Restricting Genetic Engineering on Humans
Introduction to Genetic Engineering
Modern society is characterized by our ability to use technology to advance and adapt to the ever-changing pace of life. While these technological advancements can be beneficial, there are some aspects that call into question ethical and moral values. One such technology is that of genetic engineering on humans. In a generalized definition, genetic engineering is “the process of deliberately modifying genes” (Merino, 2013, p. 14). Also known as gene splicing, this genetic modification involves “selective breeding aimed at enhancing desired characteristics” for a “desired outcome” (President’s Commission, 1982, p. 8). Gene therapy, in vitro fertilization, preimplantationn genetic diagnosis, and stem cell research are a few of the categories that constitute genetic engineering in humans. These techniques can be very beneficial to health, especially in unborn children, as they allow for the detection and prevention of gene defects and the diseases associated with them. However, while any advancement in society may be readily welcomed, these technologies pose a concern as the alteration of genes extends beyond the health aspects and into that of aesthetics. With science now capable of improving physical and mental traits, and even conducting cloning, it is important to determine at what point the purposeful manipulation of the human genome is being taken too far. Based on its many benefits and concerns, I propose that genetic engineering on humans should be allowed to a certain extent, with governmental regulations limiting its uses.
Proposing Government Regulations
Governmental regulations should limit the use of genetic engineering in order to control the Pandora’s box that it evidently opens. Genetic modification for the purpose of medical treatment to end human suffering is a method that should be pursued; however, that which involves “nonmedical enhancements” of “normal people” is unethical and unmoral (President’s Commission, 1982, p. 3). Here is where we must ask ourselves: What does it mean to be human? It is important to factor in that genetic engineering alters the genetic makeup that constitutes who an individual is. If a parent predetermines how their child looks, acts, and thinks, what traces of individuality are left? With that notion, the government should ban the idea of the “perfect baby,” while still allowing for the medical improvement aspects of genetic engineering.
Genetic Engineering is Ethical When Used for Medical Treatment
Gene therapy is a beneficial method of genetic engineering that should be pursued. Defined as a “genetic method to treat disease,” gene therapy has been involved in the prevention and treatment of various medical conditions (Coker, 2012, p. 15). While a gene therapy has yet to be approved for sale to the public (Merino, 2013, p. 15), many research trials have proven the technique to be successful in treating many diseases ranging from multiple sclerosis to dwarfism. In one research study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, gene therapies were able to restore partial sight in various patients who suffered from blindness since birth (Coker, 2012, p. 28). In another research study conducted at the National Institutes of Health, researchers successfully enabled the lymphocytes of cancer patients to actually destroy cancer cells, leading to many being cancer-free after just months of undergoing gene therapy (Coker, 2012, p. 28).
In vitro fertilization is another method of genetic engineering that is beneficial under certain limitations. For differing reasons, many couples are unable to have children on their own and require help with reproducing. In vitro fertilization is a “technique for achieving the fertilization of an egg outside of the body in a laboratory dish, which is then transferred to the uterus” (President’s Commission, 1982, p. 9). This method allows for an embryo to successfully develop under controlled conditions, whereas it would not have survived in an infertile woman prone to miscarriages. Despite its benefits, this technique should be regulated because of the aesthetic implications it may lead to, which will be further discussed in a later section. In many cases, in vitro fertilization is used with preimplantation genetic diagnosis to ensure the health of an unborn child.
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a controversial genetic engineering technique that can improve health when used ethically. During the process of in vitro fertilization, in which embryos are developed in a laboratory dish, doctors use PGD to “screen embryos” and “implant only the ones that meet certain criteria” into the uterus of the mother (Goldberg, 2009, p. 33), allowing them to select “only health embryos” (Green, 2008, p. 47). In many cases, couples wanting to have children have a medical history of a certain disease in their family. Because of this, they fear having a child who will develop that disease and ultimately live a life of suffering. The process of PGD allows for various embryos to be scanned to distinguish between those with and without such diseases. In one case, a couple with a history of cystic fibrosis, who had lost their four month old child to the disease, was able to have two healthy children due to PGD screening and in vitro fertilization (Lynas, 2007, p. 54). In a similar case, a couple from Britain with a history of breast cancer was able to have a healthy child and “eradicate [the disease] from their family line once and for all” (Green, 2008, p. 47). Like in vitro fertilization, PGD should also be used with limitations because it involves the unethical discarding of embryos. Nevertheless, it is necessary in certain situations in which the benefits outweigh the negatives, as described above.
