Upgrading babies: Are genetically enhanced infants ever acceptable?

• Author:
• Author name

  Quantumrun Foresight
• November 2, 2022

Insight summary

The idea of designer babies will always be fascinating and contentious. The possibility that genes could be “corrected” or “edited” to create perfectly healthy individuals with no risks of inheriting genetic diseases seems like the best thing that humanity can discover. However, like all scientific explorations, there are ethical lines that scientists fear crossing.

Upgrading babies context

Genome editing has received significant attention due to its potential to correct defective genes, as well as for its potential to generate unintended genetic changes (off-target edits). The most widespread technique to modify genes uses CRISPR–Cas9, a method inspired by a virus-fighting mechanism used by some bacteria.

The gene editing tool makes cuts in DNA using the Cas9 enzyme. A scientist may give Cas9 a piece of RNA to guide it to a specific location in the genome. However, like other enzymes, Cas9 has been known to cut DNA at sites other than intended when there are similar DNA sequences in the genome. Cuts that go ‘off target’ may result in various health issues, such as gene deletions that result in cancer. 

In 2015, researchers conducted the first CRISPR experiments on human embryos. However, such studies are still unusual and are often highly controlled. According to reproductive biologist Mary Herbert at Newcastle University in the UK, the findings highlight little about how human embryos mend DNA damaged by genome-editing technologies. In the research, embryos were used solely for academic reasons and not to create babies. And as of 2023, germline editing, or modifying reproductive cells, is banned in most countries.

Disruptive impact

Some scientists argue that even if changes to the human genome were perfectly targeted and precise, they still need to consider which edits are safe. In 2017, an international collaboration led by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released guidelines for editing human embryos that will be implanted. 

One criterion was that the edited DNA sequence must already be prevalent in the general population and pose no known health risk. This rule prohibits heritable gene editing because this method requires being able to predict the precise sequence of an edit, which is challenging. 

Other ethical issues plague the concept of upgrading babies. Some policymakers are concerned that obtaining informed consent for germline treatment is difficult because the patients who would benefit from the modifications are the embryo and future generations. The opposing argument posits that parents regularly make essential decisions on behalf of their infants, often without their consent; one example being PGD/IVF (Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis/In-vitro Fertilization) which entails assessing the best embryos for implants. 

Researchers and bioethicists also worry about whether prospective parents can give genuinely informed consent while germline therapy side effects remain unknown. There is also the issue of these genetic edits promoting further socioeconomic gaps in healthcare access. Others are concerned that germline engineering might result in distinct groups of people defined by their genetically modified DNA quality.

Implications of upgrading babies

Wider implications of upgrading babies may include: 

• Continued development of gene editing tools that build on or are more accurate than CRISPR.


• Biotech firms experimenting with accurate gene-based prediction technologies using algorithms. This practice will help potential parents screen embryos.


• The potential acceptance of modified babies, particularly those that could inherit life-threatening diseases. However, this development could gradually progress down a slipperly slope that results in parents “designing” their future children. 


• Babies born with disabilities such as vision and hearing impairments becoming a thing of the past.


• Increased funding in embryo CRISPR gene editing experiments, although some scientists might demand that governments be transparent on these types of research.


• The scientific community divided between a group that advocates for monitored germline editing research and another that wants it banned permanently.

Questions to consider

• What do you think will happen when parents gain the ability and the right to “safely” manipulate their children’s genes?


• Can this innovation be controlled internationally or will the national competition to birth healthier or enhanced populations make this technology inevitable?