Deontological and Consequentialist Implications of Designer Babies

A study investigating the controversial topic of selecting and modifying an embryo’s genetic code for a specific trait from two normative, ethical perspectives; consequen-

tialism and deontology

Figure 1: Ethical discussion of designing babies [28]

Group (1) members: Kristine Ferning – 61321 Kylie Alexander – 62654 Laura Martinenghi – 59788 Maria Abboud – 61324 Natasha Kodua – 59787

Sandra Bulatovic – 64006

Project Supervisor: Kornelius Zeth

Semester: Third Semester

Year: 2017/2018

Roskilde Universitet / Roskilde University Den Naturvidenskabelige Bacheloruddannelse / The Natural Science Bachelor Programme

1. Table of contents Section number and headline Page 1. Table of contents I

2. Abstract 1

3. Investigation 1

3.1 Introduction 1

3.2 Theory/Background Information 2

3.2.1 History of Genetic Engineering 2

3.3 Methodology 3

3.3.1 Deontology 3

3.3.2 Consequentialism 3

3.4 Genetic Engineering and Deontological Ethics 4

3.4.1 Deontology: Genetic Engineering for Therapeutic Purposes 4

3.4.1.1 Severe Genetic Disorders 5

3.4.1.2 Less-Severe Genetic Disorders 5

3.4.2 Deontology: Genetic Engineering for Non-Therapeutic Purposes 6

3.4.2.1 Physical Appearances and Features 6

3.4.2.2 Physical Enhancement and Empowerment 9

3.5 Genetic Engineering and Consequentialism 10

3.5.1 Consequentialism: Genetic Engineering for Therapeutic Purposes 10

3.5.1.1 Severe Genetic Disorders 10

3.5.1.2 Less-Severe Genetic Disorders 11

3.5.2 Consequentialism: Genetic Engineering for Non-Therapeutic Purposes 11

3.5.2.1 Physical Appearances and Features 12

3.5.2.2 Physical Enhancement and Empowerment 13

3.6 Discussion/Conclusion 15

4. Bibliography II

I

3. Investigation

3.1 Introduction In popular media, the term “designer babies” is often associated with dystopian science fiction, in which reproduction is a cold and clinical province of white-coated scientists and prospective parents in pursuit of perfect children. This widespread distrust of reproductive technology seems to stem from the fact that genetic engineering offers peo-ple choices that nature would otherwise not be able to provide, and even if the possibility of such a world is technically not yet upon us, advances in the field of biotechnology does raise many is-sues of the ethical variety. It has for a time now been available for parents to create embryos by in vitro fertilization (IVF), and then to screen these embryos for both genetic characteristics and different genetic diseases so that they can select the embryo that is genetically

superior as well as disease-free. Continuing ad-vances and the ethical clearance to utilize them might further allow parents to design their babies; a concept that refers to the idea of producing em-bryos with a preferred, predetermined genetic profile through the technique of assisted repro-duction. The aim is to screen the embryo for ge-netic conditions, and then to use genetic engineer-ing to insert a favourable genetic factor and/or cut out unfavourable ones, resulting in a modified embryo that has inherited part of its genetic traits in a non-Mendelian fashion[1]. In this project, we seek to navigate this ethical dis-cussion of genetically modifying embryos to one’s personal desires by distinguishing between the use of genetic engineering tools for either ther-apeutic or non-therapeutic purposes. For thera-peutic purposes, the aim is to either provide im-munity to genetic diseases and/or remove genetic defects to restore impaired human functions to a state of normality or health[18]. On the other hand, for non-therapeutic purposes, the aim is to

2. Abstract Research within the field of genetic engineering has enabled many medical findings that have saved countless lives, and, with its progressiveness, will save many more. However, the advancements of these technologies raise the ethical questions of whether to utilize them to save lives at the embryonic stage. With the power of genetic modification, parents would not only be able to save their child from a hereditary disease, but also be able to eradicate all possibility that their lineage could inherit it. Moreover, they would be able to select and enhance the physical attributes that would grant their future child the best possible predisposition. However, the application of these techniques is subject to many controversies at the intersection of science, medicine, and ethics; since even if the benefits would be immense, the effects and consequences could possibly be disastrous. This has led to the research question: What are the most effective deontological and consequentialist stances on the ability to select and manip-ulate the genetic makeup of embryos in vitro for both therapeutic and non-therapeutic purposes? This question will be answered through the application of deontological and consequentialist principles. Using deontological principles, it was mainly determined that the use of genetic modification would be ethical, whereas when adopting a consequentialist mindset, the use of it was ethically interchangeable, depending on the frame of reference and the subject. As a result of assessing the efficacy of each theory, it has been concluded that the best approach to evaluate the ethical implications of genetically selecting or modifying embryos is through the holistic view of utilitarianism in combination with Kant’s categorical imperative.

1

provide the parent with the ability to choose be-tween specific desired physical attributes. In ad-dition, the purpose is also to overcome the current limitations of a human’s physical abilities, native capacities, and performances, as well as improv-ing them beyond the normal range, the basic hu-man needs or the standard absolute form of a “normal” human well-being[18][3][2]. This discussion will adopt the form of a Socratic dialogue between the prospective parents, the fu-ture child and the society, who each consider the ethical issues of genetically selecting or engineer-ing from their respective points of view. This will be achieved by applying various ethical principles from within normative ethics, in which two main perspectives will be assumed; deontological theo-ries and consequentialist theories. On one hand, deontology judges the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves based on the intentions behind them. On the other hand, consequentialism deals in deeming actions ethical or not depending on their outcome by weighing the positive conse-quences against the negative ones. This has paved the way for our research question at the centre of this investigation: What are the most effective deontological and consequentialist stances on the ability to select and manipulate the genetic makeup of em-bryos in vitro for both therapeutic and non-therapeutic purposes? Finding the answer to this question has become a particularly important endeavour, as genetic engi-neering is already being used to modify insects, animals, plants and microorganisms to produce human therapeutics[10]. Since these mechanisms are only getting increasingly cheaper and are ad-vancing towards human experimentation, it is im-portant to have a firm common stance on the as-sociated ethical issues. To best answer our re-search question, the issues will be considered un-der each ethical perspective, which will then be compared in a comprehensive discussion section

to assess which is the most optimal ethical ap-proach to the issue. 3.2 Theory/Background Information 3.2.1 History of Genetic Engineering Genetics is a relatively young science that came into existence in the 1900’s after the detection of genetic inheritance by Gregor Johan Mendel, fol-lowing his experimentation on cross fertilization of peas. Since then, research has furthered our un-derstanding of the recipe for human phenotypes with the discovery and decipherment of DNA[14]. Subsequently, research has been and is still devoted towards promoting new technologies that help create a better understanding of germlines and how to modify them. It could be said that the invention of IVF by Louis Brown in-itiated the revolution in genetic selection and modification by establishing a strategy that in-volves obtaining multiple eggs, fertilizing them and re-implanting a selection of them back into the female[15]. This in turn gave way to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD); a screening method in which a gene sequence or a specific chromosomal muta-tion in the genome of an embryo is detected. Cur-rently, PGD is able to screen over a thousand sin-gle gene disorders, some of which include autoso-mal recessive disorders like cystic fibrosis, auto-somal dominant disorders such as Huntington's Disease, X-linked disorders as for instance hydro-cephalus, and trisomy disorders like trisomy 21. However, the limitation of PGD and IVF is that they are only able to screen and select natural em-bryos; in other words, the genetic material con-tained in these embryos have not been modified, but are instead chosen on the basis of their opti-mality. Therefore, yet another revolution within the field of genetic engineering arose with the ad-dition of the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) tool. CRISPR can, with its endonuclease activity, be very accurately

2

programmed to target specific regions in the DNA, and thereby enable scientists to add, re-move or alter sections of the embryonic ge-nome[21]. This ability allows novel combinations of DNA to be introduced and integrated into the genetic makeup of the embryo, resulting in an “unnatural” child. Even with the availability of CRISPR, there is an incomplete understanding of the complexity that is the human genome, and thus the genetic se-quences on the DNA strands that control physical attributes. This issue generates a certain level of controversy around the use of genetic engineering to modify germlines, which is currently the focus of a considerable amount of medical research.

