The Controversies Behind 

Designer Babies 
By: Ashrika Dudeja

 
 
Designer Baby​: a baby whose genetic makeup has been selected or altered 
often to include a particular gene or to remove genes associated with a 
disease 
→ genetically engineering in vitro fertilization for specially selected 
traits can vary from lowered disease-risk to gender selection 
 
 Table of Contents 
 
1. “'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say” 
a. James Gallagher  ( pg 3 7 )
-

2. The Designer Baby Distraction 

a. Lea Witkowsky  ( pg 8 -

13 )
3. Designer Breeds First, Designer Babies Next: How Designer Breeds Paved the 
Way for Designer Babies and the Future Changes to the World 
a. Evelyn Soto  ( pg 14 -

20 )

4. ‘Designer Baby’ Technology to Make Smarter, Taller Kids Doesn’t Work Yet 
a. Nicoletta Lanese  ( pg 21 -

26 )
5. Scholastic New York Times Cartoon 
a. Dusan Reljic  ( pg 27-29 )
6. Just Because We Can Create Genetically Modified Babies Doesn’t Mean We 
Should 
a. Ryan T. Anderson ( pg 30-36)

Source Annotation Key 

Alliteration  Ethos/Pathos/Logos   Rhetorical Modes: 

Allusion  Analogy  Comparison/Contrast 

Repetition  Parallelism  Narration 

Asyndeton/Polysyndeton  Juxtaposition  Illustration/Example 

Metaphor/Simile  Anecdote  Definition 

Rhetorical Question  Precise Word Choice  Description 

 BBC News
James
Source 1: 'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say 19
Gallagher
January
Rapid progress in genetics is making "designer babies" more likely and society needs to be prepared,
2015

leading scientists have told the BBC.

Dr Tony Perry, a pioneer in cloning, has announced precise DNA editing at the moment of conception in
mice.

He said huge advances in the past two years meant "designer babies" were no longer HG Wells territory.

Other leading scientists and bioethicists argue it is time for a serious public debate on the issue.

Designer babies - genetically modified for beauty, intelligence or to be free of disease - have long
been a topic of science fiction.

Dr Perry, who was part of the teams to clone the first mice and pigs, said the prospect was still fiction, but
science was rapidly catching up to make elements of it possible.

paral elism
In the journal Scientific Reports, he details precisely editing the genome of mice at the point DNA from
the sperm and egg come together.

Dr Perry, who is based at the University of Bath, told the BBC: "We used a pair of molecular scissors and
a molecular sat-nav that tells the scissors where to cut.

I epistrophe
"It is approaching 100% efficiency already, it's a case of 'you shoot you score'."

New era
It is the latest development of ​"Crispr technology" - which is a more precise way of editing DNA than
anything that has come before.

It was named one of the top breakthroughs in 2013, hailed as the start of a new era of genetics and is
being used in a wide-range of experiments in thousands of laboratories.

As well simply cutting the DNA to make mutations, as the Bath team have done, it is also possible to use
the technology to insert new pieces of genetic code at the site of the cut.

It has reopened questions about genetically modifying people.

Prof Perry added: "On the human side, one has to be very cautious.

"There are heritable diseases coded by mutations in DNA and some people could say, 'I don't want my
children to have these mutations.'"

This includes conditions such as cystic fibrosis and genes that increase the risk of cancer.
 "There's much speculation here, but it's not completely fanciful, this is not HG Wells, you can imagine
people doing this soon [in animals].

"At that time the HFEA [the UK's fertility regulator] will need to be prepared because they're going to
have to deal with this issue."

He said ​science existed as part of a wider community and that it was up to society as a whole to begin
k assessing the implications and decide what is acceptable.
repetition
Time for debate
Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, from the UK Medical Research Council, has been influential in the debate
around making babies from three people and uses the Crispr technology in his own lab.

He said testing embryos for disease during IVF would be the best way of preventing diseases being
passed down through the generations.

However, he could see such potential uses of "germ-line therapies" for men left infertile by damaging
mutations.

While they can have children through IVF, ​any sons would still have the mutations and would in turn
need IVF. ​Genetic modification could fix that.

It would also be useful in circumstances when all embryos would carry the undesirable, risky genes.

Prof Lovell-Badge told the BBC News website: "Obviously in the UK, this is not allowed and there
would have to be a change in regulations, which I suspect would have enormous problems.

"But it is something that needs to start to be debated.

"There has been a blanket ban on germ-line therapy, so there needs to be a debate about that and some
rational thought rather than knee-jerk reactions that, 'No you can't possibly do that.'"

Such a debate would also have to move beyond therapies into the field of babies designed to have
desirable traits.

Some alterations would only require small changes to DNA, such as some changes to eye colour or to
make a child HIV-resistant.

The respected Nuffield Council on Bioethics is understood to be considering a report on the issue.

Its verdict in 2012 that it was ethical to create babies from three people formed a core part of the public
debate on the issue.

At the time it said a much wider debate on germ-line therapy was still needed.
Complex ethics
Its director, Hugh Whittall, told the BBC: "I think this is a challenge, for all of us, we should get onto
looking at this fairly rapidly now."

He said the​ field raised questions of social justice around techniques available only to the rich and what
constituted identity as well as "issues of governance and regulation".

Dr David King, from the campaign group Human Genetics Alert, echoed calls for the public to engage
with the issue.

He said:​ "I think it's pretty inevitable that we'll get to a point where it's scientifically possible, certainly
these new techniques of genome editing have made something look much more feasible than it did five
years ago.

"But that does not mean to say it's inevitably the way we have to go as a society."

This is still a matter of science fiction and there is a huge amount of research - particularly on unwanted
mutations, efficiency and safety - that needs to be done before any attempt of humans would even be
considered.

A spokesman for the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said: "We keep a watchful eye
on scientific developments of this kind and welcome discussions about future possible developments."

He said​ it "should be remembered that germ-line modification of nuclear DNA remains illegal in the UK"
and that new legislation would be needed from Parliament "with all the open and public debate that would
entail" for there to be any change in the law.
Source 1
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-30742774 
 
1. What is the date, title, source, context, and occasion of the article?
The source, titled “‘Designer babies’ debate should start, scientists say,” was published on the
BBC News website in January 2015. While it is a fairy dated article, it encompasses the
progress in genetic engineering at the time, leading to a greater likelihood of “designer babies”
making an appearance. This article was written by author James Gallagher two years after
designer babies were declared one of the top breakthroughs in scientific research, marking a
new era of genetics. While these developments were strengthened, many were unsure of the
moral, social, and political consequences that it would cause.

2. Who is the author? What is his or her experience and expertise?

The author of the article, James Gallagher, is a health editor for the BBC News website who has
written many professional articles for the news source. He specialized in health and medical
science in 2010 and has covered stories from the UK approving “three person babies” to the
rise of immunotherapy in cancer treatment.

3. Who is the intended audience? What are their beliefs and needs?
Gallagher’s intended audience is educated people who read health news to develop an
understanding of advanced scientific breakthroughs. These people are hesitant of the new
advancements and are looking to hear more details about the so-called scientific breakthrough
of genetically modified designer babies.

4. What is the author’s argument? Complete an argument analysis of your choice:

Toulmin, Graff, and/or Rogerian.
James Gallagher argues that the technological advancements in genetic modification should be
taken into consideration especially as progress is seen with “designer babies” and believes that
society needs to be prepared to handle the situation. The author organized his argument with a
solid introduction, presenting a topic as a problem that is being heavily debated. The latest
development of CRISPR technology has begun a new era of genetics and brought up the
questions about genetically modifying people. He then goes on to explain the opposing position,
that there are heritable diseases which can be avoided by editing them out of embryos through
this new technology. He explains that while this is a sound argument and the position is valid,
there are a lot of disparities with that idea and is it not as easy to do as it sounds. Genetic
modification would be useful to edit undesirable, risky genes, but is also an ethical challenge.
There is a moral issue in social justice around techniques which are only available to the
wealthy and aren’t strictly regulated by the government. The position the author presents is that
although these questions may exist, inevitably, they will be addressed before the procedure is
released into society. The benefits of the procedure work towards the overall safety of human
life regardless of the misuse and should definitely be considered when determining if it is
ethically and morally sound.
5. How does the author offer counterargument? If not, what might the opposing side say?
He uses Dr. Tony Perry’s account about designer babies to present the opposition of the
debate. Dr. Perry advises caution when considering the use of such genetic engineering in
order to prevent children from having heritable mutations and conditions. He ties in the
counterargument that such a process will have to be regulated by the government and the idea
of ethics comes into play but is quick to refute the claim by arguing that it is inevitable for
advancements in genetic editing and there is still an increased amount of research to be done
before human attempts would be considered.