The use of stem cells for medical reasons are also beneficial and should be allowed to a certain extent with regulations. Stem cells, in particular embryonic stem cells, are cells taken from an embryo and grown in a laboratory setting. Because these cells can regenerate into another specialized cell, this method is used during in vitro fertilization and for replacement of tissues or organs in organisms (Cunningham, 2011, p. 25). In 2009, President Barrack Obama lifted a ban on stem cell research government funding (Obama, 2009, p. 57). According to him, such research may hold great promise for the future of health, such as treating “severed spinal cords…Parkinson’s disease, cancer, and heart disease” (Obama, 2009, p. 58). A controversial method as well, stem cells can be used to produce “hundreds of thousands of embryos” from just one skin cell from a woman (Savulescu, 2008, p. 27). These embryos can then undergo PGD screening to test for risks of diseases. This genetic engineering method must be regulated, however, due to the implications that it may lead to unethical cloning of children and because it also involves the destruction of thousands of embryos, which will be discussed further in the next section.
Genetic Engineering is Unethical When Used for Non-Medical Purposes
In vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis must be regulated because they may involve unethical manipulation of human nature. Some have considered genetic engineering to be the start of the “quest for the perfect baby” (Green, 2008, p. 47) or “designer babies” (Goldberg, 2009, p. 33). Fertilization clinics currently offer gender selection during in vitro fertilization (Goldberg, 2009, p.33), and with advancing technology and the human thirst for “perfection,” it is only a matter of time before much more is offered. The method of PGD is the prime area in which abuse of genetic engineering is possible because of its ability to screen for certain traits and characteristics. In a fertility clinic run by Dr. Michael Kamrava, steps have already been taken to allow for the availability of certain traits such as “hair color, eye color, and skin color” (Reynolds, 2009, p. 104). These traits fall under a long list that may also be tested on, which include: “intelligence, personality type, memory, impulse control, prefect pitch, and physical and mental abilities (Savulsecu, 2008, p. 28). This calls into question once again: What does it mean to be human?
The selecting of certain traits considered to be superior to others is unfair and contributes to the idea of eugenics. Eugenics describes the idea of superiority in certain groups of people and of survival of the fittest; those who are “more fit to adapt” will survive in our society and those who are generally “unfit” will remain poor and ultimately go down further in society (Coker, 2012, p. 30). In the science fiction film, Gattaca, a world in which parents choose their children’s traits creates a society of divided classes, leading to “discrimination and oppression” (Green, 2008, p. 48-49). Places like the Abraham Centre of Life, the world’s first human embryo bank, believe they are “helping couples and putting good genes into the universe” (Lynas, 2007, p. 54) by allowing couples to buy embryos through mail order with specified traits. These cases call into question how fair it is of the parents of these unborn children to decide their fates. Whereas adults in today’s society have the option of undergoing cosmetic surgery, these children do not have the ability to give consent in any way, which is what stirs the debate over ethics.