3.3 Methodology Prior to evaluating and discussing the ethical as-pects of our problem area, we will dedicate this section to defining and explaining the two major normative approaches included: deontology and consequentialism. 3.3.1 Deontology Deontological or duty-based ethics aim to guide and assess actions based on a certain set of prin-ciples and rules regardless of their consequences or personal desires. This is best formulated by German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, who pro-posed that the rules or maxims derive from human reason and rationality, and so personal desires, emotions and consequences should not play any role in moral actions. Morality therefore provides a framework of rational rules that prevent certain actions and guide towards those that are only per-formed with intentions in accordance to moral law. Moral law consists of a set of maxims, which are categorical in nature - we are bound by duty to act rightful by them - and these maxims were termed by Kant as the categorical impera-tives[25]. The categorical imperative is characterized by the requirement to treat people as an end, and never

as a means to an end. In other words, good will or rightful intentions should be seen as a universal rule for all of humanity to create a morally just society. Thus, the categorical imperative must al-ways be followed despite any natural desires or personal inclinations that contradict it. Following the categorical imperative, Kant speci-fied two distinct forms of duties: duties of self-improvement and those to aid others. These really refer to the “worth of humanity” as an end in itself that require us to show respect for it in our actions, so that universal duties are established to reflect the needs of humanity(Figure 2). Duties of self-improvement in Kantian ethics are not about self-interest or promoting one’s own welfare, but rather about establishing universal duties that reflect one’s personal needs. For in-stance, all humans sometimes need professional help, so the only way in which they can have that need met, is if humans develop their talents. So all humans must be developing their talents to create a universal duty that ensures that aid will be avail-able to all humans when they need it. Conversely, while duties to aid others also estab-lishes universal rules that reflect the needs of hu-manity, they result in actions that must be per-formed with the wellbeing of others in mind. All humans sometimes need help, and thus, reflective of that need, all humans are required to aid others at all times.

3

Figure 2: Deontology is duty-based ethics that aim to establish universal principles reflective of the worth of humanity, which can be split into two major branches, Duty to Self and Duty to others, in addition to Kant’s Categorical Imperative (Figure made by us).

In this way, all humans are capable of pursuing their own ends as long as they do not interfere with their duties to self or others. 3.3.2 Consequentialism Consequentialism is really an opposite to deontol-ogy, since here, the rightness of an action depends solely on whether or not the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable. Correct moral conduct is therefore determined by a cost-benefit analysis in which, before perform-ing an action, one considers both the possible pos-itive and negative consequences of the action, and then determines whether the positive ones out-weigh the negative ones. If the positive conse-quences then are greater, the action is morally right, and if the negative ones are greater, then the action is morally wrong. It is evident that, op-posed to deontology, this approach does not at all take into consideration the intentions behind ac-tions. Hence, to contradict the categorical imper-ative, we can conclude that consequentialism will allow people to treat each other as means to an end, if the end justifies the means[25]. For the purpose of this research, we will split the consequentialist theory into three categories to determine whether actions are morally right or wrong; ethical egoism, ethical altruism, and utili-tarianism(Figure 3): • Ethical egoism states that an action is morally

right if the consequences of the action are more favourable than unfavourable only to the agent performing the action.

• Ethical altruism states that an action is mor-ally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable to every-one except the agent.

• Utilitarianism states that an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable to every-one.

This will undoubtedly yield different answers to whether or not the actions of genetic selection and engineering are morally right, and thus allow us to create interesting discussions to reach a final conclusion. 3.4 Genetic Engineering and Deonto-

logical Ethics 3.4.1 Deontology: Genetic Engineering for

Therapeutic Purposes All life is organized and constructed by the ge-netic code, which is tightly condensed into chro-mosomes, and encode the instructions for every action performed by the cells. Genetic diseases and defects are the results of alterations to this ge-netic code, also known as mutations, which occur when there are changes in the structure of chro-mosomes. This can be the result of multiple pro-cesses; either by deletion (the loss of a section of the chromosome); duplication (a portion of the chromosome is doubled); inversion (a portion of the chromosome is inverted); translocation (the exchange of genetic material between non-homol-ogous chromosomes), or by chromosomal rear-rangement[22][20]. While these mutations bring about the genetic va-riety on which natural selection works to facilitate evolution, more often the accumulation of any

4

Figure 3: Consequentialism, considers an action ethical or not depending on whether the consequences of that action are more favourable than unfavourable. So to claim that genetic engineer-ing is ethical, the positive consequences of doing it must be greater than the negative ones. This theory is split into three cat-egories: Ethical Egoism, Ethical Altruism and Utilitarianism (Figure made by us).

such mutations are harmful to the cell, resulting in either apoptosis or changes to gene structure and function, leading to genetic diseases and defects that are inheritable[21]. Such defects might lead to individuals being con-sidered diseased, disabled, or merely different by society for various reasons; so, this section will be distinguishing between the ethics of selecting or modifying the genetic makeup of embryos with severe genetic disorders and less severe ones (Figure 4). This distinction will be made by con-ceptualizing severe as a condition that would, in absence of medical treatment, drastically shorten the lifespan of the patient and cause a decline in quality of life; an example of this being for in-stance cystic fibrosis. In contrast, less severe con-ditions in which the patients are able to live a rel-atively normal life, with or without medical treat-ment. Examples of the less severe disorders could

be haemophilia. 3.4.1.1 Severe Genetic Disorders Inheritable genetic diseases do not distinguish be-tween age, race, culture or religion, and so their effects on the individual, their community, the economic and political standing of society are equally threatening. Therefore, the ability to mod-ify the genome to correct any harmful mutations has remained the focal point of genetic engineer-ing and will be the core of this section.