6. What rhetorical devices, modes, and other resources of language does the author
employ to construct the argument? Identify at least three or four and discuss their
effectiveness.
The author starts with an introduction describing the DNA editing process in mice. He describes
an idea that science fiction is becoming a reality as scientists are working on new and improved
technology. Mentioning cloning allowed Gallagher to begin his writing with the analogy that
cloning is not the only gene editing breakthrough that scientists have been working on and
designer babies have a similar outlook. Throughout his piece, he makes deductions in the form
of syllogisms to lay out subtle arguments. For example, the author included a statement from
the direction of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and elaborated that the director believed there
were many questions in regards to the “issues of governance and regulation.” While this
statement is not elaborated further, the author makes a sound argument that if such a
technology is released, the misuse would be drastic as wealthy people with children who are in
good health would want to choose desirable traits for that offspring. The government will have a
hard time regulating such a procedure as in the end it is the choice of the parent. He also uses
the strategy of contradiction in order to elaborate his argument. For every piece of evidence that
explains the positive impact of the technology of society, he also includes why that could be
harmful, allowing the reader to make the decision for themselves which side of the debate they
are more inclined towards. Overall, his argument that the disparities of the procedure outweigh
the benefits is effectively exhibited through his use of rhetorical strategies.

7. What is your response to the author’s argument and style? Do not merely state that
you agree or disagree. Discuss the viewpoint of the author and the effectiveness of how
he or she communicated it. From there, discuss your reasoned point of view.
Gallagher’s argument and style of writing was very straightforward and to the point. There was
not much evidence to back up some of the claims made in the article, and it felt more like a brief
summary of the breakthrough as well as look into the future of such a technology rather than a
formal reasoning of the claim made by the author. Gallagher does, however, bring into light that
it will be a heavily debated topic as there are many disparities associated with editing children
before they are born, either for desirable traits or just prevention of underlying genetically
transferred medical conditions. He merely touched upon the various complexities that arise due
to the uncertainty of the CRISPR procedure without the necessary elaboration for people who
are not well versed on the topic. While Gallagher did a good job of outlining the debate, he could
have emphasized his claim with a better alternative.
 American Society for
Source 2: The Designer Baby Distraction Microbiology
Lea wit Kow sky
Two summers ago, I was sitting in the waiting room of my doctor’s office, scanning the magazines
displayed on their bookshelf when I saw the latest issue of The Economist.​ The cover struck me. A
healthy baby surrounded with arrows and phrases like “High IQ,” “Sprinter,” and “20/20 vision.” The title
read, “Editing Humanity.” This was the latest in a string of sensational headlines following the first use of
the gene editing technology, CRISPR, in human embryos. A few months prior, the cover of MIT
Technology Review had displayed a similar image – a doll-like baby with blond hair and unusually large
blue eyes. It read, “We can now engineer the human race”. As a Ph.D. student in Molecular and Cell
Biology studying CRISPR’s key component, Cas9, these images really bothered me. They say, “‘designer
babies’ are here and you should be afraid.” It’s no surprise that one of today’s biggest public
nun
misconceptions about CRISPR is assuming that designer babies are around the corner. → claim
Mmm

These dystopian fears are not new. Concerns over designer babies rose to the public consciousness
decades ago when recombinant DNA technology and in vitro fertilization (IVF) were being
developed, and again when Dolly the sheep was cloned ​[1-3]. In the years since, many countries have
passed laws or embraced guidelines that regulate the scientific use of human embryos. A majority of
countries with advanced research programs have laws or guidelines in place that either ban or restrict
genetic modification of human embryos for reproductive purposes [4]. Even the first two countries to use
CRISPR in human embryos for research purposes, China and the UK, explicitly prohibit initiating a
pregnancy with genetically modified human embryos*.

I​ n the US, the regulatory landscape is unique. Rather than ban any practices outright, Congress has
instead tied the federal purse strings. ​In 1996, Congress passed an appropriations bill with a rider attached
known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which effectively prevents the use of federal funds to conduct
research on human embryos [5,6]​. Perhaps you’re thinking, “But I heard that human embryos were edited
in the US this summer.” You’re right. Shoukhrat Mitalipov’s lab at Oregon Health & Science University
used CRISPR in human embryos to fix a mutation that causes a type of heart disease [7] (though the
molecular mechanism is being debated). This work received private funding and was performed for
research purposes, aimed at curing a genetic disease, not at creating a super baby [8]. If similar work was
to be brought to the clinic, it would need approval by the FDA, regardless of the source of funding. To
prevent any such application from coming to market, Congress added a stipulation to appropriated funds
that prevents the FDA from considering any applications that involve editing human embryos [9]. So, for
now at least, genetically engineered babies will not be made in the US any time soon, no matter the
motivation.

Changing these laws would likely require broad societal consensus. While a survey published in Science
this summer suggests that public opinions about genome engineering have shifted when it comes to
genetic disease, by-in-large the public remains strongly opposed to genetic ‘enhancements’ associated
with designer babies [10-13]. Even among scientists and policy groups, genetic germline enhancements
are strongly cautioned against. None of the statements or guidelines published in the last few years by
major ethnics groups or important research and medical academies recommend any forays into germline
enhancements.
 Not only is the regulatory landscape unfavorable for creating a super baby, the biology makes it difficult.
The reality is that most human traits are extremely complex. The characteristics people tend to associate
with designer babies – intelligence, height, and athletic ability – are not controlled by one or even a few
genes. ​Take the seemingly simple trait, height. A 2009 study estimated that 93,000 single nucleotide
polymorphisms are required to explain 80% of the population variation in height. ​This isn’t to say that
there aren’t single genes that can have a strong influence. For example, the hormone EPO is considered a
performance-enhancing drug and is produced by a single gene. It’s not entirely crazy then to imagine that
the gene could be genetically engineered to produce more EPO, thereby making an individual more
athletically gifted [16]. But the World Anti-Doping Agency already tests for performance-enhancing gene
therapies in athletes, and recently updated its 2003 ban to include all forms of gene editing [17], as hard as
that may be to enforce.

Despite the concerns over designer babies, many scientists and doctors are calling for a regulatory path
forward to allow gene editing in human embryos for research [18-20]. The goal would be to understand
basic human biology, and potentially, to prevent extreme cases of genetic disease. The World Health →
credible
Organization estimates there are about 10,000 diseases known to be caused by a mutation in a single gene source
[21]. Many of these are extremely debilitating. ​As a parent, it’s easy for me to understand why
someone would want to edit the DNA of their embryos to prevent their future children from
suffering.​ ​When we have the capability to prevent suffering, isn’t there a moral obligation to do so? ​But
it’s not that simple.

Some argue that there are already approved medical procedures in place that can prevent transmission of a
genetic disease. ​For women who are already pregnant, prenatal genetic testing is now a relatively routine
procedure. Women who haven’t gotten pregnant yet but want to ensure their children don’t get their
disease-causing alleles can undergo IVF and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to choose embryos
without the mutation. ​For many people, it is hard to imagine spending the resources and social capital to
develop a new procedure that could risk creating unforeseen consequences for their child and their
children’s descendants, when options like PGD and adoption are already available and safe.

To complicate things even further, ​what counts as a disease worthy of eradication, and who gets to
decide?​ ​I’ll give a personal example:​ I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). While not a
monogenetic disorder, it does have a genetic component​ [22]. Assuming a genetic treatment could be
developed, I don’t know if I’d use it, let alone choose to correct any of my future embryos. Perhaps

-
you’re thinking, well that’s because it’s not a big deal. ​You’d be wrong. ​Like most diseases, OCD can
manifest on a spectrum, and in severe cases can cause extreme disruption of an individual’s life and
"
require costly treatments.​ As I write this, my OCD is in remission, but for at least a year my OCD
ethos manifested itself as an extreme case. I couldn’t leave my house for days, sometimes weeks at a time, and
informing barely slept or ate. My hands would bleed from the persistent washing and picking, and I constantly felt

peregrinator
igpatnos
trapped in a hell of my own mind. I lost friends, and wasn’t able to work. Luckily there are
evidence-based treatments for my disorder, and I was able to get help, partly because my family was able
to pay for it. What I’ve since realized is that much of what makes me “me” is linked at least in part to my
togain OCD. ​When it doesn’t hijack my life, it can help me.​ A mild manifestation of my OCD is
trust perfectionism. This has helped me become an excellent student and get into one of the best universities in
the world to obtain my Ph.D. It keeps me considering the many possible views and outcomes of any given
sympathetic appeal
from audience
 situation, and thereby gives me strong analytical skills. I like to think I have something to offer the world,
though that is up to the world to decide.

