The title of this Tuesday Talk, Frankenstein’s Babies, was appealing, and the presentation delivered on it. On a lively evening with strong participation, Dr Tess Johnson invited the room to consider deep existential questions while exploring gene editing. She kicked off with the provocative question, “What should we do about designer babies?” It set the stage for an engaging discussion during and after dinner.
Between human and genetic enhancement
We live in a society built on the concept of enhancement. We’re all familiar with everyday enhancement techniques that boost our abilities or help us function. We drink coffee or tea to stay awake. We take medicine or vitamins to improve attention and reduce fatigue. We try new ways to become better versions of ourselves.
So, since we’re so used to human enhancement, would genetic enhancement be so different? Or just the next familiar step forward?
Dr Johnson’s research explores this uncertain terrain by looking at key issues around modifying genes. She clearly defined genetic enhancement as the use of gene-editing tools to insert, change, or remove certain genes. She also stressed the need to explore this issue from ethical and philosophical perspectives.
Frankenstein’s monster versus our reality
We all know the story of the young scientist who creates a living being from assembled body parts, only to be horrified and abandon it. Rejected and lonely, the creature seeks revenge on its creator, with tragedy following. Dr Johnson used this story to introduce us to the world of scientists who are accused of “playing God” by interfering with nature.
It made us wonder if scientists should invest in developing techniques to modify our DNA. Frankenstein’s story had a tragic ending, but is that the only possible outcome?
Making future people
Dr Johnson continues to ask whether we should make “enhanced” future generations of humans, and where the line is between preventing disease and designing babies.
There are many ethical considerations on both sides. For example, gene editing could improve public health by reducing illness. Future children could benefit. However, the costs and risks to others could be high. Access could be inequitable, which is concerning in an increasingly unequal world.
She left us with reflections on humanity, our values and what a gene-edited future could entail. From the audience discussion, I realised that there are almost infinite ways to approach the topic. There are scientific, ethical, legal and economic perspectives (to name but a few), each carrying different considerations.
We enjoyed not only good food, but also excellent food for thought.