Stem cell research should also be placed under strict regulation. As previously described, stem cell research involves the issue of destroying live embryos and the possibility of cloning. When embryonic stem cells are cultured, hundred of thousands are involved. Out of all those embryos, only a few are kept to develop into a child, while other “young human embryos” are donated to research labs or destroyed (Blackwell, 2009, p. 66). Another major issue is of course that of human cloning. In many cases, families who have children with a certain disease like Fanconi anemia, require a bone marrow transplant from an exact genetic match in order to save their life. (Goldberg, 2008, p. 33-34). Through stem cell research, it is possible to grow a child from an embryonic stem cell that matches that of the child in need. While this may seem reasonable, these “savior siblings” are only being “created specifically as objects, because they were only brought into being to save their sibling’s life” (Smith, 2011, p. 46). In other cases, these embryos that are being used for this purpose are not even kept by the family. They may put the child up for adoption once the bone marrow is extracted, or they may pay a surrogate mother to carry the baby just until they can obtain what they need before having her abort the baby at around seven months (Smith, 2011, p. 47). In all these cases it is morally and ethically wrong to think that a child should be created solely for the purpose of saving another child, which is why this aspect of genetic engineering in humans should be regulated and banned.
Refutation
While it may be ethical to allow certain aspects of human genetic engineering, there are many reasons as to why many may oppose them. Aside from the points described that should be regulated and possibly banned, there are aspects of gene therapy, in vitro fertilization, PGD, stem cell research that raise concern.
Gene therapies are not always safe. In a case in 1999, a teenager named Jesse Gelsinger died after starting a gene therapy treatment for ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency. Similarly, in 2005, three men developed cancer after receiving a gene therapy for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency. In 2007, another death occurred in a gene therapy for inflammatory arthritis (Merino, 2013, p. 15). After each of these cases, the Food and Drug Administration discontinued the clinical trials and others of their kind. These health concerns associated with gene therapy is why none have been approved for sale to the public yet.
In vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis are opposed on the basis of religion and morals. Many have stated that the genetic manipulation of genes by scientists and researchers is like “playing God” (President’s Commission, 1982, p. 3). Who is a human being to decide the fate of another human being? In addition, it is thought to be wrong to discard embryos in PGD, even for medical treatment. According to Ronald M. Green, an embryo carrying a cancer mutation can continue living up to 50 years without developing cancer, or may never even develop it (2008, p. 47). This raises the question as to whether embryos should be allowed to be created and destroyed on the basis that they carry a mutation, when in fact they may grow to be healthy children despite it.
Conclusion
While genetic engineering in human beings has been refuted on the many moral and ethical wrongs it is associated with, various aspects of this technology are beneficial to the health and overall advancement of humanity. The medical applications of gene therapy, in vitro fertilization, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, and stem cell research should be embraced by the medical community. Applications that involve aesthetic and other superficial enhancements are a threat to the definition of being human itself. Government regulations should be placed immediately on any genetic engineering techniques abusing the power of science to give unfair advantages to those who can ultimately afford to receive such “enhancements” opposed to those who can’t or simply refuse on the basis of right and wrong. Since the first humans were created, we have adapted and used new technologies to find better ways to survive; it is our responsibility as a human race to take advantage of what genetic engineering has to offer, but to also remember that with great power comes great responsibility.
References
Blackwell, K. (2009). Ignored Implications. In N. Merino (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 63-66). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Coker, J. S. (2012). Genetic engineering is natural and should be pursued. In N. Merino (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 20-32). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Cunningham, P. C. (2011). Stem cell research can lead to cloning and other scientific atrocities. In L. S. Scherer (Ed.), Stem cell research (pp. 24-26). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Goldberg, A. (2009). Genetic engineering is only ethical if it improves health. In L. S. Scherer (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 33-36). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Green, R. M. (2008). Human genetic engineering should be allowed. In N. Merino (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 47-52). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Lynas, M. (2007). We must stop trying to engineer nature. In N. Merino (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 54-56). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Merino, N. (2013). Genetic engineering. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Obama, B. (2009). Stem cell research should be allowed, but not reproductive cloning. In N. Merino (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 57-58). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1982). Splicing life: A report on the social and ethical issues of genetic engineering with human beings. Washington, D.C.: The Commission.