I think it’s safe to say that designer babies won’t be available any time in the near future. ​But what about
using CRISPR in human embryos to prevent disease? ​This application is coming.​ Researchers around the
world are conducting experiments in human embryos to fix harmful mutations. I don’t know yet how I
feel about this, but I know if it’s going to happen, it will need to be regulated responsibly. To me, the key
-

issue will be deciding which diseases should be prevented by editing. Deciding where the line between

-
✓
prevention and enhancement lies will also be necessary. Making sure we preserve societal infrastructure
for those individuals who will continue to be born with genetic diseases will be critical. Perhaps most
importantly, engaging those communities directly affected by this application is essential. As a scientific
pathos community, we need to seek broad public input and provide accurate information to help inform policy
makers. While societal consensus on ethical issues and policy decisions should be the goal, it may not
always be obtainable, and in those circumstances, somebody will have to decide. The best we can do is
make the most informed decisions with the input of as many stakeholders as possible.
}gowti
toO h
proposed
appeal to logic C logos) issue
Source 2
https://asm.org/Articles/Cultures-Magazine/Volume-4,-Issue-4-2017/The-Designer-Baby-Distract
ion

1. What is the date, title, source, context, and occasion of the article?
The article, “The Designer Baby Distraction,” was published on the American Society for
Microbiology (ASM) website under the heading Molecular Biology and Physiology. ASM
promotes science advances by providing a platform for researchers and students to elaborate
their understanding of science topics.

2. Who is the author? What is his or her experience and expertise?

The author of this article, Lea Witkowsky, Ph.D. is a Project and Policy Analyst at the Innovative
Genomics Institute, a non-profit, academic research organization. She became interested in the
social and ethical implication of CRISPR during her Ph.D. and furthered her interest by joining
the IGI to work on science policy projects. This article was a section of that research on the
application of the CRISPR procedure with designer babies.

3. Who is the intended audience? What are their beliefs and needs?
The intended audience are the members of the American Society for Microbiology or any
student doing research about the topic. Witkowsky believes that despite the belief that designer
babies are closer to reality than people may perceive. In reality, it is a mere misconception
because there are too many problems that scientists need to overcome. She claims that the
main purpose of the CRISPR editing in human embryos was solely to fix mutations that cause
genetic diseases, not to pick desirable traits in children. In order to prevent such a process from
appearing in clinics, Congress has added a stipulation to the source of funding for the FDA,
preventing it from considering applications in society. Therefore, it is unlikely that such a
process will be in the market anytime in the future.

4. What is the author’s argument? Complete an argument analysis of your choice:

Toulmin, Graff, and/or Rogerian.
Witkowsky argues that the public remains opposed to the genetic ‘enhancements’ on embryos
as it is not only difficult to regulate but also biologically hard to master. It would be hard to
predict the many uncharted problems that could arise from such a biological process to alter a
baby’s characteristics and genes by genetic embryo alteration. She mentions that she herself
has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which has a genetic component and although it caused
many problems in her life, it also helped her obtain her Ph.D. Children with genetic disorders
consider it a strength rather than a weakness and eventually get used to their life controlled by
the disease. These people have many unique characteristics that would be genetically modified
away if this application is used. The authors claim that although research continues, designer
babies will not be available anytime in the near future is supported by the grounds that many
countries have passed laws and guidelines that regulate the scientific use of human embryos.
The warrant to her claim is the idea that the countries with advanced scientific research
programs have laws or guidelines that restrict this procedure. To further this argument, the
author mentions that Congress has prevented the FDA from even considering the application of
the genetic editing process by adding a stipulation to its funds. The qualifier in this case is that
instead of banning this practice altogether, Congress has only prevented the application of the
process for now. Even so, such genetically engineered babies will not be made in the United
States anytime soon, supporting the overarching argument that designer babies are merely a
scientific diversion in technological advancements.

5. How does the author offer counterargument? If not, what might the opposing side say?
Witkowsky briefly argues that as a mother herself, she understands why parents are looking for
the advancement of the technology to prevent their future children from suffering with genetic
diseases. She makes the claim that when they have the opportunity to prevent suffering, it is
ineluctable that they use it for their benefit. Witkowsky then refutes this argument, exemplifying
that there is a biological impediment and in reality, controlling human traits is a complex idea
that has not yet been developed to its true intent.

6. What rhetorical devices, modes, and other resources of language does the author
employ to construct the argument? Identify at least three or four and discuss their
effectiveness.
The author begins with a personal anecdote where she explains how such a topic came to her
knowledge and the misconception that she noticed in society today. To be under the
misconception that designer babies are close to entering the scientific realm of society is a
mistake according to Witkowsky. Her personal example about her OCD is a very effective
means of communication with the reader as it emotionally lures the audience and builds
credibility towards the author by giving them something to relate to. The author also includes
images in the article of recent publication covers of reputed and well-known magazines that
spotlight the genetic enhancements. These three covers all contribute to the overarching theme
of Witkoswsky’s article because they show how much the media is making strong assumptions
about the future in terms of genetic enhancement technology when there are many issues that
complicate such a thought. The author also includes a hypophora in multiple areas of her article.
She proposes multiple questions that the reader might have while reading the passage and
attempts to answer them, supporting her claims with multiple pieces of evidence. The overall
argument that the author makes is very well supported by her use of rhetorical strategies.

7. What is your response to the author’s argument and style? Do not merely state that
you agree or disagree. Discuss the viewpoint of the author and the effectiveness of how
he or she communicated it. From there, discuss your reasoned point of view.

Witkoswsky’s style of argument was very effective in putting forth her point. From the title of the
article to the last line, the author maintained her argument and ensured that she did not deviate
from her main claims. She sustains the idea that not only will the government have issues
regulating such an important technological advancement in science, but such a technology is
not reliable without years of research. Her simple yet explanatory language made her research
straightforward and easy to understand for a reader who may not have a prior knowledge of the
subject. Overall, Witkowsky presented a constructive argument that sufficiently argued her
claim.
 Source 3: Designer Breeds First, Designer Babies Next: How Designer Breeds Paved the Way for
-

Boston
erleniynisoto
Designer Babies and the Future Changes to the World
#
g e Electronic

Should We Genetically Modify Our Children?

May 2020

Now we will go from talking about the methods to genetically modifying to if we should genetically
modify our children. Unless there is a medical reason for manipulating or even editing the genes of a
child, families ​should not ​undergo PGD and IVF, nor use CRISPR-Cas9 just to have a baby that has a
certain trait that they want​. It causes unnecessary pressures on the child, it forces them to live a life that is
not meant for them, and it can be very expensive, therefore only a certain population can be able to afford
it which causes a massive disconnect in the human population. ​Without proper regulation, more and more
create what they believe is the perfect child, and could even bring about a new species of humans.
By using these methods, mainly the PGD and IVF, parents can even affect the genetic diversity of
humans, some genes/traits would be considered undesirable and then would be deleted to the point they
would not occur naturally. It can even affect sex ratios in some populations. In populations like China and
India, many families would prefer having males instead of females and with the use of PGD and even
CRISPR-Cas9 in the future (Sandel 22). Families could pick the male embryos or even change the
females to become genetically male(Sandel 22). In an ecological point of view, this would cause massive
problems as there would not be enough women for males and as a result, there would be many males who
would not be able to have babies and to share his genes with the future generation. ​I have seen many
classmates whose parents push them to be successful, some even pushed to a point of pressure.
Imagine being this kind of parent​, ​who could have the power to change their child’s genes?​ CRISPR
could potentially lead to parents changing their looks, personality, even their intelligence (Lanphier ​et
al.​2015). This could change the relationship between parents and their children. To many parents, life has
become a competition to get their children to be the best out of a group of children. From hiring tutors, to
putting them into expensive preschools, parents are willing to do ​anything​ so that their children can be
successful (Sandel 51). Allowing parents to genetically alter their children, would lead to a constant battle
of parents trying to one up each other. This would not only affect the child by pressuring them to do great
because that is why they are ​made​ to do, it would also change other aspects of life for other human
beings. Many turn to sports as a means to become rich, famous, and successful. If parents turn to

X-wing
genetically modifying their children to become great athletes, it would make sports less entertaining
because it would no longer be a show of skills improving over time (Sandel 28). Having genetically
modified athletes would take a lot away from sports, the athletes would reach a point where they cannot
become better and end up staying at a stalemate which would make sports less entertaining. As many
would love to have the child they want, it could just bring issues that can be avoided by not genetically
logos modifying their children. It is not only the idea of choosing genders, or trying to one up one another in
order to get the child they want is an issue with designer babies, but it is also the price that is causing an

f.
issue. IVF is expensive, costing between $12,000 to $17,000 USD per time the couple gets a batch of

:&
she
embryos implanted (Gumer 2019). If couples wanted to do PG D on the embryos before implantation, that
would be at least between $4,000 to $10,000 USD alongside the cost of IVF(PGD San Diego). It could
cost between $16,000 to well over $20,000 USD to have a child under IVF and PGD which is not always i

successful. The CRISPR-Cas9 system looks to be just as expensive or even more than the IVF/PGD
(Sythego), Pricing is always a slippery slope as companies are the ones who can set the price. However
they tend to put the prices high in order to get a big profit. As a result, the cost of these systems only
 allow those from higher economic classes to utilize them and leaves those in lower economic classes to
just have children the natural way. This would cause a large divide among classes, the rich would be
genetically modified and looked upon as ​perfect​ to the poor who would be born with ​undesirable​ traits.
This could even lead to speciation in human beings if the said division occurs. ​Genetically modifying or
manipulating one’s embryos can seem very scary to many people, it is like playing as God for this
small precious life​. However, like many things in this world it can be abused and used for personal gain
rather than being helpful. ​It can affect human populations’ sex ratios, it can change how parents treat their
polysyndeton
children, it could change sports forever and can even cause division among humans.​ The only way to stop
the abuse of these systems is for people to not use the system unless medically necessary. These tools
have the potential to save so many lives, and it should be kept that way, it should not be used to enhance
babies. The love for a child should be natural and not because they look a certain way or because they can
do something. ​There is no need to change an embryo unless it is a sick embryo or it is used to help save
another child like Adam Nash.​ It would cause more harm than good to the child. Strict regulations should
be put in place in order to make sure families do not abuse this system or try to find loopholes. There is a
long way to go for these systems before they can be perfect and be useful for those who need it. Designer

T oo
O
go
babies is a very broad term, it fits for those who were created to give stem cells to an older sibling, for
those who were genetically altered in order to avoid being stricken with a terrible disease, and for those
who are altered to fit a certain look or trait. While the systems created chances of saving lives, many look

para to it as a means for their own personal gain. CRISPR-Cas9 is what will lead to genetically altered
embryos, it is still fairly new, but there is news of its success, however ​how ​the success was brought in is
still questioned. There are many new technologies waiting to be discovered that can continue the science
of altering embryos, however that should stick to helping potentially sick babies rather than just design
them for no reason.