With the possibility of using genetic engineering, parents can be presented with the importance of the ethical question: if it were possible to select against or genetically alter their child’s predispo-sitions towards any kind of genetic “imperfec-tions”, would it be wrongful, acceptable, or man-datory? Many different factors play into answer-ing such a question (cultural, religious, or medical factors), and we will here answer the question from the deontological perspective. An example of a severe disease could, as men-tioned, be cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is a chronic, inherited disease that affects the secre-tory glands that are otherwise responsible for the production of the mucus that moistens the lining of the organs and thus prevents dehydration and infections. In patients with cystic fibrosis, this mucus is thickened and becomes sticky, causing it to accumulate in organs. The accumulation in the lungs, for instance, makes bacterial growth and risks of infection easier, as well as severely decreases the patient’s ability to perform physi-cally. There is currently no cure for cystic fibro-sis; only palliative treatment that improves quality of life and life expectancy, which, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is about 37 years[16]. To consider the deontological per-spective on curing this disease through genetic en-gineering in an embryo, we assume that such an action is performed with the intention to obtain a safe and effective therapeutic intervention for the future child so it can grow to eventually be a moral person. Thus, genetic engineering as a means of treatment should be permissible; possi-bly even required, since you have a duty to act in the best interest of the embryo. The only way in which genetic engineering should be prohibited according to deontology is if there were a safer or just as safe a therapeutic solution to the problem, which is not the case for most severe genetic de-fects. Clearly, for a case like cystic fibrosis, the future child would be better off genetically engi-neered. Hence, we conclude that for treating se-

5

Figure 4: The ethical assessments of genetically modifying embryos for therapeutic purposes were divided into severe and less-severe cases of genetic defects (Figure made by us).

vere genetic diseases with no cure or only pallia-tive treatment, genetic engineering is actually mandatory from a duty-based perspective. 3.4.1.2 Less-Severe Genetic Disorders Genetic engineering does, however, include a cer-tain risk factor: the risk of “off-target” mutations; that is, unintended mutations as a result of modi-fying the human genome, which can then be passed on to next generations. These mutations can accumulate and cause other changes and thereby pose a threat further down the germline, even if the original mutation is not harmful to the conceiver of it. This would need to be taken into consideration when having to make the decision on whether or not to genetically engineer as a therapeutic tool to treat less severe genetic disor-ders, as these do not pose as serious a threat to a person’s health and life. Take for instance the genetically inherited, X-linked disorder, haemophilia, which affects the ability of the blood to clot to varying degrees. If unmanaged, the disorder can be quite serious, and while there is no absolute cure, there are several types of medications that will allow the patient to live a relatively normal life (usually lifelong pre-ventive medications for severe cases, but on-de-mand medicines for mild ones)[26]. If prospective parents know their genetic heritage and they per-form a PGD to confirm that their future child will express the disease, then the parents would have to make a decision on the preferred therapeutic tool - the conventional one or genetic engineering. According to the deontological viewpoint, the parents would have a duty to their future child as soon as they decide to nurture it, making it oblig-atory for them to intend to make the choice with the least risk of danger to the future child’s health. As mentioned above, there are risks of unintended harm to the embryo from the genetic engineering procedure in the form of off-target mutations, which can be overlooked in the severe diseases like cystic fibrosis since that would take prece-dence. In comparison, for the less severe case of

haemophilia, the conventional therapeutic inter-vention would be safer and just as effective as a treatment, though it would involve more effort and inconvenience in the form of a lifelong com-mitment for both the parents as well as the child. However, this could be viewed as the parents treating their future child as a means to an end; putting their comfort before the safety of the em-bryo and so it fails the categorical imperative. In addition to this, the parents also have the duty to intend to cause the least amount of harm to the embryo, and so they would then be prohibited from acting with genetic modifying as the thera-peutic module, since the procedure would expose their future child to unnecessary safety risk.

3.4.2 Deontology: Genetic Engineer-

ing for Non-Therapeutic Purposes There is no doubt that techniques such as CRISPR and PGD have revolutionized our ability to mod-ify, manipulate, and visualize the human genome, and have thereby greatly advanced both biologi-cal research and therapeutic developments. How-ever, concerns regarding these methods being har-nessed to manipulate genes for non-therapeutic reasons have been raised; particularly regarding the potential for enhancing abilities, overpower-ing specific human organs, predetermining traits and physical features, in conjunction with design-ing a child for a specific purpose or role. This kerfuffle around the direction by which the application of these techniques may take is one of the latest controversies at the intersection of sci-ence, medicine, and ethics; but what could be the reasoning behind these concerns? Furthermore, why have non-therapeutic interventions with the purpose of human enhancement or perfection been met with such strong criticism? Assuming that genetic engineering was made available with none or minor side-effects, the answers to these two questions will be explored and investigated throughout this section, which will be done by ethically evaluating the reasons from a deontolo-gist’s viewpoint.

6

However, before digging into this heated debate, and prior to analysing the arguments of ethics and morality that differ when speaking of non life-al-tering attributes, a distinction between the differ-ent domains that go under non-therapeutics inter-ventions must be made (Figure 5). These can be divided into two categories: firstly, physical ap-pearances and features including eye, hair and skin colour as well as gender; and secondly, phys-ical enhancements such as increase in muscular strength and physical capacities along with an ex-panded lifespan. The desire to achieve these at-tributes stems from humans’ fascination with per-fection. However, the idea of perfection differs from various viewpoints that descend from an in-dividual’s cultural worldview.

3.4.2.1 Physical Appearances and Fea-

tures The concept of beauty has always been and is still fluid across time and location; it is reflected in a culture’s current worldview, resulting in individ-uals creating their perception of beauty based on societies’ ever-changing fashions and media. This generates an increasing demand to create new methods and technologies of genetic engineering that comply with society's expectations of physi-cally conforming to its concept of beauty. One of the most concerning issues is the effect of the widespread accessibility to and attainability of ge-netic engineering or selecting tools on the con-structs of a society's norm. Therefore, the focus of

this section will be on the ethics of modifying and screening an embryo for physical features such as hair, eye and skin colour in addition to gender. Gender Nowadays, parents are encouraged to use screen-ing techniques to select their child’s sex due to medical issues, including X-linked diseases. However, selecting the gender of a child before birth has always been a controversial topic, since favouring one sex lessens the significance and value of the other in the society, leading to injus-tice and gender imbalance. Gender selection is achieved through techniques that allow the selec-tive transfer and implantation of a male or a fe-male embryo following IVF and screening, as well as through techniques that allow sex-selec-tive abortion[4].These techniques have been chal-lenged by many ethical issues; though they vary in different cultures and societies, which is made obvious from worldwide statistics with basis in gender preferences. For the sake of simplicity and of illustrating gen-der preference of two contrasting cultures, statis-tics from Western and Asian cultures have been selected. Throughout history, Asian societies have favoured and still favour the male gender over the female one, and as a result of the inter-mixture between the availability of sex selection and laws restricting child birth, the ratio between the two genders has become considerably out of balance[4]. A collection of data from different censuses, official statistics and data published by government bureaus shows that, during the 2000’s, there has been an estimated gender ratio of 120 born males per 100 born females in China. This ratio becomes even more drastic when viewed from the respective Chinese provinces, as it can be seen that the ones with a more traditional Chinese culture have a higher sex ratio at birth (SRB) than non-traditional ones. By examining Figure 6, an increase is observed after the 1980’s along with the development of sex-selective tech-niques[23]. Thus, the most probable explanation for the difference in child births is the increase in

7

Figure 5: The ethical assessments of genetically modifying embryos for non-therapeutic purposes were divided physical appearances and features and into human enhancement and empowerment(Figure made by us).