Reynolds, J. (2009). Preventing the next fertility clinic scandal. In N. Merino (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 102-104). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Savulescu, J. (2008). It is ethical to genetically engineer children for non-disease traits. In L. S. Scherer (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 27-30). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Smith, W. (2011). It is not ethical to genetically engineer a child to save a sibling’s life. In L. S. Scherer (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 46-47). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Modern society is characterized by our ability to use technology to advance and adapt to the ever-changing pace of life. While these technological advancements can be beneficial, there are some aspects that call into question ethical and moral values. One such technology is that of genetic engineering on humans. In a generalized definition, genetic engineering is “the process of deliberately modifying genes” (Merino, 2013, p. 14). Also known as gene splicing, this genetic modification involves “selective breeding aimed at enhancing desired characteristics” for a “desired outcome” (President’s Commission, 1982, p. 8). Gene therapy, in vitro fertilization, preimplantationn genetic diagnosis, and stem cell research are a few of the categories that constitute genetic engineering in humans. These techniques can be very beneficial to health, especially in unborn children, as they allow for the detection and prevention of gene defects and the diseases associated with them. However, while any advancement in society may be readily welcomed, these technologies pose a concern as the alteration of genes extends beyond the health aspects and into that of aesthetics. With science now capable of improving physical and mental traits, and even conducting cloning, it is important to determine at what point the purposeful manipulation of the human genome is being taken too far. Based on its many benefits and concerns, I propose that genetic engineering on humans should be allowed to a certain extent, with governmental regulations limiting its uses.
Proposing Government Regulations
Governmental regulations should limit the use of genetic engineering in order to control the Pandora’s box that it evidently opens. Genetic modification for the purpose of medical treatment to end human suffering is a method that should be pursued; however, that which involves “nonmedical enhancements” of “normal people” is unethical and unmoral (President’s Commission, 1982, p. 3). Here is where we must ask ourselves: What does it mean to be human? It is important to factor in that genetic engineering alters the genetic makeup that constitutes who an individual is. If a parent predetermines how their child looks, acts, and thinks, what traces of individuality are left? With that notion, the government should ban the idea of the “perfect baby,” while still allowing for the medical improvement aspects of genetic engineering.
Genetic Engineering is Ethical When Used for Medical Treatment
Gene therapy is a beneficial method of genetic engineering that should be pursued. Defined as a “genetic method to treat disease,” gene therapy has been involved in the prevention and treatment of various medical conditions (Coker, 2012, p. 15). While a gene therapy has yet to be approved for sale to the public (Merino, 2013, p. 15), many research trials have proven the technique to be successful in treating many diseases ranging from multiple sclerosis to dwarfism. In one research study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, gene therapies were able to restore partial sight in various patients who suffered from blindness since birth (Coker, 2012, p. 28). In another research study conducted at the National Institutes of Health, researchers successfully enabled the lymphocytes of cancer patients to actually destroy cancer cells, leading to many being cancer-free after just months of undergoing gene therapy (Coker, 2012, p. 28).
In vitro fertilization is another method of genetic engineering that is beneficial under certain limitations. For differing reasons, many couples are unable to have children on their own and require help with reproducing. In vitro fertilization is a “technique for achieving the fertilization of an egg outside of the body in a laboratory dish, which is then transferred to the uterus” (President’s Commission, 1982, p. 9). This method allows for an embryo to successfully develop under controlled conditions, whereas it would not have survived in an infertile woman prone to miscarriages. Despite its benefits, this technique should be regulated because of the aesthetic implications it may lead to, which will be further discussed in a later section. In many cases, in vitro fertilization is used with preimplantation genetic diagnosis to ensure the health of an unborn child.
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a controversial genetic engineering technique that can improve health when used ethically. During the process of in vitro fertilization, in which embryos are developed in a laboratory dish, doctors use PGD to “screen embryos” and “implant only the ones that meet certain criteria” into the uterus of the mother (Goldberg, 2009, p. 33), allowing them to select “only health embryos” (Green, 2008, p. 47). In many cases, couples wanting to have children have a medical history of a certain disease in their family. Because of this, they fear having a child who will develop that disease and ultimately live a life of suffering. The process of PGD allows for various embryos to be scanned to distinguish between those with and without such diseases. In one case, a couple with a history of cystic fibrosis, who had lost their four month old child to the disease, was able to have two healthy children due to PGD screening and in vitro fertilization (Lynas, 2007, p. 54). In a similar case, a couple from Britain with a history of breast cancer was able to have a healthy child and “eradicate [the disease] from their family line once and for all” (Green, 2008, p. 47). Like in vitro fertilization, PGD should also be used with limitations because it involves the unethical discarding of embryos. Nevertheless, it is necessary in certain situations in which the benefits outweigh the negatives, as described above.