Arguments for Designer Babies

In this section of the chapter I will focus on the arguments that could be presented for designer
babies, I will attempt to refute these arguments based on the research.​ The two main arguments to
create designer babies is that these new technologies like CRISPR can help save many lives and the
second is that these technologies can help better the human population. While yes, it can be helpful, in asyndeton
reality, it can bring more harm than help. ​The first argument that I will refute is the idea that technologies
like CRISPR can be very helpful, while yes it can be very helpful, it can also be very risky and can bring
more harm than help. ​CRISPR focuses on doing one gene edit at a time, which can be useful to do in
order to cure genetic disorders that are caused by one gene not working. When done in order to have a
certain trait for a future child, these edits can be risky. Depending on the gene that has been edited, it can
bring terrible outcomes due to how one gene can interact with all the other genes and how the gene was
edited itself (Gumer 2019). CRISPR is a fairly new technology, it does come with its flaws, one being
mosaicism. When a CRISPR edit is done, the intended reaction is for all the cells of the embryo to heed
the edit, however, there are times where only ​some ​of those cells incorporate the edit, this then leads to
mosaicism which can be really harmful (Gumer2019).​ Some cells would develop with the edits while
others would not, it could lead to clashes in the cells with the defective gene fighting with the fixed gene
on which one would be expressed.​ It sounds too big of a risk to do as the cells are in no way controlled
and are made sure to have incorporated the changes. The twin girls, who were created by CRISPR in
 China by He Jiankui were said to suffer from mosaicism, however, He maintained that they are healthy,
but with the secrecy by him and the Chinese Government, we will never know if they are in fact healthy
(Gumer 2019). These girls were born towards the end of 2018, so they are going to be turning 2 this year,
so this is a large window to see if the girls are affected by the mosaicism in any way, but we will never
know because of the secrecy behind the experiment (Greely 2019).The fact that the first two humans
created with the help of this technology were mosaicists, shows just how risky it is to even undergo the
edits done by CRISPR. What more, CRISPR is helpful for genetic disorders ​only​ if said disorder was
} logos
caused by one gene as stated earlier in the previous chapter. There are many genetic disorders that are
very complex and are caused by more than one gene, many scientists are still researching this (Gumer
2019). Because of this, CRISPR cannot help everyone and the risk of mosaicism and how the other genes
react to these edits are too high and therefore this should be done ​only ​to help reverse a genetic disorder
where the risk is low and the researchers know how the other cells would react. While still a fairly new
system, I understand that CRISPR can and will improve as time goes on. It will soon be able to edit and
cure complex genetic disorders and researchers will learn how to prevent mosaicism, however I cannot
stress it enough that this should only be used when a medical reason is presented. Another argument given
is that technology like CRISPR and editing the future children’s genetic makeup can improve the human
species as a whole. Philosophers like John Stuart Mills, Ronald Dworkin, and Robert Nozick believe that
personal nature was not made correctly and that humans should do whatever they can to surpass the limits it
anecdote
imposed on us (Fox 2010). ​This issue is, if humans were to go past what nature intended humans on
being, what is there to stop them from doing something extreme? What would stop a scientist from
creating a whole new human species using technology like CRISPR, then what? ​It would lead a lot of
scientists in doing different experiments which could harm humans as a whole. They are basically playing
God and trying to change what God intended the changed children to be. Even with the beliefs from many
philosophers, it was found that 70% of humans reject the use of technology “to select for non-disease
traits in human offsprings” meaning that they do not approve of technology being used to changed a
healthy baby and mld them to the way their parents want them to be (Fox2010). Even if the changes could
potentially not bring any harm to the child, Sandel believes that the idea of “parents ordering up a child
with certain genetic traits” is very scary and should not be done (Sandel 3). However if one sees a child
that is happy as a result of this, it shows just how deep the parents’ control and influence is on the child.
Which shows that the child is no longer free to do whatever they want, rather their parents are in full
control. ​Another reason why using this type of technology to better our population is that it could cause a
massive division among the human population. Technology, like CRISPR can be very expensive as seen
in the previous chapter, as a result, only the rich who are able to afford said technology could use it, while
the poor would not be able to and thus creating a big division between the rich and the poor (Steinbock
2008).​ ​There is already a division between the rich and the poor, but when given the chance to
improve genetically, the rich would be able to do it, and then these genetically modified individuals
would look down on those who could not be modified which would mainly be the poor. This could
lead to many issues among the different groups, the rich would get to make all the edits they want,
possibly becoming superhumans, while the poor would not have that luxury and potentially face
ridicule from the rich class.​ ​Writers Jerry Bishop and Michael Waldholz believe that “it would not take
many generations of this discriminatory genetic selection to produce an ever-widening gap between the
upper and lower strata of society (Agar 1995). Having technology like CRISPR would not help the human
population, rather it would cause a massive division between humans which can be very harmful in the
end. While CRISPR and other technologies like it can be very helpful for a situation in which a child will
be born with a genetic disorder caused by a single gene, it brings more risk than help. No one truly knows
how each gene works in every genetic disorder so technology like CRISPR cannot be used as it could
cause more harm rather than help the child in question. And it can cause a big division among the rich and
the poor. The rich will be able to better themselves with the technology by bringing a better generation
whereas the poor will remain the same. I believe that designer babies should not be a thing, it would cause
claim
an ethical problem, and it would cause a problem for human society, I am aware that it can be helpful and
yes, it should be used when it can help but ​only​ then and there should be strict regulations on who gets to
use the technology to make sure that it is used ethically.
}
Source 3
https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir%3A108797/datastream/PDF/view 

1. What is the date, title, source, context, and occasion of the article?
The article titled, “Designer Breeds First, Designer Babies Next: How Designer Breeds Paved
the Way for Designer Babies and the Future Changes to the World” was published in 2020 by
the Boston College Department of Philosophy regarding the genetically modified designer
babies. Although this article not only focuses on designer babies, but also designer breeds in
animals, there is a lot to take from this report. The initial idea of preventing offspring from
developing harmful diseases prior to birth quickly shifted focus on looks of the offspring, with the
idea to create an ideal child. Written to acknowledge how genetic manipulation went from the
initial method to help cure and prevent fatal genetic disorders to choosing desirable traits in
offspring, this article encompasses the idea that this genetic manipulation to the embryos should
only be done if there is a sound medical reason.

2. Who is the author? What is his or her experience and expertise?

The author, Evelyn Karina Soto, is a graduating senior from Boston College and is working
towards her Bachelor’s degree in Biology and Philosophy. Her education involved animal health
and ethics, presenting her as an educated expert on the topic. She chose the particular
argument because of her major in the Department of Philosophy and her analysis of the ethical
concerns behind designer babies.

3. Who is the intended audience? What are their beliefs and needs?
Since this article was a senior honors thesis paper, the likely audience was for Soto’s professor
and classmates looking to read into the topic. Her belief is that an idea that once was in favor of
using methods to help cure and prevent genetic disorders quickly deviated to creating the
perfect child. In her thesis, she argues that any genetic manipulation to the embryos should not
be done unless there is a sound medical reason, such as the reason the process originated
from in the first place.

4. What is the author’s argument? Complete an argument analysis of your choice:

Toulmin, Graff, and/or Rogerian.
While this lengthy report has information on various topics in relation to genetic modification of
babies and the concept of designer babies, my main focus was Chapter 2, specifically section 7
because Soto;s main claim in regards to designer babies is that unless there is a intended
medical reason to manipulate even edit the genes of an unborn child, families should not
undergo procedures just to acquire and certain trait. The author begins the discussion with the
idea that although there are many methods to accomplish this idea, the real question that arises
is based on if it should be done or not. The author presents her claim that unless there is a
sound medical reason, it should not be done and supports her present ​by explaining the issue
in detail and why she believes that way. She addresses her opposition in succeeding
sections of the thesis and refutes all arguments for designer babies with relevant pieces of
evidence. Soto concludes her argument with the statement that if such a technology is
created and exists in society, it should solely be used to cure the sick and unhealthy rather
than unnecessarily design them for personal benefits.

