While the prospect of genetically "redesigned" people challenges humanity as a whole, it particularly threatens groups that historically have been disempowered. And because human germline engineering and cloning are so closely tied to reproduction, they are of special concern to women.

The New Eugenics and the Commercialization of Reproduction

Already, prenatal screening and preimplantation diagnosis make it possible to eliminate fetuses and embryos with a number of identifiable genetic conditions. As disability rights activists point out, these developments put women in the position of "eugenic gatekeepers." Inheritable genetic modification, to whatever extent it turns out to be technically possible, would amplify the powers of eugenic selection many times over.

If a new "free-market eugenics" were to take hold, who would actually exercise "consumer preference" for genetic "enhancements?" Who would decide what was on offer?

Human cloning and germline engineering would move decisions about reproduction further away from women, not only toward doctors and technicians but also toward marketers proffering the "enhancements" developed by biotech companies. Women could find themselves simultaneously losing ever more control of their own childbearing experiences, and subject to vastly increased pressures to produce the "perfect baby."

Writing in Time magazine, Lee Silver spins a scenario set in the year 2024, in which a fertility clinic advertises for "Organic Enhancement" on "web sites frequented by women with baby-making on their minds." "Why not give your child the best possible start in life?” Silver's hypothetical ad campaign asks. But

"Keep in mind, you must act before you get pregnant. Don't be
sorry after she's born. This really is a once-in-lifetime opportunity for
your child-to-be."

The technologies of human genetic manipulation would exacerbate existing trends toward "reproduction for profit." Already, nearly all developments in genetic science take place under corporate auspices. Researchers work either for biotechnology companies or in university laboratories with significant personal, departmental, or institutional financial stakes in the success of commercial biotech enterprises.


The Commodification and Geneticization of Children

Advocates of human genetic manipulation have projected vivid scenes of a not-too-distant future in which parents contemplate the "enhancements" they'll select for their children. But their imagined futures are vague about the lives of the children who might be born after such procedures. And they have not speculated at all about "unenhanced" children in a society in which human germline engineering becomes normal for certain classes.

One such advocate, University of Alabama philosophy professor Gregory Pence, asks, "Would it be so terrible to allow parents to at least aim for a certain type, in the same way that great breeders...try to match a breed of dog to the needs of a family?"

Talk of "breeding" children strikes most people as repugnant in part because the notion of creating a pre-selected type of child to meet "the needs of a family" suggests that the child might be valued for fulfilling his or her assigned function, or for possessing certain characteristics, and only for those reasons. Genetically engineered children would, in fact, be designed to specifications chosen and paid for by parents, from among those on offer by genetic technicians.

While unreasonable and unfulfilled parental expectations can certainly flourish in the absence of genetic modification, expectations grounded in technical claims and expensive procedures would likely be far more pronounced. However subtly, the prospect--or the illusion--of selecting certain traits could make parents less likely to understand their children as emerging autonomous beings who develop in continuous interaction with their physical and social environments.

How might a "designed child" experience herself? Perhaps she would feel constrained by her real or imagined genetic capabilities and propensities, and surrender her "open future" to a mistaken conviction that her destiny lay in her genes.

Actually, not only are we unable to foresee the physical consequences of manipulating the genetic material of an early human embryo, but also we have no way to reliably predict the emotional or psychological effects of germline engineering or cloning on children or families.


Human Genetic Manipulation and the Politics of Abortion

In their efforts to make the idea of designer babies and human clones publicly acceptable, many advocates have adopted the language of reproductive choice. They have begun to argue explicitly that support for human genetic manipulation--or at least, refusing to condemn those who may want to practice it--is a "pro-choice" position. A recently published pro-germline engineering book, for example, is titled From Chance to Choice (by Allen Buchanan, et al, Cambridge University Press, 2000).

This use of pro-choice language is likely to foster confusion between the unprecedented and unjustifiable practice of "enhancing" the genetic makeup of a future child, and women’s fundamental right to end an unwanted pregnancy. It will take focused effort to make it clear that altering the genes of one's children is not among the reproductive rights for which so many women and women's organizations have struggled.

The situation is further muddied because opponents of abortion have been vocal critics of human germline engineering and cloning. Their concerns about "playing God," and their opposition to the destruction of human embryos that these technologies would entail, are often the only arguments against designer babies and human clones that are heard.

In fact, the U.S. legislative and policy debates over human germline engineering and cloning have so far taken place almost completely within the framework of abortion politics. Opposition has been voiced mostly by abortion opponents; pro-choice forces have for the most part not yet engaged with these issues. Advocates of women's health and choice will need to develop a voice for women's reproductive rights that is firmly pro-choice and firmly opposed to the genetic modification of human beings.

Lisa Handwerker of the National Women's Health Network points out that although supporters of human genetic manipulation and opponents of abortion typically conflict, they share a tendency to focus their attention on embryos, and to sideline both pregnant women and the children whom women bear and raise. Anti-abortion activists often depict human embryos as independent entities completely separate from the woman in whose womb they are nurtured. Similarly, discussions of genetically modified children center on the early-stage embryo and the "improved" future that scientists can give it.

Banning Human Genetic Manipulation: The Tasks Ahead

In the United States, where techno-eugenic interventions are being most actively promoted, advocates insist that the development and use of human genetic manipulation technologies are "inevitable." But most Americans oppose the creation of human clones and designer babies. Indeed laws proscribing human cloning and germline engineering are already in place in dozens of other countries around the world.

Women's organizations in the U.S. and internationally are positioned to play a crucial role in the political mobilizations and cultural shifts that will be necessary to challenge the techno-eugenic agenda. Though only a few women's groups have taken positions on the new human genetics, many have thought long and hard about reproductive technologies. Abortion rights groups will have little choice about whether or not to become involved. They will increasingly be drawn into the politics of genetic manipulation because supporters of germline engineering and cloning have taken up their language, keywords, and appeals. Other women's advocates will want to engage with these issues as matters of equity and social justice; of human rights, and of women's and children's rights to health; and of the commercialization of reproduction and commodification of life.

It will be far easier to prevent a techno-eugenic future if we act before human germline engineering and cloning are developed further, whether as technology, as ideology, or as business interests. Rejecting the dangerous technologies and horrific politics of genetic manipulation is crucial if we are to protect what can be called, with chilling new meaning, a "human" future.

Perhaps it is too obvious to state, but to make dramatic improvements in the lives of children is well within our reach. We can focus our energies and resources on health care and prenatal care for women; on better nutrition, health care, preschool care, and education for children; and on restructuring work and social expectations to allow families and friends more time together.

Proposals to genetically redesign children drastically miss the mark. They substitute for relatively straightforward social changes a hubristic technical fix that would encourage a consumerist vision of children and all human life.


Marcy Darnovsky, Ph.D., Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic Technologies, 466 Green Street, San Francisco, CA 94133. Phone: 415-434-1403. Email and subscriptions to GENETIC CROSSROADS: teel@adax.com