want and choose a blue-eyed blondie, then the green-eyed brunette is denied its equal chance at life. So too with disabilities and diseases, it is a slippery slope. Parents don’t want a child that will be suffering a hard life, and it is regrettable that the child has to feel pain, but does that warrant the parents to say “no” to that egg that should become a miracle of life? Going back to our grandparents’ generation, they didn’t have the choice of how their children came out, so should we? And furthermore, children with disabilities and illnesses are just as precious, if not more precious, and this procedure should not be a cop out to avoid hardship. Mutations happen and that’s life.

So I think that even though technology is very important, it is also a curse. Just because we have the technology to do this gene swapping doesn’t necessarily mean we should. Readers had a lot of good points on this topic, like the confusion the child will have when it learns that is has two moms or was born of a science experiment. Is it worth the hard conversations and explanations? Will they be Frankenbabies? Besides, there are thousands of healthy, orphaned kids that need to be adopted, if avoiding disease and illnesses are what parents are after. A beautiful solution and no science experiments necessary.