5. How does the author offer counterargument? If not, what might the opposing side say?
The author writes in Chapter 3, section 4: Arguments for Designer Babies, arguments in favor of
designer babies and because of her belief that such procedures should not be done, she
attempts to refute those arguments based on her research. Soto mentions the two main
counterarguments that can be made in favor of designer babies; the genetic editing can help
save lives of unborn babies and that the technologies can help better the human population.
Both arguments are refuted by the claim that they will no doubt cause more help than harm.
Since CRISPR is a fairly new technology, there are many flaws and negative consequences that
could arise from the use of the process in genetic modification. Not only is this process nascent
and may not be widely accepted, but it will cause a social divide among the edited and unedited
as well as heighten the divide between the rich and the poor.

6. What rhetorical devices, modes, and other resources of language does the author
employ to construct the argument? Identify at least three or four and discuss their
effectiveness.
Soto’s use of rhetorical strategies is evident throughout her writing. I decided to use two
sections from her twenty three section piece to elaborate on, as her argument and research
about designer babies is evident in these two sections. The second section is primarily the
counterarguments against her claim and the refutations she makes, strengthening her point.
The author switches between casual diction and factual information when listing the many
possible issues that arise from the manipulation of genes in children. Soto begins each section
with an overview of what she will be discussing before she writes information regarding the
topic. This format of writing is very effective because it is easier for the reader to navigate her
long thesis if they are only going through it for research purposes. With a basic overview of each
topic the reader can be selective in reading the information that is necessary for their work
instead of having to sift through the paper. Soto also clearly states her claim in the second
sentence of her writing and then goes on to explain why she believes this way. This is an
effective strategy of writing because it allows the reader to get a clear statement from the writer
prior to an elaboration on the topic. Soto’s use of personal anecdotes throughout her writing
emphasizes that she herself has witnessed the consequences that designer babies can cause.
This also works towards her friendly diction to emotionally persuade the reader. Her use of such
rhetorical strategies is effective in emotionally supporting the persuasive argument, making the
audience think more deeply about the author’s claim.

7. What is your response to the author’s argument and style? Do not merely state that
you agree or disagree. Discuss the viewpoint of the author and the effectiveness of how
he or she communicated it. From there, discuss your reasoned point of view.
Evelyn Soto lays out her claim in a very well written piece and uses various pieces of data to
back it up. While her overall thesis was lengthy and included information about designer animal
breeds as well, I thought that the whole piece flowed well together. Both topics worked hand in
hand to further her argument that the manipulation of embryos should not be allowed. There is
not only a lot of uncertainty in the CRISPR process but also the idea that scientists would be
“playing God” by going past what nature intended human beings to be. The social dilemma
would be a divide in those who can afford the service and those who cannot. The wealthy will be
able to afford the selection of desirable traits in their offspring, while those of lower
socioeconomic standings would not have access to the same options. These economic
divisions may grow into genetic divisions: social distinctions delineating enhanced individuals
from unenhanced individuals. Soto communicated these ideas very effectively in her writing and
ensured that readers see both sides of the debate and understand the many problems that this
idea could cause. Overall, I believe that this is a sound argument against the procedures to
create designer babies.
 Live science
Nicoletta Lanese
NOV 21 2019
Source 4: 'Designer Baby' Technology to Make Smarter, Taller Kids Doesn’t Work Yet

Will parents soon have the power to decide how tall or intelligent their children will be?

Probably not, new research suggests. → hypophora

Ethical debate surrounds the concept of so-called​ ​"designer babies"​ — offspring whose embryos are
either selected for certain traits or genetically engineered to boast chosen genetic traits. Once the stuff of
science fiction, designer babies have become a feasible reality, as one rogue scientist recently
demonstrated by creating the world's first​ ​gene-edited babies​.

Although gene-editing generates a lot of buzz, a new study, published today (Nov. 21) in the journal​ ​Cell​,
highlights an alternate technique for generating designer babies: selecting "superior" embryos by first
screening their DNA.

Clinicians already use a technique called "preimplantation genetic testing" (PGT) to screen
embryos that are generated through in vitro fertilization (IVF) — a procedure where doctors
combine parents' sex cells in the lab and later implant the resulting embryo into a person's uterus.
Clinicians use PGT to spot​ ​genetic​ mutations that could lead to disease, but potentially, the same
procedure could be used to cherry-pick desirable traits like height and intellect.

Besides the ethical dilemmas, the idea of selecting "optimal" embryos based on their genes has one key
flaw: No one knows if it would actually work.

"People can argue if it's a good idea or bad idea, but … people didn't really know whether it was going to
work or not," said co-author Shai Carmi, whose lab studies statistical and population genetics at The
Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Carmi and his colleagues used a combination of genetic data, computer
models and real-world case studies to investigate whether scientists could really use PGT to ensure that a
given child would grow to be incredibly tall or especially smart.

Turns out, the science just isn't there yet.

"If we look at the snapshot of what we can achieve today with the current technology … the gains are
rather limited, in particular for IQ," Carmi said. According to the team's models, in the best-case scenario,
embryos screened for height-enhancing genes may gain only about 1.2 inches (3 centimeters) of height on
average. Embryos screened for intellect may gain only about 3.0 IQ points, on average. In reality, the
benefits would likely be less substantial, and none could be guaranteed.

In other words, a designer baby's IQ could "end up being much lower or much higher than what is
expected," Carmi said.

"A lot of uncertainty"

To reach their conclusions, Carmi and his co-authors gathered complete sets of DNA from real people and
paired each person's DNA with another's. These "pairs" acted as imaginary couples for their computer
model. They then crafted 10 virtual embryos by combining each couple's DNA and screened the embryos
for​ ​genes​ linked to height and cognitive ability.

A myriad of genes affect how tall and how bright a given person will be, Carmi said. In​ ​previous​ ​studies​,
scientists pinpointed these special DNA segments by poring over the​ ​genomes​ of hundreds of thousands
of individuals. The researchers then condensed the mountain of data into ​"polygenic scores," a metric
that tallies how much influence different genes hold over a particular trait.

They calculated two polygenic scores for their imaginary embryos: for height and IQ. For each fictional
couple, the team selected the top-ranking embryo for each trait — theoretically, the top embryos should
produce the ​tallest and smartest kiddos​, they predicted.

But the difference between the "best" and "worst" scoring embryos proved to be relatively small.

"The conclusion is that the embryos aren't that different from each other," said Dr. Sinem Karipcin, a
fertility specialist and director of the program for preventing genetic diseases at the Columbia University
Fertility Center, who was not involved in the study. Given that each set of 10 embryos stemmed from the
same imaginary parents, the lack of genetic diversity is not that surprising, Karipcin said. Two sets of
DNA can only combine in so many ways, and the same limitation would apply to real parents trying to
select designer embryos.
} logos
The true value of genetic screening

Beyond the inherent uncertainty of genetics, other factors cloud the predictive accuracy of polygenic
scores for height and IQ, the authors noted. ​Environmental conditions, such as nutrition and
upbringing, also shape children's physical and cognitive development and can't be captured
through​ ​genetic screening​. Polygenic scores are overwhelmingly based on European DNA, meaning
the metric may hold little value for people of other ancestries, ​Karipcin said. In their study, the authors
also worked with an unusually high number of embryos, she added.

A young couple may produce five to eight embryos through IVF, granting clinicians options to work with,
Karipcin said. But after age 35, a mother may be able to produce only one or two viable embryos through
the procedure, she said. Besides being few in number, about 40% of the 35-year-old's embryos may
contain an abnormal number of chromosomes. Chromosomes package DNA into X-shaped bundles, and
humans usually carry 23 pairs of these structures per cell. In most cases, people can’t survive with an
abnormal number of chromosomes — those who do survive are born with developmental disorders, such
as Down syndrome or Turner syndrome, according to the​ ​University of Utah​.

By the time the potential mother reaches age 43, about 90% of her IVF embryos may bear too many or
too few chromosomes, Karipcin said.

At that point, ranking the handful of embryos for height or intelligence would likely be a fruitless
exercise. Even if this biological constraint didn't exist, Karipcin said, she doubts that many parents would
opt to use genetic testing to customize their children's looks and abilities. Parents seem more concerned
about ensuring that their children grow up healthy and unscathed by disease, rather than incredibly tall,
she said.
Karipcin regularly uses PGT to screen embryos for genetic quirks, such as single-gene mutations or extra
chromosomes, and can reliably predict if a given embryo may develop into a child with Down syndrome,
cystic fibrosis​, muscular dystrophy or Fragile X syndrome. The hopeful parents also undergo genetic
testing to see whether they carry any heritable diseases that they could pass on to their children.

