Genetically-modified babies are desirable, and an ethical Genetic Revolution in the biomedical industry will make them a reality within two years. This is according to Dr. Kevin Smith, a bioethicist and geneticist at Abertay University in Scotland.

In a newly published paper in the Bioethics Journal, Dr. Smith makes his argument from a utilitarian perspective; which is the point of view of objectively favoring that which decreases overall human suffering. Dr. Smith begins by creating a sense of moral urgency and points out the obvious utilitarian cost of taking too long to start the Genetic Revolution:

“The longer we wait until commencing the human germline genetic revolution and moving towards a world of increased utility, the greater will be the quantity of suffering accrued.”

In the past, Dr. Smith has urged men to freeze their healthy sperm at the age of 18 and preserve it for later use so as to avoid having unhealthy children when they are older. In his paper, Dr. Smith uses some of the arguments he used to make the sperm-freezing proposal by pointing out the many imperfections in human DNA that get worse with age:

“Human DNA is by no means perfect, with evolution having furnished us with rather minimal protection from diseases that tend to strike in our later years, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and dementia,” states Dr. Smith.

Most importantly, Dr. Smith points out the fact that advances and improvements in gene-editing are already at a point where the risks of gene-editing are low enough to justify the use of gene-editing technology in humans. Achieving this low risk milestone means gene-editing can finally be used not just to prevent numerous diseases, but also to improve the quality of life in older age by substantially extending the average disease-free lifespan:

“If several common disorders could be avoided or delayed by genetically modifying humans, the average disease-free lifespan could be substantially extended,” says Dr. Smith.

Dr. Smith does however caution against immediately commencing with editing human genomes, primarily due to the public’s negative perception towards gene-editing. He suggests a delay of one to two years before proceeding with the ‘ethically sound’ creation of designer babies, and warns against ethically problematic approaches to gene-editing which he says further fuel this negative perception of gene-edting. Dr. Smith names the case of Dr. He Jiankui, the Chinese scientist behind the world’s first gene-edited babies, saying, “The negative publicity generated by the ethically problematic first-ever production of genetically-modified babies in China last year was strongly criticized by most geneticists and ethicists, further hardening attitudes against the creation of so-called designer babies.”

Next week on November 25 will be one year since Dr. He Jiankui made public the birth of twin girls named Lulu and Nana, whose embryos had been genetically modified using CRISPR so as to make them immune to HIV. There was however some speculation that the main reason Dr. He genetically-modified the twins’ embryos was necessarily not to make them immune to HIV, which seemed medically unnecessary as only their father was HIV positive. It is speculated that by targeting a gene called CCR5, which acts as the pathway through which the HIV virus enters the cell, Dr. He actually wanted to enhance the cognitive abilities of the twins, as there is research showing that suppression of CCR5 improves cognitive abilities such as memory and neuroplasticity.

Despite all the backlash and condemnation that Dr. He received from bioethicists, fertility clinics all over the world were asking him to train their staff on how to genetically-modify human embryos; a clear indication that designer babies are in fact ‘desirable’ as Dr. Smith says in his analysis, and that there is a demand and a potential market for the creation of such babies.

The successful birth of Lulu and Nana, who are reportedly healthy, has inspired others to go ahead with genetically-modifying humans. Although there are rumors of institutional scientists doing genetic modification of human embryos meant to come to term, and even underground biohackers trying to do the same, only two cases of these types of attempts have been verified. One such case was verified after an anonymous tip to MIT Tech Review about biohackers who started a designer baby business, and another such case is that of Russian biologist Denis Rebrikov, who boldly made public his intent to use CRISPR to create gene-edited babies who are either immune to HIV, or immune from heritable deafness. For the latter experiment, Rebrikov already has deaf couples interested in participating in his clinical trials so that their offspring will not be born deaf.

Given the current status of contemporary bioethics, which has become a field of virtue-signalling rather than problem solving, Dr. Smith’s rational approach to human gene-editing is refreshing. In his analysis, Dr. Smith seems to be aware of this sad state of current bioethics, as he acknowledges how nowadays, there are not many bioethicists such as himself:

“While some ethicists, including the present author, are committed utilitarians, most are not,” says Dr. Smith, “Many subscribe to some form of value pluralism, or sidestep foundational questions by relying on principlism or casuistry.”

And this is the sad state of current bioethics. For the past few years, bioethics has become a virtue-signalling moral posturing battle royale fueled purely by Social “Science” dogma. It is at a point where bioethicists will nowadays outright demand the imposition of political ideologies on science by making absurd arguments like the statement that using gene-editing to prevent heritable deafness is genocide against deaf people.

This usurpation of science by political ideologues and social science activists is why Dr. Smith’s utilitarian point of view is needed in the politicized field of bioethics – for rationality to have a chance. Hopefully Dr. Smith’s utilitarian analysis paves the way for the emergence of a less politically ideological, and more scientifically rational bioethicist. A bioethicist suitable for the approaching and inevitable Genetic Revolution; a neo-bioethicist.