The use of stem cells for medical reasons are also beneficial and should be allowed to a certain extent with regulations. Stem cells, in particular embryonic stem cells, are cells taken from an embryo and grown in a laboratory setting. Because these cells can regenerate into another specialized cell, this method is used during in vitro fertilization and for replacement of tissues or organs in organisms (Cunningham, 2011, p. 25). In 2009, President Barrack Obama lifted a ban on stem cell research government funding (Obama, 2009, p. 57). According to him, such research may hold great promise for the future of health, such as treating “severed spinal cords…Parkinson’s disease, cancer, and heart disease” (Obama, 2009, p. 58). A controversial method as well, stem cells can be used to produce “hundreds of thousands of embryos” from just one skin cell from a woman (Savulescu, 2008, p. 27). These embryos can then undergo PGD screening to test for risks of diseases. This genetic engineering method must be regulated, however, due to the implications that it may lead to unethical cloning of children and because it also involves the destruction of thousands of embryos, which will be discussed further in the next section.
Genetic Engineering is Unethical When Used for Non-Medical Purposes
In vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis must be regulated because they may involve unethical manipulation of human nature. Some have considered genetic engineering to be the start of the “quest for the perfect baby” (Green, 2008, p. 47) or “designer babies” (Goldberg, 2009, p. 33). Fertilization clinics currently offer gender selection during in vitro fertilization (Goldberg, 2009, p.33), and with advancing technology and the human thirst for “perfection,” it is only a matter of time before much more is offered. The method of PGD is the prime area in which abuse of genetic engineering is possible because of its ability to screen for certain traits and characteristics. In a fertility clinic run by Dr. Michael Kamrava, steps have already been taken to allow for the availability of certain traits such as “hair color, eye color, and skin color” (Reynolds, 2009, p. 104). These traits fall under a long list that may also be tested on, which include: “intelligence, personality type, memory, impulse control, prefect pitch, and physical and mental abilities (Savulsecu, 2008, p. 28). This calls into question once again: What does it mean to be human?
The selecting of certain traits considered to be superior to others is unfair and contributes to the idea of eugenics. Eugenics describes the idea of superiority in certain groups of people and of survival of the fittest; those who are “more fit to adapt” will survive in our society and those who are generally “unfit” will remain poor and ultimately go down further in society (Coker, 2012, p. 30). In the science fiction film, Gattaca, a world in which parents choose their children’s traits creates a society of divided classes, leading to “discrimination and oppression” (Green, 2008, p. 48-49). Places like the Abraham Centre of Life, the world’s first human embryo bank, believe they are “helping couples and putting good genes into the universe” (Lynas, 2007, p. 54) by allowing couples to buy embryos through mail order with specified traits. These cases call into question how fair it is of the parents of these unborn children to decide their fates. Whereas adults in today’s society have the option of undergoing cosmetic surgery, these children do not have the ability to give consent in any way, which is what stirs the debate over ethics.
Stem cell research should also be placed under strict regulation. As previously described, stem cell research involves the issue of destroying live embryos and the possibility of cloning. When embryonic stem cells are cultured, hundred of thousands are involved. Out of all those embryos, only a few are kept to develop into a child, while other “young human embryos” are donated to research labs or destroyed (Blackwell, 2009, p. 66). Another major issue is of course that of human cloning. In many cases, families who have children with a certain disease like Fanconi anemia, require a bone marrow transplant from an exact genetic match in order to save their life. (Goldberg, 2008, p. 33-34). Through stem cell research, it is possible to grow a child from an embryonic stem cell that matches that of the child in need. While this may seem reasonable, these “savior siblings” are only being “created specifically as objects, because they were only brought into being to save their sibling’s life” (Smith, 2011, p. 46). In other cases, these embryos that are being used for this purpose are not even kept by the family. They may put the child up for adoption once the bone marrow is extracted, or they may pay a surrogate mother to carry the baby just until they can obtain what they need before having her abort the baby at around seven months (Smith, 2011, p. 47). In all these cases it is morally and ethically wrong to think that a child should be created solely for the purpose of saving another child, which is why this aspect of genetic engineering in humans should be regulated and banned.