"If both parents are carriers, [PGT] is the only way to guarantee that they will not transmit the disease to
their children," Carmi confirmed. So, while parents can't yet customize their child's height, they could use
genetic screening to improve their future health.
concluding claim
Source 4
https://www.livescience.com/designer-babies-far-from-reality.html 

1. What is the date, title, source, context, and occasion of the article?
The article, “‘Designer Baby’ Technology to Make Smarter, Taller Kids Doesn’t Work Yet” from
livescience.com was written in November of 2019. This website provides credible scientific
information and includes credible information from scientific researchers. In 2019, the
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing tool was a newly developed technology that researchers were
looking for ways to use. Designer babies were one of the few research concepts that was
developed through the use of CRISPR technology. The author wrote the article in order to
inform people of the progress of advancements in such a concept at the time and acknowledged
the uncertainty of it all.

2. Who is the author? What is his or her experience and expertise?

The article is written by a Live Science staff writer, Nicoletta Lanese, a science journalist. She
writes about the ethical debate that surrounds the concept of designer babies by mentioning
various studies and opinions based off of clinical trials from multiple scientists.

3. Who is the intended audience? What are their beliefs and needs?
The intended audience are the individuals, both male and female, reading the Live Science
website for news about the science topic. These people likely have prior knowledge about the
subject and want to know more information. They likely believe that the technology behind
designer babies is not yet developed and will not be anytime soon.

4. What is the author’s argument? Complete an argument analysis of your choice:

Toulmin, Graff, and/or Rogerian.
In her argument, Lanese concludes that there is a lot of uncertainty in the conceptualization of
designer babies and supports the conclusion with such evidence as stating that there is only a
limited genetic alteration that can be done and even so it is not necessary that the child looks or
acts as per the parents desire because of environmental influences that cannot be controlled.
Lanese begins her article with an overall explanation of the topic for a reader who may not be
well versed in the subject to understand. She begins with an explanation of PGT or
“preimplantation genetic testing” which allows scientists to screen embryos obtained from in
vitro fertilization or IVF, and spot genetic mutations that could lead to disease. Her argument in
this article is that the debate about whether it is a good idea or not is senseless as there is a big
uncertainty in terms of the scientific development of the procedure. The research that the author
mentions was based on how much influence different genes hold over a particular trait,
determined by “polygenic scores.” The two polygenic scores conducted were for height and IQ
and researchers found that the embryos that were selected for each trait weren’t much different
from each other. Therefore, the lack of genetic diversity shows that two sets of DNA, one from
each parent, can only combine in a limited number of ways, a limitation that also applies to
selecting designer embryos. Another debated topic the author mentions is the argument over
whether an individual’s nature or nurture influences their human behavior: nature being the
pre-decided genetic inheritance and other biological factors or the influence of external factors
after conception titled nurture. Environmental conditions can also shape a child’s development,
character traits that cannot be found through genetic screening and therefore editing the genetic
traits will not necessarily determine how the child will develop.

5. How does the author offer counterargument? If not, what might the opposing side say?
A counterargument that the author offers is the idea that women who are over the age of 40
may have IVF embryos with genetic issues such as too many or too few chromosomes which
could lead to many genetic disorders. In such a case, editing that genetic makeup would be
beneficial, allowing the mother to have a potentially healthy child. The overarching argument in
favor of designer babies would be that in such a case, parents would rather use the editing to
ensure that their child grows up healthy and unscathed by disease rather than with specific
visually desirable features. This author believes that although it is ethically wrong to select
desirable visible traits such as height or eye color, the genetic screening to improve the child’s
future health would be beneficial.

6. What rhetorical devices, modes, and other resources of language does the author
employ to construct the argument? Identify at least three or four and discuss their
effectiveness.
Lanese uses only a few, yet effective, rhetorical strategies to construct her argument. She
begins her article with a hypophora where she raises a question and then immediately provides
the answer to the question. Her question “Will parents soon have the power to decide how tall or
intelligent their children will be” sets up the topic of her article about the experiment comparing
polygenic scores of height and IQ. The answer to her question “Probably not, new research
suggests” presents her view on the topic supported by new evidence. She believes that there
are many disparities in the development of such a concept and therefore it will not be in function
anytime soon.The authors use of medical diction builds the reader’s confidence in the evidence.
Casual diction is seen through the text, especially when the author writes the phrase “Tallest
and smartest kiddos,” to use simple words and explanations that can be understood by all age
groups of individuals researching the topic. Throughout the piece, the author uses deductive
reasoning to reach a logical conclusion. She begins with the overall statement “environmental
conditions, such as nutrition and upbringing, also shape children’s physical and cognitive
development and can’t be captured through genetic screening.” In order to elaborate on this
information, the author reasons that because environmental conditions also play a role in
determining a child’s development and the data obtained by the polygenic scores was based on
European data, it cannot be assumed that the same will apply to other ancestors with different
upbringings. Although there were various rhetorical strategies used to further the argument, I
believe that they were not very effective in getting their point across as the author vaguely
addressed the reasons genetic screening is not necessarily the best idea.

7. What is your response to the author’s argument and style? Do not merely state that
you agree or disagree. Discuss the viewpoint of the author and the effectiveness of how
he or she communicated it. From there, discuss your reasoned point of view.
Overall, I didn’t find this author had a very convincing argument as he only explained a simple
experiment done to test whether the polygenic scores for best and worst embryos for height
and IQ were any different from each other. This data is not very sound evidence to support the
argument that just because there wasn’t much of a difference between the two the conclusion
can be made that there is an inherent uncertainty of genetics. Although the claim was factual
and something that many people would agree with, there was not a lot of backing provided
towards that claim. The author initially begins with the idea, “Besides the ethical dilemmas, the
idea of selecting “optimal” embryos based on their genes has one key flaw: No one knows if it
would actually work.” Lanese then goes on to talk about how the benefits of the process are less
substantial and claims that there is “a lot of uncertainty” but does not do a ​good​ job in
supporting that idea. Instead of talking about the uncertainty, the author ventures off to put forth
the idea that the processes could be used to improve a child’s health but is unethical for the
selection of desirable traits. Lanese goes off on a tangent bringing in a new topic of discussion
every few paragraphs. Overall, I believe that this author was not effective in conveying their
argument as there were many discrepancies with the information provided.
 Designer Babies
Bold Business
Dusan Reiji
C
Source 5 2017 satire
irony y→
/
Source 5 

1. What is the date, title, source, context, and occasion of the article?
The cartoon titled “Designer Babies” was created in 2017. At the time, clinical trials were being
conducted in order to spot genetic patterns showing a risk of diseases and the modification of
those patterns in hopes of preventing the conditions. This process would also allow parents to
choose other traits such as height and IQ, among other characteristics. The cartoon shows two
parents “shopping” for a child with their desired IQ and job.

2. Who is the author? What is his or her experience and expertise?

The cartoonist, Dusan Reljic, was born in Novi Sad, Serbia, and has previously studied
philosophy and sociology before he devoted himself to cartoons and comics. His understanding
of such social topics builds credibility. This cartoon was found on the Bold Business website, a
leading global business process, security, technology, training and digital marketing firm in
charge of global media. Presting his work on such a platform gives him the reputable trust.

3. Who is the intended audience? What are their beliefs and needs?
The cartoonist believes that by allowing parents to control genetic traits in their children, they
will be selective in their decisions and will misuse the power they are given to not only prevent
their children from developing a fatal disease but also acquiring traits that will make them more
desirable to society.

4. What is the author’s argument? Complete an argument analysis of your choice:

Toulmin, Graff, and/or Rogerian.
The parents in the image are conversing about whether they want a tech tycoon or a tax
lawyer. This can be seen as a sarcastic depiction by the illustrator as the process of genetically
engineering designer babies is for characteristics such as eye color and hair color, not
personality traits. Genetically engineering a baby’s characteristics will have a big impact on the
child’s appearance but the environment that they grow up in will determine their true nature.
Choosing certain traits for a child causes unnecessary pressures on the child and forces them
to live a life that is not meant for them.

5. How does the author offer counterargument? If not, what might the opposing side say?
There is no counter argument to this political cartoon. The author is clearly stating that choosing
characteristics of a baby will be like shopping for specific genes that a parent wants in their
child, which presents the idea of designer babies in a negative manner. In this case, the
opposing side may say that being able to choose the potential job prospect of a child can be
beneficial for society as it will be a lot easier to regulate the jobs that people have, but that is not
the case because genetically engineering babies will not have a big impact on a child’s potential
job prospect, it majorly alters physical characteristics.
6. What rhetorical devices, modes, and other resources of language does the author
employ to construct the argument? Identify at least three or four and discuss their
effectiveness.
The author employs the use of satire to construct his argument. He ridicules the idea that
people will be shopping for these children in the future and society will misuse the technology
designed to prevent harmful diseases to create a preferable child, one with a job that will be
beneficial to society. The specific choice of either tech tycoon or tax lawyer from the parents in
the cartoon shows that the jobs that are the most desirable are those that earn a lot of pay.
These genetically modified children will be discriminated against, as parents choose a trait that
will make their child better than the rest of the children. The illustration makes the general
concept that the genetic engineering of traits will be •a more than just curing diseases more
concrete as it shows the power parents will hold over their unborn child’s life. There is also a lot
of dramatic irony in the sale of the babies as the term “designer babies” is in regards to designer
clothes that people shop for. They are high priced, only worn by the wealthy, and are desired by
the rest of the society. These designer clothes are selected by a person to their own liking and
are shown off to others as an indication of their wealth. This analogy shows that designer babies
will soon have the same implications as designer clothes. The process will be available to
parents who can afford it, allowing them to choose a child to their own liking and displaying it to
the rest of society.

