As we all know by now, Fertility Institutes offered last month that they will be offering parents the ability to choose their offsprings eye color, hair color, etc. And, as we also know, it created quite a firestorm of attention, especially after the Octomom came on the scene.
Well, as of March 2, 2009, Fertility Institutes retracted this offer as follows on their website:
"EYE AND HAIR COLOR PROGRAM SUSPENSION -- New!
March 2, 2009
In response to feedback received related to our plans to introduce preimplantation genetic prediction of eye pigmentation, an internal, self regulatory decision has been made to proceed no further with this project. Though well intended, we remain sensitive to public perception and feel that any benefit the diagnostic studies may offer are far outweighed by the apparent negative societal impacts involved. For those patients with albinism or other ocular pigmentation disorders, we continue to offer preimplantation genetic diagnosis in general but will not be investigating the genetics of pigmentation of any body structures."
And, no matter what your opinion is regarding this offer, I found a great article written by Keith Kleiner on Singularity Hub that states the following interesting argument:
"Although for now we can debate whether or not it is useful or even morally acceptable to select for trivial genetic traits such as hair color, the truth is that the technology to enable all sorts of genetic choices, both life threatening and purely cosmetic, is rapidly approaching. The Fertility Institutes has proven that parents for whatever reason want to make these choices and are more than willing to pay exorbitant prices to have them. Therein lies the seeds of a future where genetic selection and modification for almost any conceivable trait will become the norm.
It is already well established within society that genetic selection and modification to mitigate disease and to choose a child’s gender is a choice that parents should be allowed to make. If we can allow parents to make these genetic choices, how can we stop them from wanting and then pursuing other choices beyond these?
It is a shame perhaps that so much focus has been given to genetic selection of eye color and hair color in the first place, taking focus away from the great triumph we have achieved in using genetic selection to save thousands of children from seriously debilitating and deadly diseases. It also distracts us from debating the selection and modification of more useful traits that may be on the horizon, like intelligence and physical strength and agility. It is easy to tell parents that they should not tamper with a child’s eye color, but not so easy to tell them they should not provide their child with normal or even superior intelligence.
Even as the debate will continue to rage on, the eventual outcome seems not only inevitable, but also fair: parents will be allowed to choose whatever traits they want for their child, whether it be eradication of disease, increased intelligence, or even eye color. As long as the choices parents are making pose no obvious harm to the child, such as intentionally giving the child a disease, parent choice shall reign supreme."
As I believe, he does believe that regulation should occur at some level; however, he, as do I, agree that the "world would be a more interesting place if we leave most of the choice in the hands of the parents" - of course, as I see it, with guidance from the legal, medical and psychological community.
What do you think on this issue?
Subscribe to my blog at: http://www.surrogacyeggdonorblog.com/subscribe.html