usage of selective induced abortion. Likewise, the sex ratio of India’s population has been reported to be 107 males per 100 females in 2001. This de-mographic shows that the sex ratio increases in regions where there is a higher scale of gender bias and patriarchy[23]. As a result, it is easy to understand the reason why the author Goodkind argued that, if policy restrictions on prenatal sex selection were implemented, discrimination against females might be shifted from the prenatal to the postnatal period resulting in more human suffering[5]. In contrast, the USA had an SRB of 96.7 born males per 100 born females in 2010 with reports of the number of males decreas-ing[6].As for Canada, there has been a sex ratio of 106 male births per 100 female births in 2015, and this number is in fact calculated to be the ideal birth ratio as males tend to have a higher mortality rate[27]. There could be multiple reasons for the contrast between the SRB of America and China. One census has shown that American parents de-sire a balanced family; that is to say, they believe the ideal family consists of a girl and a boy, which makes it reasonable to state that there is none or next to no preference in between the two sexes. To clarify the meaning behind gender preference (and sexism), the Oxford dictionary definition of sexism goes as follows: “Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex”. With this in mind, we shall turn the focus to the ethics of gender selecting embryos in Asia and North America under multiple ethical theories. Furthermore, to assess if gender selec-tion should become available, we will be looking at its ethical implications for ourselves, the child and society. If, at the end, a conclusion that deter-mines the motives behind the usage of gender se-lection is reached that is ethical, then sex selection should be made available to the population ac-cording to a deontologist. When assessing the ethical rightness or wrong-ness of gender selection in Asia, it becomes ap-parent that there are two approaches to reach the answer. Deontology is based on the intentions be-hind the action – it must be performed with either

the intention to improve oneself or to help im-prove others – therefore, whether gender selection is right or not depends solely on why it is done. On one hand, if we consider the cases in which many Asian parents prefer male children as a means for their financial stability (See Section 3.3.2), these are clearly deontologically unethical as they fail the categorical imperative. The cate-gorical imperative states that we must always treat people as an end and never as a means, and there-fore, whilst the parents are not technically inter-fering with any duties to self or others, the act re-mains an unethical one. On the other hand, there are the cases in which the parents’ intention is to spare their child a life of discrimination, which is more prevalent for females in Asian coun-tries[4].Parents actually choose to have a son so that they may spare their unborn daughter from an obvious, sexist culture. This intention would then fulfil the parents’ duty to others and thus, gender selection would in these cases be ethical. Gender selection can also be considered in Amer-ica, where gender biases and prejudices are not as predominant, and so most cases of gender selec-tions would be based on the parents’ personal preference – whether they prefer to have a boy or a girl. This creates a bit of a dilemma, since, like in the previous section, this action of choosing the gender does not technically interfere or contradict any duties; the parents neither prevent themselves or their future child from improving, but it would

8

still not be completely ethical since they are mod-ifying the embryo according to personal prefer-ences. Skin, Hair and Eye Colour It would be ideal to think that skin, hair and eye colour will not impact one’s level in society, alt-hough this is also dependent on the contexts and environment the individual is born into. However, history has, in fact, shown that the three factors do play a prominent role in the way we perceive, cat-egorize and segregate others in the society. Going, for example, from the presumed supremacy of the Aryan race present in Nazi Germany to the segre-gation of aboriginals in 1950’s Canada, it is ap-parent that physical traits do affect people’s per-spectives[19][7]. They are capable of demonstrat-ing our ethnicity (blue eyes, blond hair and white skin colour generally indicates a Nordic descent, whereas darker skin colour with black hair and eyes can specify if an individual is of Asian, Af-rican or Latin descent). These characteristics play a vital role for people sharing the same lineage and history as they help in giving them the sense of belonging to a community. Additionally, they can affect the way people react to other, different-looking people in such a way that they can gener-ate and initiate prejudice, discrimination, or an-tagonism in a society. This has been experienced throughout history, in which people have been bullied, persecuted and killed because of appear-ing different than the rest, which starts when a group of people believe that their own race is su-perior; the very definition of racism[24]. In many societies, being white or fairer-skinned has multiple benefits when it concerns one’s place in society. For instance, a person with lighter skin tone earns on average of 17% more than a person with darker skin tone[8]. They are also less likely to be subject to harassment in the form of verbal or physical violence, and, moreover, people with lighter complexions are often portrayed as more aesthetically pleasing and more powerful in the media. Therefore, if the parents select the child

with lighter skin, the act would be considered eth-ical according to a deontologist, since the parents’ intention is to improve their child’s future. And by the definition of duty ethics, one should strive to better the living conditions of others. 3.4.2.2 Physical Enhancement and Em-

powerment Beyond improving physical aesthetics and char-acteristics, humanity has also always aimed to overcome its limitations; to reach beyond its “nat-ural design” for perfection and to move beyond a state of mere health. This has paved the way for genomic engineering technologies, such as the CRISPR tool, which can alter the DNA of human embryos by inserting synthesized genes and thereby pushing genetic traits through a popula-tion. The idea of genetically enhancing humans’ capacities and capabilities has always been a sub-ject of fantasy and science fiction, but, with the recent and dramatic advancements within the field of genetic engineering, the topic of human enhancement has arisen to a possible future, and so its attainability and application deserve being discussed. Germline editing has always been met with many objections whose grounds are based mainly in previously mentioned safety concerns regarding the off-target mutations and side-effects, which may risk being carried on to subsequent genera-tions. Although this is a consequence of both ther-apeutic and non-therapeutic interventions, the therapeutic interventions have not been met with the same amount of rejection and scepticism. Disregarding any such distrust to creating people with “superhuman” abilities, this next section will be questioning whether these genetic engineering tools should solely be used for therapeutic pur-poses, or whether we actually have the duty to at-tempt to improve our germline. An example of this could be the question of whether or not to only genetically strengthen muscles in the cases of serious disorders such as muscular dystrophy that otherwise results in deteriorating muscles

9

over time, or if the enhancement of muscular strength for superior athletic performance should also be performed if possible? Another angle could be whether or not genetic modification would only be ethical to diminish and reduce the bodily and mental infirmities of aging, or if it should also be allowed to increase human lifespan[17]? Answering these questions from a duty-based perspective is not a straightforward approach when considering the duties to oneself and to others - irrespective of personal desires or inclinations. From the viewpoint of duties to others in which we are obligated to act to help others improve themselves, it can be stated that parents would have the duty to create children as well-off as pos-sible. In this sense, they should pursue the tech-niques that provide any improvements that would contribute to leaving their future child with the best possible attributes, and thus they would actu-ally be required to genetically improve the em-bryo and provide them with any such benefits. If, however, the embryos are modified with the intention of creating a tool; perhaps genetically enhancing muscles and physical endurance to cre-ate a super soldier for combative intentions in times of war, then this would be treating the future child as a means to an end, which would be a fail-ure of the categorical imperative[17]. Contrariwise, when considering the action of in prolonging the lifespan, it might be argued that the parents have the duty to do so, as they are thereby providing the future child with a longer period to experience, evolve, progress and de-velop. In other words, they are granting it the time to mentally evolve and to develop their skills and experience. We therefore conclude that, based on a deontolog-ical approach, if the action is performed with the purpose of helping the future child improve itself, then the act is required. However, if the intention behind such an enhancement is to use the future child as a means to achieve a goal, such as in the

