‘Designing babies with red hair is irresponsible’

| Christian Orriëns

The second edition of the lightbulb chats in DesignLab explored the idea of gene editing in human beings and its potential consequences for society. The idea behind yesterday’s event was to promote an open discussion between students and experts.

Photo by: Enrico Bertolotti

Jan Kok, professor of molecular genetics at the University of Groningen, opened the evening with a short lecture on the very basics of gene editing. To his opening question whether someone had extensive background in biology or genetics, none of the people present raised their hand. Kok continued and stated that ‘understanding the fundamental principles that underlie this field of expertise are necessary to form substantiated opinions on this complicated subject.’

The risks of being a redhead

Jeantine Lunshof joined the conversation via conference call from the United States. The philosopher-ethicist working at MIT had a strong opinion on the subject. She illustrated that by responding to a question from a student about people with red hair. ‘People with natural red hair are nearly only found in western Europe. Having red hair is caused by lacking a gene for a receptor for pigment. If you would have this genetic defect in any other part of the world, chances are high that nature would have selected you out. As any person with red hair can tell you, they are extremely sensitive to sunlight and thus have an increased risk of getting skin cancer. Designing babies with red hair is therefore, in my opinion, irresponsible, since having red hair makes you increasingly susceptible to disease.’

'To design a perfect baby you would also need to know what is going to happen on Earth in the upcoming twenty years'

Complexity of gene editing

As students throughout the evening voiced their fears and formed their opinions on the subject, the discussion tended to shift towards issues that revolved around mere speculation and a series of what-ifs. It was Kok who stated that due to the complex nature of genetics, designing so called perfect babies is out of the question for at least a very long time. ‘Not only is there a problem with the immense complexity of finding out which causes what to occur in the human body, but to design a perfect baby you would also need to know what is going to happen on Earth in the upcoming twenty years. Kok illustrated the point by joking: ‘Maybe humans that develop pieces of skin between their fingers will have a better chance of surviving the possible rising water levels than people who do not.’

With regards to the development of this field, Lunshof stated that it would be best to focus on eradicating genetic diseases that are identifiable early on in life, that are connected to a single gene, and to look at its economic feasibility. ‘For example: If we were to focus on Alzheimer’s now, we wouldn’t know until 70 maybe 80 years from now if it worked. That’s the timescale’s we are talking about. Furthermore, there is no ethical or moral reason to focus on designing ‘perfect babies’ and to direct resources into these type of projects, if there are far more pressing matters in the world right now.’

'It is incredibly important to understand the facts before formulating your opinion on the subject'

A critical goodbye

Lunshof, who was passively following the discussion during multiple points, closed the evening on a worried but somewhat motivating note. ‘You are the future of academics. I have been following the discussion for a while now and I found the discourse worrying. Mainly due to the fact that a lot of arguments from students are based on fears or lack of knowledge. As Kok has stated before, it is incredibly important to understand the facts before formulating your opinion on the subject. If you as future academics won’t do this, then who will?’

Stay tuned

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.