Refutation
While it may be ethical to allow certain aspects of human genetic engineering, there are many reasons as to why many may oppose them. Aside from the points described that should be regulated and possibly banned, there are aspects of gene therapy, in vitro fertilization, PGD, stem cell research that raise concern.
Gene therapies are not always safe. In a case in 1999, a teenager named Jesse Gelsinger died after starting a gene therapy treatment for ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency. Similarly, in 2005, three men developed cancer after receiving a gene therapy for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency. In 2007, another death occurred in a gene therapy for inflammatory arthritis (Merino, 2013, p. 15). After each of these cases, the Food and Drug Administration discontinued the clinical trials and others of their kind. These health concerns associated with gene therapy is why none have been approved for sale to the public yet.
In vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis are opposed on the basis of religion and morals. Many have stated that the genetic manipulation of genes by scientists and researchers is like “playing God” (President’s Commission, 1982, p. 3). Who is a human being to decide the fate of another human being? In addition, it is thought to be wrong to discard embryos in PGD, even for medical treatment. According to Ronald M. Green, an embryo carrying a cancer mutation can continue living up to 50 years without developing cancer, or may never even develop it (2008, p. 47). This raises the question as to whether embryos should be allowed to be created and destroyed on the basis that they carry a mutation, when in fact they may grow to be healthy children despite it.
Conclusion
While genetic engineering in human beings has been refuted on the many moral and ethical wrongs it is associated with, various aspects of this technology are beneficial to the health and overall advancement of humanity. The medical applications of gene therapy, in vitro fertilization, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, and stem cell research should be embraced by the medical community. Applications that involve aesthetic and other superficial enhancements are a threat to the definition of being human itself. Government regulations should be placed immediately on any genetic engineering techniques abusing the power of science to give unfair advantages to those who can ultimately afford to receive such “enhancements” opposed to those who can’t or simply refuse on the basis of right and wrong. Since the first humans were created, we have adapted and used new technologies to find better ways to survive; it is our responsibility as a human race to take advantage of what genetic engineering has to offer, but to also remember that with great power comes great responsibility.
References
Blackwell, K. (2009). Ignored Implications. In N. Merino (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 63-66). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Coker, J. S. (2012). Genetic engineering is natural and should be pursued. In N. Merino (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 20-32). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Cunningham, P. C. (2011). Stem cell research can lead to cloning and other scientific atrocities. In L. S. Scherer (Ed.), Stem cell research (pp. 24-26). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Goldberg, A. (2009). Genetic engineering is only ethical if it improves health. In L. S. Scherer (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 33-36). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Green, R. M. (2008). Human genetic engineering should be allowed. In N. Merino (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 47-52). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Lynas, M. (2007). We must stop trying to engineer nature. In N. Merino (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 54-56). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Merino, N. (2013). Genetic engineering. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Obama, B. (2009). Stem cell research should be allowed, but not reproductive cloning. In N. Merino (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 57-58). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1982). Splicing life: A report on the social and ethical issues of genetic engineering with human beings. Washington, D.C.: The Commission.
Reynolds, J. (2009). Preventing the next fertility clinic scandal. In N. Merino (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 102-104). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Savulescu, J. (2008). It is ethical to genetically engineer children for non-disease traits. In L. S. Scherer (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 27-30). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Smith, W. (2011). It is not ethical to genetically engineer a child to save a sibling’s life. In L. S. Scherer (Ed.), Genetic engineering (pp. 46-47). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.