Genetically Engineered Humans

No.

This is a very interesting question and one has to wonder what or who defines "genetic disorders."

If a parent prevented his/her child from being born with Down Syndrome or from later developing Alzheimer's Disease, I can understand why they would make that choice.

But then you get into trickier waters.

If a parent decides that he/she doesn't want the child to be gay, is that the parent's right to make that choice? Would that be considered a "genetic disorder" and would the request be seen as homophobic? That parent could see a life as a homosexual to be undesirable and therefore justify the request.

Does a father have any rights in the altering of genetics? He has little say in abortions so one would think not.

Correcting a medical problem is never morally wrong. But who decides what is best for a person's child?

Is getting a flu shot to prevent the flu wrong? That's how I see it.

Science has made huge leaps over the last few generations. Most of the relevant info about genes is now known.

Not all unfortunately. Messing with human genes before Science has COMPLETELY settled the issue is not immoral but extremely unethical.

If it's ethical is a matter of definition - "what is a disease", "what is a genetic disorder" etc.

We can think about that for a while. Because it'd be way too early using it. How about waiting for many generations of plant and animal experiments. How about letting the Chinese go crazy for a couple of decades and learn from them (cynical, I know. But we can't stop them).

I'm sure we're going to see som human diseases and disasters from accidents doing this. Let's think on how to do it safely while using our resources on more pressing matters. Like climate change, hunger, religious madmen, declining biodiversity, inequality and all those things that we haven't solved yet.

This is a difficult question. There are people who carry genetic disorders (such as muscular dystophy, Huntington's career, etc) who have the choice of having children who may live short, pain-filled lives or not reproduce at all.

It strikes me as something which needs to be decided on individual terms.

Having said that, there needs to be reasonably strict definition of disorders/diseases that may be treated in such a manner.

Another factor is that we are far from knowing most of the information about genes: there is a long way to go before genetic manipulation of humans could be safely tried.

It is a gray area, however, where do we draw the line? It's not a far cry from eliminating genetic diseases in our offspring to designing them to be all blond and blue-eyed. Do we really need to be designing our own Aryan race, even if it's inadvertently?

Eliminating genetic disorders through gene manipulation is not wrong, but we don't know the consequences of changing genes at present.

For instance, outright OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) is debilitating, and suffers would be thrilled to have a cure, however, fixing the genes that cause obsession could backfire, if we were to find that a certain amount of obsessive behavior is good (which I believe). Same goes for 'gay' genes. Who knows what the repercussions might be to eliminating gene sequences that we don't yet understand entirely.

If individuals were given a choice, we might find ourselves in a scenario similar to Gattaca, one of the finest little know films of recent memory. Superclass and underclass. Or as in India and China, where now that it's possible to determine the sex of fetuses, more and more females are aborted.

So, I say, go slow, or we may unleash a catastrophe.

Known genetic disorders that can seriously impact the quality of life should be screened and recognized whenever the choice is made to make a baby (not the traditional way but through artificial means). That being said, however, members of these communities may feel that they are being type-casted or pushed towards eradication. I think it would be inhumane to knowingly allow genetic disorders that alter quality to exist but am torn about just regular, run of the mill genetic disorders only impacting minutely.

Isn't the push for young, breeding-aged women to take vitamins filled with anti-oxidants in the same category as this because, in essence, the anti-oxidants will greatly improve the chances of having a healthy, genetic disorder free child? That being said, why is it that no one has an issue with that because it is deemed "good pre-natal care" for all women to eat/consume anti-oxidants?

Science should be used to help people. If genetic engineering (GE) can be used to prevent a person from suffering throughout their life, it should be used. It's as simple as that.

This is totally separate from the idea of 'designer babies'. I don't think customising your child to be fitter and more beautiful is right - if the rich had greater access to this genetic cosmetic surgery than others, it might create a race of 'beautiful people' and a genetic underclass. That would be undesirable.

If we can remove diseases, we should, but the technology must be heavily regulated. It should be restricted to curing diseases that severely affect quality of life - nothing else. Further, to avoid only the rich being able to afford curing their children's disease - which would seriously marginalise the genetically diseased - GE must be funded so it is available equally to all.

Ideally, no. But additional issues should be considered.

Define "genetic disorder." Genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis are disorders we're better off without. What about genetic 'disorders' causing deafness? The deaf community argues strenuously that deafness isn't a "disease," and no one should force them or their children to be "fixed."

How do we define "fix"? What if the "cure" is worse than the disease? It would be wonderful to eliminate sickle cell anemia, e.g., but doing so might require we not only "fix" individuals who have it, but also individuals who carry the recessive gene for it. That recessive gene confers protection against malaria to carriers. Do we "fix" it, and leave these individuals vulnerable to another disease?

Who gets to decide? If it's an individual choice, that's "moral." If it's a program enforced against individual will, regardless of individual considerations of cost or risk, that's decidedly the opposite.

No its not morally wrong, what morally wrong are the people trying to stop it's advance

The "fix" in this question can be taken multiple ways.

If the fix is gene therapy - the insertion of genes into cells and tissues to fight a hereditary disease - then the procedure is no more morally wrong than surgery.

If the fix is the abortion of a fetus with unwanted genetic traits, then the procedure is most likely morally wrong.

If the fix is Gattaca-style genetic engineering, then the moral line is far more fuzzy. If the genetic engineering is used to ensure no life-threatening hereditary disease or debilitating genetic abnormality, then the procedure is rather moral, and life saving. However, if the purpose of the genetic engineering is to increase intelligence, athletic ability, or appearance, then the procedure is no better than steroids or other chemical enhancements.