case of designing soldiers with superior perfor-mance, the act of enhancement is ethically wrong according to a deontology[17]. 3.5 Genetic Engineering and Con-

sequentialism

3.5.1 Consequentialism: Genetic Engi-

neering for Therapeutic Purposes One can also oppositely look at the ethical issues of genetic engineering from the perspective of consequentialism. The next section will in a con-sequentialist manner weigh the consequences of using genetic engineering as a therapeutic inter-vention for treating severe genetic disorders from the perspectives of ethical egoism, altruism and utilitarianism. 3.5.1.1 Severe Genetic Disorders To analyse costs and benefits of whether or not to genetically engineer an embryo, the first point of order would be to assess the safety concerns so that the option with the least damaging conse-quences to the child, the parents or everyone is chosen. As mentioned in previous sections, one of the safety concerns regarding genetic engineering is the risk of off-target mutations; are these risks, however, valid enough to justify a complete ban on genetic engineering – do the negative conse-quences really outweigh the positive? It is true enough that the potential accumulation of harmful mutations would be damaging to future genera-tions in that it could lead to an increase in rates of disease, but the answer to this question differs de-pending on the focal group. For ethical egoism, the consequences are consid-ered only for the agents – the parents – who must then consider the consequences pertaining to themselves; is it advantageous for themselves to opt for genetic engineering? If we once more take the example of cystic fibrosis that has no cure;

10

only palliative treatment that would still leave the patient with a drastically shortened life-span and decreased quality of life, then it would be reason-able to state that the presence of this disease in the parents’ lives would be considerably inconvenient and negative. Therefore, from the perspective of the parents and of ethical egoism, it would only be right to act in any way to eliminate the disease from their lives. Thus, if it were possible to genet-ically remove cystic fibrosis from the embryo, then this is the action that should be taken despite the risk of off-target mutations in the embryo. In contrast to ethical egoism, the answer is com-pletely different when viewing this issue from the perspective of ethical altruism, which would be the perspective of the future child. In this case, the consequences should be advantageous for the em-bryo for the action to be consequentially correct, and so limiting the impact of such a serious dis-ease by whatever means necessary is required. Though it can also be argued that the risk of off-target mutations pose a threat to the health of the child, so the parents would need to compare the possible negative outcomes of both refraining from acting and acting with genetic engineering as a tool. The consequences of unintended muta-tions might be serious, though there are ways of monitoring these mutations[9]. Mutations are moreover constantly being introduced to the hu-man germline, and furthermore, many human ac-tivities also increase the rate at which they occur. These activities include for instance smoking, de-layed parenthood, and even some cancer treat-ments may even lead to germline changes[9]. On the other hand, it is known that cystic fibrosis will lead to suffering and premature death, so remov-ing this disease should take precedence over wor-rying over the less severe consequences brought about by the uncertainties of the method. There-fore, in conclusion, it would be ethically correct to use genetic engineering as a therapeutic tool to remove severe diseases in an embryo from the perspective of ethical altruism and thus for the fu-ture child.

Viewing this issue from the ethical perspective of utilitarianism, however, yields a more contentious answer. Here, in addition to taking ethical egoism and altruism into consideration, one would also need to examine the question from the point of view of everyone, which we chose to represent as the society - so what are the societal impacts of genetically modifying embryos for the purpose of treating severe genetic diseases (like for instance cystic fibrosis), which roughly 6% of all babies are born with[9]? Setting aside what is ethically correct for the individual embryos and the par-ents, there are major concerns regarding allowing the use of genetic engineering as a universal ther-apeutic tool; namely these unanticipated muta-tions that have been mentioned in previous sec-tions. When genetically modified organisms are introduced into the environment and they mate with wild-type organisms, their offspring have a 50% chance of inheriting the modified genes that perhaps cause undesirable phenotypes[10]. Thus, while allowing a small number of the population to genetically modify their germline would prob-ably not pose the greatest threat, making it avail-able to all could have serious ramifications for the gene pool of the human species[10]. For this rea-son, until the methods have become safer, genetic engineering should only be made accessible for those who absolutely need it - like for instance those suffering from cystic fibrosis.

3.5.1.2 Less-Severe Genetic Disorders The use of genetic engineering as a therapeutic tool to treat embryos with less severe disorders produce separate ethical viewpoints than for the more severe cases. Once more, the problem should be addressed by weighing the negative and positive consequences from the perspectives of ethical egoism, ethical altruism and utilitarianism. We will again ascribe ethical egoism to the par-ents, examining what course of action would gen-erate the most convenient outcome for them-selves. If we again use the example of haemo-

11

philia as the inheritable genetic disorder, refrain-ing from genetically modifying the embryo would result in a commitment to upholding medical care as well as investing excess time and emotional support. Thus, the act of eliminating the disease from the embryo would be ethically correct. From the perspective of ethical altruism (of acting in the best interest of the future child), the risks of unknown side-effects of off-target mutations would once again need to be assessed. Now, while the consequences of living with the disorder (hae-mophilia) are known, with the conventional ther-apeutics, they are not life-threatening and they al-low the patient to live a relatively normal life, which, compared to the unknown risks, appears to be the safest approach. Hence, according to ethi-cal altruism, the act of genetically altering the em-bryo would be unethical. Viewing this issue from the perspective of utili-tarianism directly yields the answer that genetic engineering would be unethical, since, as we men-tioned previously, this tool would pose serious risks to the whole of the human species and so should only be available to the most severe cases in which it is actually required to live (See section 3.5.1.1).

3.5.2 Consequentialism: Genetic En-

gineering for Non-Therapeutic Pur-

poses This section will examine the ethical positions of selecting or altering the human germline for non-therapeutic purposes under the perspective of consequentialism, which will, as in the previous section, be divided into ethical egoism (the par-ents’ perspective), ethical altruism (the future child’s perspective) and utilitarianism (the per-spective of society).

3.5.2.1 Physical Appearances and Fea-

tures Following the previous structure, we will start by viewing the topics through the perspective of eth-ical egoism, which only consider the conse-quences inflicted on the agents (the parents) to de-cide on the morality of an action. The first topic examined will be that of gender selection from be-fore, once again using the examples of Asian and American cultures as templates. Gender Take for instance the case of gender selection in an Asian culture where gender discrimination and preferences are prevalent, creating an imbalanced gender ratio (See section 3.4.2.1). The reason for this essentially boils down to the fact that the cul-tures are traditionally and generally extremely pa-triarchal, meaning that the males are in the posi-tions of power, implying that they are the most valued of the two sexes. This results in females generally serving a subservient and dependent roles[4]. This insinuates the presence of both fi-nancial and impractical factors behind conceiving female children, suggesting that the consequences will be of a negative and unfavourable nature. Se-lecting against female children and for male chil-dren would then be ethical from the perspective of consequentialist egoism. Ethical egoism, however, can also be applied to the American culture, in which gender prefer-ences and discrimination are not nearly so pre-dominant (See section 3.4.2.1). In this case, the parents most probably would only have a personal preference for the sex of their future child, thus acting in favour for this preference would then be a more positive outcome and more ethically right. Therefore, the morality of gender selection varies depending on the culture it takes place in. The same can also be said for ethical altruism, which solely relies on the consequences pertain-ing to the future child. If we once again start by

12

viewing the issue from an Asian culture, a female would, statistically, be less valued and therefore struggle more in both the family and in society, whilst the males would be far more respected[4]. Therefore, it would only be ethical to select a male embryo and discard the female ones since this would be the most beneficial course of action for the embryo.