7. What is your response to the author’s argument and style? Do not merely state that
you agree or disagree. Discuss the viewpoint of the author and the effectiveness of how
he or she communicated it. From there, discuss your reasoned point of view.
Reljic’s cartoon was a successful and constructive illustration of the argument against designer
babies. Although the author does not directly state their belief, it is evident that they are not in
favor of genetic editing as they believe it will change the outlook of society. Assortative mating is
the idea of two individuals with similar socio-economical levels having a child. This increases the
practice of eugenic marriages, where money serves as the sole desirable trait. Human genome
editing will only be available to those who can afford the price, increasing the socio-economic
gap between the rich and the poor. By using the analogy that selecting traits determining a
child’s job outlook before they can even walk is like shopping for desirable items, the cartoonist
downplays the idea of genetically modified children, implying that misuse will diminish the
significance of such a technological advancement. Overall, Reljic’s cartoon is a constructive
illustration of the social dilemma behind designer babies.
 Foundation
The Heritage
Ryan T . Anderson
Dec 172018
Source 6: Just Because We Can Create Genetically Modified Babies Doesn’t Mean We Should

Two remarkable things took place last month in the world of biotechnology: ​A Chinese doctor ​claimed
to have created two genetically modified human embryos who were successfully nurtured to birth,
and the worldwide scientific community ​roundly rejected this experiment​ as a violation of ethics.
In turn, the ​Chinese government condemned the doctor​ and called for an immediate investigation.
At issue is a developing biotechnology known as CRISPR-Cas9 that allows scientists to genetically edit
cells. The technique holds potential to treat a variety of genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis and sickle
cell disease, as well as even more complex conditions such as cancers and heart disease. Indeed, the
doctor says he genetically modified the two children in question (back in their embryonic stage) to make
them resistant to HIV.
As promising as that sounds, the deployment of gene-editing to human embryos is rife with ethical

claims questions: concerns about experimentation on minors, human embryo destruction, the creation of life in a
lab, “designer babies,” the boundary between therapy and “enhancement,” and interventions in the
genome that will be passed onto future generations.
In other words, genetically modified human embryos raise new versions of old bioethical problems, as
well as some new ones.
First, countless embryonic human beings were killed in the process that led to the live birth of these
two genetically modified children.​ Like all so-called “assisted reproductive technologies,” many more
embryos are created than are implanted and subsequently delivered. The remaining embryonic human
beings are either frozen in perpetuity or destroyed. This research poses an immediate threat to the right to
life of the unborn.
Regardless on where you stand on the abortion debate in terms of unplanned pregnancies, the intentional
creation—and destruction—of human beings should worry all of us. Such​ callous disregard​ for human
dignity does not bode well for the future of scientific integrity.
We should also care about the dignity of life in its very origins. There is a great danger in creating
children in the laboratory, a process that treats human subjects as if objects of technological mastery. That
will have profound moral and cultural implications as the science progresses: Societies can come to view
human life—all life, modified or not—as something that can easily be toyed with and discarded.
We forget the fact that children should be begotten, not made, at our peril.​ ​And we should be wary
of practices that separate the life-giving act from the love-making act.​ Indeed, these new technologies
are misnamed. They don’t “assist”—they replace fertility and procreation with reproduction in a sterile
lab.

The technologies behind the manufacture of babies raises new questions, too. The CRISPR-Cas9
procedure, and others like it, allow scientists to take further steps down the road of creating designer
babies. This would allow parents—or other authorities—to dictate the characteristics of future people.
There’s also the specter of a kind of “brave new world” genetic arms race. Imagine John Edwards’s “Two

fnrnnrrrrrr
Americas,” but between the genetic haves and the genetic have-nots. An America where the wealthy (and
morally unscrupulous) design super-babies, while everyone else remains “unenhanced.”

synecdoche
As the philosopher Leon Kass has explained, “As bad as it might be to destroy a creature made in God’s
image, it might be very much worse to be creating them after images of one’s own.”
 While the children this time were modified to prevent HIV, no one knows what may be the next genetic
modification. And it isn’t hard to fathom how these new technologies could be deployed in the hands of
racist, eugenicist, or genocidal governments of the future.
Of course, we have no idea what the consequences—both physical and social—will be to these genetic

g.gg#aposit N
interventions. Scientists simply do not know whether knocking out any particular gene will have other,
unintended health consequences down the road. The genetic code is complicated and interconnected, and
even a small, well-intentioned modification could have large ramifications.
Furthermore, genetically modifying human embryos will modify their germ line (sperm and ova),
entailing that those modifications will transfer to future generations. So, for these Chinese babies, not
only has their genome been modified, but their entire lineage could be affected. Right now, it all amounts
to an experiment.
Technologies such as CRISPR will impact all of us eventually, not just the scientific community. So even
as they denounce the Chinese experiment, the claims from scientists that they can “self-regulate” fall flat.
Whether and how to use various biotechnologies needs to be carefully considered with serious ethical
reflection from all of us. And yet the dean of Harvard Medical School said that “It is time to move
forward from [debates about] ethical permissibility to outline the path to clinical translation … in order to
bring this technology forward.”
As the most recent developments demonstrate, China is especially aggressive in its willingness to ignore
bioethical standards. Despite its face-saving condemnation of the CRISPR babies, Beijing is already

}
suspected of using CRISPR and other technologies to explore the possibility of producing so-called
“super soldiers” with increased muscle mass, expanded cardiovascular capacity, and even improved
logos vision at night. This, in turn, is likely to tempt some in the West to lower their own bioethical standards in
the name of national security. That would be a mistake. > author's claim
Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. To avoid the trap of falling into a
←technocracy, humans must govern technology, not the reverse. At the same time, we must avoid the trap
juxtaposition of becoming Luddites. New biotechnologies hold the potential to cure and prevent disease, to promote
human flourishing—but only if the deployment of technology is governed by morality.
The experiments in China with genetically modified babies is just the beginning of what could go wrong.

Why screening DNA for ‘designer babies’ probably won’t work

Picking embryos based on genetics might not give prospective parents the “designer baby” they’re after.

DNA predictions of height or IQ might help would-be parents select an embryo that would grow into a
child who is, at most,​ ​only about three centimeters taller or about three IQ points smarter​ than an average
embryo from the couple, researchers report November 21 in ​Cell.​ But offspring predicted by their DNA to
be the tallest among siblings were actually the tallest in only seven of 28 real families, the study found.
And in five of those families, the child predicted to be the tallest was actually shorter than the average for
the family.

Even if it were ethical to select embryos based on genetic propensity for height or intelligence, “the
impact of doing so is likely to be modest — so modest that it’s not likely to be practically worth it,” says
Amit Khera, a physician and geneticist at the Center for Genomics Medicine at Massachusetts General
Hospital in Boston who was not involved in the new study.
For years, couples have been able to use genetic diagnosis to screen out embryos carrying a
disease-causing DNA variant. The procedure, called​ ​preimplantation genetic diagnosis​, or PGD, involves
creating embryos through in vitro fertilization. Clinic staff remove a single cell from the embryo and test
its DNA for genetic variants that cause cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs or other life-threatening diseases caused
by defects in single genes.

Many diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, as well as traits like height and​ ​intelligence​, are
considered complex because they are caused in part by tiny effects of variants in hundreds or​ ​even
thousands of genes​ (​SN: 5/31/13​;​ ​SN: 9/29/10​) But researchers can boil down those tiny effects of
multiple genes into one​ ​“polygenic” score (​SN: 4/18/19​)​. Khera was involved, for example, in compiling
6 million genetic variants into a risk score for heart disease.

Advances in this technology in recent years, however, have sparked debates about whether people should
be allowed to use these scores to select embryos with complex traits, such as height or intelligence. Some
people say that selecting for “enhancements,” gender preferences or other nonmedical traits smacks of
eugenics, the practice of breeding humans toward some desired outcome. The term is now often
associated with racism, genocide and forced sterilization campaigns. The findings in the new study bring
a dose of reality to these discussions about designer babies and selecting embryos for reasons other than
medical conditions.

“We wanted to use these numbers or these methods to make the debate more quantitative, more
evidence-based,” says Shai Carmi, a statistical geneticist at the Braun School of Public Health of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Carmi and colleagues used data from studies of longevity and schizophrenia to look at what might happen
in embryo selection. Some people in the longevity study were real-world spouses, so the researchers
simulated genetic profiles for the couples’ hypothetical offspring. The researchers also created virtual
couples by pairing unrelated people and simulating the genetic makeup of those faux couples’ embryos.
Polygenic scores predicting height or IQ were then calculated for the embryos.