Probably, but it benefits our species nonetheless.

Just finished reading Michael Crichton's "Next" and a book by Robin Cook both focusing on this.

I believe that gene therapy can be a great thing, and has the potential to prevent a lot of illnesses and diseases from ever developing.

I also believe that gene therapy can be dangerous. Insurance companies will drool over genetic information (why cover someone who's going to get cancer), parents will want to "improve" normal children (get rid of ADD, raise your kid's intelligence), there are endless applications of this information that can be morally questionable.

I think some kind of regulation is necessary - but I don't trust our government to do it (as they've tried to do). Researchers need to put their own boundaries on this to allow the technology to advance safely.

how can it be, we already have tests for certain disorders like downs and will give people the choice of abortion, if you could fix the downs, wouldnt that be better?

There is no direct yes or no answer to this question. Right and wrong are values derived from one's own basis for morality. As morality is an indefinable variable and/or otherwise has arbitrary value, it, as well as right and wrong are arbitrary values, or relativistic variables. Besides morality's indefinite nature, what you consider genetic disorder and what you consider genetic order are also entirely relative.

For instance, fish (if able) would likely consider human lungs a genetic disorder. More close to home, Muslims might consider Christianity a genetic disorder. And racists could certainly consider a specific race a genetic disorder. Even still, people could in response say racism is a genetic disorder. And so on, and so forth.

Good luck.

No. And neither is changing the changes to bring out desirable traits in your children. Every parent wants to give their child the best. Once the technology to raise their inherent limits is created, its use will be inevitable. Not using it will come to seem like a deliberate choice to leave your child average when they could be extraordinary.

Humanity's ancestors were shaped by physical evolutionary pressures. This force came to a virtual standstill once we developed technology. Cultural evolution came to be the dominant force, with your society's technical knowledge determining how long you would live, not your speed or strength. Cultural evolution has now reached the point where it can accomplish directly the goals of physical evolution, without the presence of death as the driving factor. Genetic engineering lets humanity finally shape our own destiny.

The question should have come in 2 parts. First, is genetic engineering acceptable for fixing illnesses with a strong genetic element? Of course this is morally acceptable. Genetic diseases are usually a defect of some sort and should be corrected by those who want to (like parents). Who in their right mind would refuse to allow people that option?

The second element of the question is should we allow genetic engineering to modify babies in ways not related to their health. The problem here is that everyone thinks genes have a direct correspondence to a particular trait. There is no one gay gene or one smart gene. In fact, few genes work this way. What we can do (eventually) is to perhaps alter a gene to give a child a better predisposition to a trait. Genes are not a blueprint, they are a recipe and nurture is still a factor.

Oh boy, Gattica here we come. Does anyone else think that maybe we could be the last generation of "natural humans" and one day we might find ourselves in the "struggle of our times" against the "enhanced"? Maybe I'm just thinking crazy...
On the actual topic, I agree, genetic administration is good for human disease issues but the line is a small and quick one to cross to administer a faster, stronger "six million dollar" humans.

Fixing genes to eliminate genetic disorders is not morally wrong.

To take it further though, it's not morally wrong to select genes for specific attributes either. In fact the morals behind both correlate to the morals behind selecting a sexual partner which with to have children. If you believe as I that is it morally acceptable to select a partner based on your ideas of compatibility and overall value then it's ok to do it more directly.

Will we all end up the same? Since when has everybody agreed on what they like? I do foresee everybody selecting to not have genetic disease which is a good outcome.

Is fixing genes wrong? No, this is just another step of evolution as human beings, we're taking as human beings, we are getting rid of genes that are undesirable. The question isn't really whether it is wrong or not, the question is more how do you do it morally, because we are essentially playing God. There will be a day and age where we will be able to choose which children we want based upon a doctor taking an egg and sperm, once that happens then we should have the choice, but until then we shouldn't just abort babies that have a chance of having a "genetic disease" such as down syndrome. Aborting a baby because of a genetic disease is wrong, once we are at a day and age where we can choose what baby we want without killing just because it had something you didn't want.

This is a bit of a dicey subject considering we're talking about a procedure that's not very effectively used now, whether the "fixing" is performed before or after birth and how detrimental the disorder is.

In general, I'd say that gene therapy is not morally wrong. You're not "changing" a person by it: mind and soul make a person, not simply DNA. This, however, is really something that should be reserved for truly detrimental and/or life-threatening disorders (e.g. Huntington's, cystic fibrosis). In this case, would it be morally right to withhold treatment from someone who is suffering or will die because of it.

Genetic modification should be used sparingly on more cosmetic defects. While improving these defects may, theoretically, improve their life, it sets a dangerous precedent in "choosing" how a person should be, especially before birth (i.e. pick which fertilized egg lives by how it will look when born).

The ideal to give everyone a full, healthy life is not necessarily a bad one, only misguided. The real problem lies in overpopulation. People are living longer, and with the advent of stem-cell research, this trend will only continue. People are driven to such lengths because of their fear of death, but death is inevitable. As the the human species becomes further perfected, the quality of life (due to depleted resources) will inevitably suffer.

If it helps people overcome diseases that are hurting their quality of life, how can it be immoral to help someone? What basis is there even for this to be immoral? There should be no good reason someone can not have a high quality of life. And if you think it is immoral: You have a daughter that has been born with a terrible disease that will lead to her dieing in the first years of her life. There is a cure that is not 100% guaranteed, but at most it will do nothing. If you don't use this cure, she will die before she turns two. If you do not take this cure, it would be letting the disease kill her.