Selecting the gender of a child in American cul-tures would not, however, make as much of an im-pact on the life of the child in terms of predicted consequences compared to the Asian cultures. Thus, gender selection would neither be wrong and nor would it be right from an ethical altruistic point of view; it would, in fact, be unnecessary.

Viewing the same topic from the perspective of utilitarianism (represented by society) also creates different angles. Due to the Asian countries’ fa-vourable view on males, more families would choose to have a son. As stated above, Asian countries have been analysed to have an increas-ing SRB, resulting in a society that is unbal-anced[23]. As there are more males, the chances of a female getting a well-off job has decreased considerably, resulting in an even more increas-ingly sexist and discriminating society. Con-versely, as females are in shorter supply, their lives would be mostly dominated by the will of men, and so we conclude that allowing gender se-lection would most probably increase sexism in Asian societies and should therefore be prohibited from the perspective of utilitarianism.

In comparison, we can once more contemplate this issue from the Western society, where it is ac-tually legal to screen and select the child based on gender. Here, it is apparent that the implementa-tion of gender selection has not changed the SRB of western families See section 3.4.2.1. Again, this could be explained by the lack of major dis-regard for one gender as opposed to the other, since it has been shown that there is an improved view of women as well as more gender equality.

Hair, Skin and Eye Colour In addition to gender selection, genetic engineer-ing for the purpose of altering skin, hair and eye colour can also be viewed under these different consequentialist perspectives. From an ethically egoistic point of view (the par-ents), it could be potentially dangerous for the parents to change the colour of their child’s fea-tures because of the potential scrutiny the parents would face from their community. As skin colour is related to race, society might perceive the ac-tion of choosing a different skin colour of a child as racist, which will reflect poorly on the parents as they would be labelled as racists. Such a label could cost them their jobs, habitat as well as their public image[11]. Skin colour is also the subject of segregation and discrimination of specific races across nations, making it obvious that the inherited skin colour does play a role in life. The colour of one’s skin can be a determining factor in one's future occu-pation, which in turn will regulate one’s wages[11]. The amount of money one receives will determine the quality of life. This in turn will determine the amount of crime one will be subju-gated to. To put in differently, if a person has less money, they are more likely to use criminal means to obtain what they need or want. Moreover, in some worldviews, specific hues of skin are more expected to turn to life of crime, creating a sense of acceptability/expectation towards crime in cer-tain races. The pigment of the skin can also deter-mine one sexual desirability in the eyes of the op-posite sex. This is seen more towards women, as there has been multiple studies that showed that men preferred a female with lighter skin because it is seen as prettier and more feminine. Therefore, it would be unethical or ethical from an altruistic point of view, depending on which skin colour is preferred in the society in which the genetic engineering takes place.

13

When considering this issue from a utilitarian per-spective, there are also both positive and negative consequences. In view of everyone being of the same colour, there could not be any segregation on the basis of race. Due to this, all of the conse-quences listed in ethical altruism will be dis-banded, creating a society in which people have equal opportunity at birth. In other words, if there is no race, there is no racism. Although this may be true, it is the result of racism, which in itself sparks controversy. What is meant by this is that to create a society with only one race, society must acknowledge that one race is superior, which is the definition of racism. It is important to realize that if this technology was available in these worldviews, children born from parents that did not implement skin selection will probably be subjugated to even more racism. Changing the colour of a child’s hair or eye col-our, however, is not as controversial a topic from a consequentialist point of view. This is due to multiple reasons, including the fact that parents already have a limited ability to “choose” hair and eye colour for their future child. This is done through the selection of a mate with specific, pre-ferred physical attributes (and thus, hair and eye colour)[18]. Moreover, there are currently multi-ple ways a person can change the colour of their hair and eyes; the most common and cheap meth-ods would be hair dye and contact lenses. From this, it is clear that the consequences of any action that would alter the colour of the hair or eyes would not be unethical from any consequentialist point of view, seeing as neither of these would garner any particular advantage or disadvantage. 3.5.2.2 Physical Enhancement and Em-

powerment The question about whether or not to use genetic engineering as a tool of enhancing the human race is not nearly as forthright when viewed under a consequentialist perspective as it was under a de-ontological one. The problem with this kind of

question is that the answer will produce an exces-sive attribution of moral responsibility; in other words, the decision makers will have to bear the consequences of their decisions. In the case of in-tentionally influencing and changing the genetic makeup of the next generations, any such deci-sions must be taken cautiously, otherwise their outcome could have damaging effects on human-ity and would[1]. The issue with making the deci-sion is that there is no reliable standard to guide our choices of what would be better[2][17]. Therefore, the basis for evaluating the different arguments will be to compare the advantages to the disadvantages, as there are stronger reasons to avoid the harms than to produce the benefits; that is to say, it is better to be safe than to be sorry. As a result, the maxim primum non nocere, which states that “above all, do not harm”, will be con-sidered and followed, however on consequential-ist grounds[9][2][13]. Evaluating the ethical position a consequentialist will take when discussing the issue of genetically improving human offspring mainly depends on the outcome of such an action. Supposing that the parents decided not to genetically improve their child but rather let nature run its course, that ac-tion will give their future child the right to accuse them for their negligence in not preventing any misfortune that could lead to the child being be-low its potential standard. From an ethical altruis-tic perspective (that of the future child), not ge-netically enhancing the embryo would be an un-ethical action. Furthermore, as we saw in the deontological sec-tion, parents will generally seek the best for their offspring and has the duty to provide them with the best they can offer to ensure they have the best of possible futures. On the other hand, many op-ponents have questioned if that is a fair reason to provide the parents with the control to decide whether they want to have a designed baby with enhanced traits or not. Their arguments were con-cerned with the effects of such a decision on the designed baby; mainly regarding enhancing the

