A Guardian columnist has raised concerns about moves to allow genetically modified babies, saying we have no idea what the future impact on children will be.
Zoe Williams says the process – which involves the destruction of human embryos – is not just a pro-life issue; she is fearful it will open the door to designer babies.
Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship has also raised concerns after the Government backed the technique last week.
Unethical
Miss Williams said: “There are moral questions here that have very little to do with the abortion debate: is it defensible to make alterations at a genetic level whose impact on future children we simply don’t know?
“Is there any fundamental difference between screening out diseases and screening out undesirable traits?
Perfection
“The spectre is sometimes conjured of a Blade Runner future, in which the rich can modify their foetuses to perfection while the poor have to take what nature throws at them.”
Miss Williams concluded: “There are clearly implications here that go beyond the curative properties of the technique as it’s used at the moment, and questions thrown up to which the answer “think of all the suffering alleviated for mitochondrial disorder sufferers” is insufficient.”
Supporters of the technique say it will help avoid mitochondrial disease (MCD), which is passed from mother to child.
Risky
But Dr Saunders said: “This is not about finding a cure. It is about preventing people with MCD being born. We need first to be clear that these new technologies, even if they are eventually shown to work, will do nothing for the thousands of people already suffering from mitochondrial disease or for those who will be born with it in the future.”
He concluded: “This new push is being driven as much by prestige for government, research grants for scientists and profits for biotechnology company shareholders as anything else.
He added: “Let’s keep a cool head and instead concentrate on finding real treatments and providing better support for affected individuals and their families rather than spending limited health resources on unethical, risky and highly uncertain high tech solutions that will most likely never deliver.”