Among 10 embryos, the one that the genetic scores suggested would be the tallest was predicted to be
only three centimeters taller than the average height predicted for all 10 embryos, the team found.
Similarly, the highest intelligence polygenic score predicted the resulting child would be three IQ points
smarter than the average for all 10 embryos. With only five embryos to choose from (a more realistic
number based on numbers of embryos generated in fertility studies), the gains drop to about 2.5
centimeters and 2.5 IQ points, the researchers found.

That’s only the predicted result. To see whether the predictions would hold up in the real world, Carmi
and colleagues looked at 28 large families, each with up to 20 children. In those families, the child
predicted by genetic score to be the tallest was actually the tallest in only about a quarter of the families.
In fact, the child predicted to be the tallest was actually about three centimeters shorter on average than
the family’s tallest child, the researchers discovered.

The study “does add more data,” says Susanne Haga, a human geneticist at Duke University School of
Medicine. But there’s too much variability in these complex traits to accurately predict an outcome just by
looking at DNA. “There’s still a great deal of variability that’s not accounted for by the genes they were
analyzing or simulating in their polygenic score. Therefore, you’re still going to see a wide distribution of
height or IQ points.”

Differences in diet, lifestyle, exposure to pollution, culture, undiscovered genetic variants and other
unknown factors can also influence how complex traits develop, Haga says. “We still have a ways to go
to understand the genetic mechanisms behind these traits, and the fact that the environment plays such a
critical role cannot be discounted,” she says.
Other researchers expressed concern that the study’s findings could be misunderstood or misrepresented
to promote picking embryos for nonmedical traits.
In the new study, “the science is rigorous,” says Nicholas Katsanis, a human geneticist at the Ann &
Robert Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. But he worries it could encourage fertility clinics to offer
genetic screening for height and IQ to entice would-be parents hoping to give their future children an
edge, even though the study suggests that edge isn’t really predictable.

↳ ends with Clear unlikelihood

Source 6
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/just-because-we-can-create-geneticall
y-modified-babies-doesnt-mean#:~:text=As%20promising%20as%20that%20sounds,the%20geno
me%20that%20will%20be 

1. What is the date, title, source, context, and occasion of the article?
In December 2018, heritage.org posted the article “Just Because We Can Create Genetically
Modified Babies Doesn’t Mean We Should.” The website, heritage.org is about an American
conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. titled the Heritage Foundation, primarily
geared towards public policy. This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal, a multimedia
news organization that expands the understanding of The Heritage Foundation to the public.

2. Who is the author? What is his or her experience and expertise?

Before the commentary, the website mentions that it is written by Ryan T. Anderson. He is a
senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Safety and his works are based off of
his research about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty, and political philosophy.

3. Who is the intended audience? What are their beliefs and needs?
The intended audience are individuals who are looking to research and educate themselves on
bioethical issues. These individuals could also be members of the Heritage Foundation or
people looking to educate themselves on what the foundation does. This audience would be
interested in articles written by reputed members of the foundation. Since this article is also
found in the Daily Signal, it can be concluded that the intended audience could also be people
who are interested in news articles about bioethics and are most probably against the genetic
modification of babies.

4. What is the author’s argument? Complete an argument analysis of your choice:

Toulmin, Graff, and/or Rogerian.
Anderson’s overall argument is the idea that there are many physical and social dilemmas that
arise in the discussion of designer babies and brings to light the idea that “just because we can
do something doesn’t mean we should.” He argues that there are many things that could go
wrong with such an idea and that the morality of genetic engineering in terms of designer babies
should be considered. He is adamant about the idea that it would be a mistake to publicly
introduce designer babies, giving the example of the suspicion that Beijing has been using
CRISPR and other technologies to explore the creation of “super soldiers.” Bringing this
procedure into society is not only for people to select desired traits for their child and rid them of
genetic imperfections, but also for the government to create soldiers with adept fighting skills
and characteristics such as increased muscle mass, expanded cardiovascular capacity, and
improved vision at night. Not only will the American government be able to develop such
humans, but other third world countries as well, increasing the risk of a breach in national
security. The author claims that there is too much uncertainty around the procedure and there
could potentially be great misuse of technologies intended for genetic benefits. His main
argument revolves around the fact that it is obvious that such high end technology would be a
mistake in the hands of racist, eugenicist, or genocidal governments in the future.
5. How does the author offer counterargument? If not, what might the opposing side say?
The author in this case does not offer a counter argument but indeed supports all of his claims
for his argument that designer babies should not be introduced to society because of the
consequences it would create in terms of scientific integrity and government regulation with
sound reasoning. The opposing argument to his claim would be that such technologies are
necessary for the advancement of scientific research and will be strictly regulated when put into
action. But according to the author, there is no way that a government will be able to regulate
this technology in the hands of people who want nothing but the destruction of peace. The
ethical questions raised are concerns for experimentation on minors, undesired human embryo
destruction, the creation of life in the lab, and the intervention in the genome that will be passed
onto future generations which can have many negative consequences if they are not addressed.
Therefore, the argument that genetic editing is necessary for the advancement of scientific
research, without addressing the ethical dilemmas that could change how society is run, is
invalid.

6. What rhetorical devices, modes, and other resources of language does the author
employ to construct the argument? Identify at least three or four and discuss their
effectiveness.
Before the author begins the article, he includes a picture of a little baby in a hospital cart with
the caption “Human beings are to be welcomed as gifts, not manufactured as products.” This
initially sets the tone for the entire passage and lets the reader know that he is against the idea
of genetically modifying children before they are born as it is essentially how factories modify
their products for various characteristics. The reader is then introduced to relevant world news
that relates to the overarching topic of the piece. This starts the reader off with an
understanding of the significance of the information provided in the following article. A doctor in
China claimed to have edited such embryos, an idea that was rejected by the entire scientific
community as well as investigated by the government. This strengthens the author’s argument
that although some scientists have been working on developing this technology, it is not widely
accepted by a majority. The author’s use of diction also plays a role in furthering his argument.
Anderson uses phrases such as “would be a mistake” and “beginning of what could go wrong”
to clearly state his claim and enforce it throughout the article.

7. What is your response to the author’s argument and style? Do not merely state that
you agree or disagree. Discuss the viewpoint of the author and the effectiveness of how
he or she communicated it. From there, discuss your reasoned point of view.
In each paragraph, Anderson provides reasons backed by evidence. He begins the article with
news about a Chinese doctor who has successfully created two genetically modified human
embryos, an experiment that was rejected by the worldwide scientific community as a violation
of ethics to show just how greatly this issue impacts the science world. It also classifies how
against society is of the process at this point in time and seems unlikely to change because of
all of the surrounding ethical issues. In paragraph 3, he goes on to explain what the
CRISPR-Cas9 technology does and how it was used by the Chinese doctor previously
mentioned. This begins the discussion of bioethical problems that arise, starting with the claim
that countless embryonic human beings were killed in the process of creating the two
genetically modified children. In the process, many more embryos are created than implanted
and the remaining are either frozen or destroyed, posing a direct threat to the life of an unborn.
This brings up the debate abortion and the idea that science can be used in the intentional
creation and destruction of human beings. This is a very important topic to discuss because
scientific integrity is necessary for any new scientific development. By not only mentioning the
concept of human dignity but also including the eugenic society that would be created, the
threat to national security, the modification in lineage, and lack of regulation, the author provides
a well rounded argument which I found very convincing.
Citations

Anderson, Ryan. “Just Because We Can Create Genetically Modified Babies Doesn't Mean We

Should.” ​The Heritage Foundation,​ 17 Dec. 2018,

www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/just-because-we-can-create-geneti

ally-modified-babies-doesnt-mean.

Gallagher, James. “'Designer Babies' Debate Should Start, Scientists Say.” ​BBC News,​ BBC, 19

Jan. 2015, ​www.bbc.com/news/health-30742774​.

Lanese, Nicoletta. “'Designer Baby' Technology to Make Smarter, Taller Kids Doesn't Work Yet.”

LiveScience​, Purch, 21 Nov. 2019,

www.livescience.com/designer-babies-far-from-reality.html​.

Reljic, Dusan. “Designer Babies.” Genomic Prediction; The Future Of Customizing DNA Is Now,

Ed Kopko, 27 Nov. 2017,

www.boldbusiness.com/society/genomic-prediction-future-of-customizing-dna/​.

Soto, Evelyn. “Designer Breeds First, Designer Babies Next: How Designer Breeds Paved the

Way for Designer Babies and the Future Changes to the World.” EScholarship@BC,

Boston College, ​https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir%3A108797​.

Witkowsky, Lea. “The Designer Baby Distraction.” ​ASM.org​,

https://asm.org/Articles/Cultures-Magazine/Volume-4,-Issue-4-2017/The-Designer-Baby

Distraction​.