14

baby for traits it would not have wished for. This again, provides the designed baby with the claim-right against its parents’ decision of genetically improving him, and so from this argument, genet-ically enhancing the future child would not be a moral action from the ethical altruistic perspec-tive. In both of the cases, genetically improving the embryo or not, the future child is given a claim-right against its parents even before being born. Therefore, since parents are not freed from being charged for any decision they make, each specific example will be solely evaluated. Now, suppose the designed baby was enhanced for its muscular strength and superior athletic per-formance - is such an act, ethically right? Argu-ments against shed light on the fact that enhance-ments in performance always have been seen as a mean to generate human inequalities, in that some people are privileged while others are not. From this, the ethical altruistic argument against genetic enhancement can include social and professional exclusion. This can be exemplified from the fact that no praise or personal credits are given for ac-complishments that have been achieved by ath-letes consuming drugs to enhance their perfor-mance and improve their athleticism, since they are then seen as unfairly benefitted compared to the others. Hence, to have a designed child’s ca-pacities and performance abilities genetically im-proved would only be seen to supersede its own agency in authoring the achievement, and its achievements will not be perceived as remarkable ones[25]. In addition to this, genetic enhancement could have negative psychological effects, since it will put the future child under the pressure of achieving higher accomplishments due to the cor-responding higher expectations[2][18]. Of course, greater achievements will be possible if genetic enhancements and personal efforts and skills are combined, and so from a utilitarian per-spective, it could actually be an ethical action. The argument against this, however, could be that the

price of the thrive to reach excellence might be our dignity and integrity, in which people might end up pursuing the wrong goals in the wrong ways. On the other hand, designing a baby for en-hanced muscular strength and performance, with respect to it being ethically wrong in the example above, is ethically right in times of war when it results in soldiers with superior performances and capabilities, and when the existence of a human society is at stake or risk, in which the benefits of such an act outweighs its costs[17]. Apart from this, human enhancement might also be pursued as means of prolonging lifespan; in which case, are the consequences of such an act more beneficial than unfavourable, and thus ethi-cal? The fear of death has always motivated the aim to conquer aging; to extend youth and to sub-stantially prolong lives. So, at first glance, one may ask, “who does not wish to live longer? Who does not wish that the barriers of age are bro-ken?”. Before answering the question, an im-portant distinction must be made clear between living years beyond maturity with an increased length of senescence and between genetically in-terfering with the aging process (slowing down age-related declines in bodies and minds). If such an enhancement, in which a designed person has an increased lifespan, is interpreted as living many more years with mental and physical dete-rioration, such an act is ethically wrong according to ethical egoism, altruism, as well as utilitarian-ism. In other words, living many more years with declining abilities, mental and physical agility will cause economic, social, and health chal-lenges, which is ethically wrong from all perspec-tives, even if our understanding and judgement are improving with time. This is mainly an issue in already overcrowded countries as there will be an ongoing rise in age-related chronic illness as well as in the need for long-term health. Although designed people will have many more working years than normal individuals, they will also live for a longer period beyond maturity. On the other hand, if the enhancement was made in such a way that it interferes with the aging process and slows

15

down physical and mental age-related declines, it would be ethically right from all perspectives, since people would then live many more years while being healthy and productive[17]. Based on all the different examples discussed above, it is quite obvious that many different as-pects may come into play when evaluating the consequences of permitting any specific kind of enhancement.

3.6 Discussion/Conclusion The field of biotechnology with respect to genetic engineering has faced strong scepticism and con-cern by the scientific community; especially the ethical implications of implementing it for the hu-man germline. This discussion will first summa-rize our findings from the investigational body of work, followed by a thorough evaluation of the conclusions in which we will compare and con-trast the ethical approaches to assess which one is the most effective method of determining the rightness of genetic selection or modification. The two ethical stances, deontological and conse-quentialist, were throughout this work used as tools to understand the different ethical perspec-tives for and against the use of genetic engineer-ing in embryos for both therapeutic and non-ther-apeutic purposes. Our findings for the deontolog-ical perspective all relied on the same underlying principles; it is only ethically right to genetically engineer when the intentions behind that action fulfil everyone’s duties of self-improvement and to help others, as well as follows the categorical imperative that states that people must be treated as ends, and never as means to an end. These re-quirements led to varying answers from section to section. For instance, for the cases of using ge-netic engineering as therapeutic interventions, it would only be ethically right to do so for the most severe cases (like cystic fibrosis), since these were the instances wherein the risk of off-target mutations would not be considered the most

harmful option. Due to this, to fulfil both their du-ties to themselves and others, the parents were ob-ligated to intend the least amount of damage to both the embryo and themselves. For the less se-vere conditions, however, like haemophilia, the risk factors were too great, and so as to not to in-terfere with any duties, then it would be unethical to genetically engineer as treatment. On the other hand, when reviewing the deontolog-ical perspective for non-therapeutic purposes, the answers yielded were a bit more ambiguous. For gender selection, the conclusion was that select-ing the gender of the embryo would only be deon-tologically right if the intention behind the act was to spare the child from discrimination in sexist cultures. It would, however, not be ethical to se-lect the gender of the embryo for the sake of per-sonal preference, since this would fail at the cate-gorical imperative. So in fact, this act would only be permitted in a particular case in the Asian cul-ture. The same can be said for the selection of skin pigmentation, where it would only be deontologi-cally right if the intention is to protect the future child from a racist culture. This differs when con-sidering hair and eye colour, since there is no con-flict or adherence to the actual duties. However, it does conflict with the categorical imperative since it allows the parents to alter the embryo based on personal preferences. For the case of human enhancement, we con-cluded that it would be ethical when genetically engineering with the intention of providing the fu-ture child with better physical and mental circum-stances. It would, however, be unethical with the purpose of creating people for a specific purpose, since this would fail at the categorical imperative. In contrast to the deontology, the consequentialist perspective on the question of the ethical charac-ter of genetically selecting and engineering em-bryos yielded much more conflicting and nuanced answers. In the cases of ethical egoism (the per-spective of the parents), the general consensus for

16

both therapeutic as well as non-therapeutic pur-poses is that these actions are ethical, since it would benefit the parents in some way. From the perspective of ethical altruism (and of the child), however, the answers differed somewhat; for the therapeutic purposes, it was only ethical for the severe ones as these were the cases in which ge-netic engineering posed the least amount of risks. For the purpose of non-therapeutic interventions, we concluded that gender selection, and the deter-mination of hair, eye and skin pigmentation were ethical in all circumstances. Oppositely, this was not found to be the case for genetic enhancement, as it would have a heavier psychological effect on the future child. Lastly, these issues could be viewed from the point of view of utilitarianism, represented by the whole of society. The consequences in the utili-tarianism view point are distinct when discussing therapeutic and non-therapeutic applications. When examining therapeutic methods, the main area of concern is the effect of non-intended mu-tations of CRISPR on the rest of the population and their offsprings. Therefore, we have con-cluded that it would only be ethical if a small per-centage (those with severe lethal diseases) have the ability to use genetic engineering. In contra-diction, the consequences regarding non-thera-peutic methods have more of an impact on the morality of society as opposed to the wellbeing and the progressiveness of the population as seen in the therapeutic consequences. The ethics con-cerning the application of genetic selection and engineering of physical appearance is dependent on the worldview of the society in question. If a gender selection and/or colour selection was available in sexist or racist countries, then as dis-cussed in section earlier, it would be ethically cor-rect for both the parents and the child to conform to the worldview. As a result, the vast majority of the population will be of same gender and same skin colour. For instance, if gender selection is implemented in societies with a high occurrence of sexism, its results will only further the culture of sexism, and vice versa. To summarize, the act

