Oxford University bioethicist Julian
Savulescu argues that “responsible parenting” means that kids
should be bioengineered to behave in “ethical” ways. From the

Telegraph:

[Savulescu] said that science is increasingly discovering that
genes have a significant influence on personality – with certain
genetic markers in embryo suggesting future characteristics.

By screening in and screening out certain genes in the embryos,
it should be possible to influence how a child turns out.

In the end, he said that “rational design” would help lead to a
better, more intelligent and less violent society in the
future.

“Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a
good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible
parenting?” wrote Prof Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical
ethics.

“So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that
clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents
the choice.

“To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the
ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.

“Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such
as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence,
you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select
ethically better children.

“They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and
others.”

“If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our
offspring — rather than consigning them to the natural lottery —
then we should.”

Savulescu’s vision strongly depends on the notion that genetic
traits come in nice little packages that can be added or excised at
will. However, behavioral “traits” are likely to have two (or more)
sides to them, e.g., bravery could well be associated with
aggressive tendencies, or prudence with selfishness, righteousness
with implacability, etc. Can’t bioengineer away the bad without
also affecting the good. What about eugenics concerns?

[Savulescu] said that unlike the eugenics movements, which fell
out of favour when it was adopted by the Nazis, the system would be
voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their
children.

Voluntary? The idea that genetically engineering your children
to behave more ethically is a “moral obligation” seems to me to
imply the possibility of state intervention down the line.

In any case, the future importance of genetic engineering is
being way overblown – biopharmaceutical interventions is where the
real action will be. As I argued in my column, “Down
with Gene Tyranny!“:

Underlying all this moral handwringing over genetic engineering
is the concern that genes really matter—that one’s life chances are
largely determined by the genes one carries. Good genes equal a
bright future; bad genes entail a blighted future. Recent genetic
research is showing that this view is wrong. How so? By using
outside interventions that regulate and enhance the performance of
the genes that people already have. Such interventions will include
new, precisely targeted pharmaceuticals that will change the
activity of various genes and gene combinations in desired
ways…

Genetically engineered inequality is a bioethical phantom. The
truth is that biotechnological interventions will eventually enable
nearly everyone to enhance their bodies and their brains. The good
news is that as researchers learn more about the good and bad
effects of our genes, the more we will be liberated from whatever
tyranny they do exercise.

Basically, parents won’t have to genetically engineer their kids
because when their kids become adults they will be able to enhance
themselves by taking advantage of a wide array of biotechnological
interventions to tweak whatever genes their parents’ haplessly
bequeathed them.