of genetic selection and manipulation is ethical for many reasons in different contexts, but if the context (the view of sexism and racism) is uneth-ical, then the motive of the act of selection can be considered unethical. The same can be said for ge-netic enhancement of the human germline; it would only be ethical depending on the situation of the society, as in the case of super soldiers in times of war. We have thoroughly examined all angles of the ethics of therapeutic and non-therapeutic perspec-tives, and have found common ethical back-ground for all the topic discussed. For one, the availability of genetic modification will cause segregation between people that can af-ford the therapeutic or cosmetic treatment and those who cannot. This conclusion makes it un-ethical for genetic selection and modification to be allowed because it would impede everyone's availability for self-improvement and the im-provement or others. Another area of concern would be the influence on biodiversity of the hu-man race. Therapeutic and non-therapeutic treat-ments require a piece of DNA to be removed, in-serted or altered, which means that future genera-tions will not have typical phenotypes. This could eventually have unpredicted and potentially lethal consequences on the human genome, which could lead to partial-extinction or extinction. As a second common ethical issue is that of con-sent of the future generations. Many argue that any medical or cosmetic procedure requires in-formed consent from the patient, which is one of the key points of ethical conduct of medical re-search involving humans and a principle rooted in human rights. And in order for consent to play any significant role, it must be given prior to the ac-tion that would otherwise be considered unethical. However, the discussion concerning consent of future generations is ambiguous at best and would not justify a complete ban on germline genetic en-gineering. Humans often make decisions that alter their own lives as well as that of their offspring,

17

such as moving to a different country, or smoking and drinking throughout a pregnancy, which are not legally banned. Based on this discussion, we can conclude that the two ethical methods (deontology and consequen-tialism) of assessing the morality of genetically modifying embryos produce extremely different perspectives on the issues. Deontology is a much more reductionist method, in that respect for hu-manity only goes part of the way towards an ap-preciation of the implications of practical prob-lems for the whole person or even the whole of society. This ethical approach treats only a limited domain of human activity as implicating ethical concerns and then reducing these concerns to mat-ters that can be captured and addressed in forms of duty. Consequentialism, on the other hand, pro-vides a much more holistic view over the problem areas since it is possible to perceive them from multiple perspectives, allowing us to take more factors into consideration. Neither of the ap-proaches can be used as stand-alone tools though; deontology for reasons mentioned above, and consequentialism, since, whilst it grants a greater overview of the problem area through utilitarian-ism, it reduces the value of humanity. Therefore, our conclusion is that the best ap-proach to evaluate the ethical implications of ge-netically selecting or modifying embryos is through the holistic view of utilitarianism in com-bination with Kant’s categorical imperative.

18

4. Bibliography [1] R. E, “Ethical Issues in Genome Editing using

Crispr/Cas9 System,” J. Clin. Res. Bioeth., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 7–10, 2016.

[2] M. A. Azevedo, “Un Nuevo Tema De La

Agenda Filosófica H Uman Enhancement :,” pp. 265–303, 2013.

[3] C. Gyngell, T. Douglas, and J. Savulescu,

“The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing,” J. Appl. Philos., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 498–513, 2017.

[4] W. Dondorp, G. De Wert, G. Pennings, F.

Shenfield, P. Devroey, B. Tarlatzis, P. Barri, and K. Diedrich, “ESHRE Task Force on ethics and Law 20: Sex selection for non-medical reasons,” Hum. Reprod., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1448–1454, 2013.

[5] L. Edlund, Son Preference, Sex Ratios, and

Marriage Patterns, vol. 10705, no. 18. 1999. [6] L. Howden and J. Meyer, “Age and Sex

Composition: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs,” U.S. Census Bur., no. May, pp. 1–15, 2011.

[7] B. Lawrence, Gender, Race, and the

Regulation of Native Identity in Canada and the United States: An Overview, vol. 18. 2003.

[8] G. Johnson, “Subsidies for Higher

Education,” J. Labor Econ., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 303–318, 1984.

[9] C. Gyngell, T. Douglas, and J. Savulescu,

“The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing,” J. Appl. Philos., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 498–513, 2017.

[10] A. L. Caplan, B. Parent, M. Shen, and C.

Plunkett, “No time to waste--the ethical challenges created by CRISPR: CRISPR/Cas, being an efficient, simple, and cheap technology to edit the genome of any organism, raises many ethical and regulatory issues beyond the use to manipulate human germ line cells,” EMBO Rep., vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1421–1426, 2015.

[11] J. Hersch, “Profiling the New Immigrant

Worker: The Effects of Skin Color and Height,” J. Labor Econ., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 345–386, Apr. 2008.

[12] D. M. Buss, “Sex differences in human mate

preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures,” Behav. Brain Sci., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 1989

[13] C. M. Smith, “Origin and Uses of Primum

Non Nocere -Above All, Do No Harm!,” J. Clin. Pharmacol., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 371–377, 2005.

[14] Heberer, G. “Anthropologischer

Anzeiger.” Anthropologischer Anzeiger, vol. 30, no. 1, 1967, pp. 65–66. JSTOR, JSTOR

[15] M. R. Hainin and M. Hermadi, “of

Engineering,” Society, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 7062, 2012.

[16] G. R. Cutting, “Cystic fibrosis genetics: from

molecular understanding to clinical application,” Nat. Rev. Genet., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 45–56, Jan. 2015.

[17] A. Medrano-E’Vers, A. E. Morales-

Hernández, R. Valencia-López, and D. R. Hernández-Salcedo, “Enfermedad granulomatosa crónica,” Med. Interna Mex., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 407–414, 2017.

[18] Brey P. (2009) Human Enhancement and

Personal Identity. In: Olsen J.K.B., Selinger E., Riis S. (eds) New Waves in Philosophy of Technology. New Waves in Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, London

[19] Grant, M. (1922). The passing of the great

race: or the racial basis of European history. New York: Scribners Sons.)

[21] Cox, M., Doudna, Jennifer, & O'Donnell,

Michael. (2015). Molecular biology, principles and practice (2.nd ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.

[20] B. Alberts, A. Johnson, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts and P. Walter, Molecular Biology of THE CELL, Fifth Edition ed., M. Anderson and S. Granum, Eds., New York City: Garland Science, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008.

II

[22] N. A. Campbell, J. B. Reece, L. A. Urry, M. L.

Cain, S. A. Wasserman, P. V. Minorsky and R. B. Jackson, BIOLOGY, TENTH EDITION ed., B. Wilbur, Ed., London: Pearson Education Limited

[23] L. Edlund, Son Preference, Sex Ratios, and

Marriage Patterns, vol. 10705, no. 18. 1999. Online Sources: [24] Velton, R. (2017, April 25). The silent killer

of africas' albinos. BBC. Last Visited (04/12/17). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170425-the-silent-killer-of-africas-albinos

[25] James Fieser. “Ethics”. The Internet Encyclo-

pedia of Philosophy, Last Visited (04/12/17). Retrieved from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

[26] Konkle BA, Huston H, Nakaya Fletcher S.

Hemophilia B. 2000 Oct 2 [Updated 2017 Jun 15]. In: Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2017. Last Visited (04/12/17). Retreived from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1495/

[27] Canada Male to female ratio at birth, 1950-

2017.(n.d.). Last Visited (04/12/17). Retrieved from: https://knoema.com/atlas/Canada/topics/Demographics/Fertility/Male-to-female-ratio-at-birth

[28] Last Visited (04/12/17). Retrieved from:

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/09/18/designer-babies-just-around-corner-scare-science/

III