Why Human Genetic Engineering is inevitable

In some circles these days there is a vivid debate on whether we should allow human genetic engineering or not. I think this debate misses the point - the real question is not whether we should prevent altering the DNA of unborn humans, but whether we can prevent it. I think the answer to that question is "No", and here is why:

• First, a country (probably somewhere in Asia) that is less concerned with religious beliefs about the sanctity of the human body (USA) or less distrustful of genetic engineering in general (Germany and much of the rest of the European Union) will permit human genetic engineering to remove hereditary diseases. This will provoke an outcry from some parts of what is generally called the "Western World", but since this procedure will have lots of proponents even there and it is hard not to sympathize with the plight of those so afflicted, calls for embargoes against the offending country will go nowhere.


• The procedure will to spread to several other small countries, but not to Europe or the USA. Lots of rich parents from the latter regions will travel to these countries to "fix" their children. Legal attempts to prevent them from doing so fails - probably because these people can afford good lawyers.


• Finally, most Western nations relent and allow this procedure, since outlawing it doesn't stop that many people and the ban only disadvantages the law-abiding and those who can't travel elsewhere to do it. Many European nations will probably even allow this procedure under their national health plans, if it becomes inexpensive enough.


• A few biotech havens start offering "upgrades" for unborn children that will make them smarter, healthier, or longer-lived. Again, rich people will go there to get the best genes money can buy for their children. "Designer Babies" become a reality. Most Western countries will try to stop this for a time, with little success. Others see where the wind is blowing, and legalize it under close government supervision so that they can rake in the profits.


• The cycle repeats itself numerous times, with ever-more radical changes from the human norm. Many countries will outlaw the more drastic changes, but the genie is out of the bottle - anyone who wants a certain modification for his or her children and has the money can get it in the right country.

When in the past has a technology that has a possible benefit for many people and a ready market ever been successfully suppressed? The closest example I can think of are nuclear weapon, which require large, national installations to produce... and we still have massive stockpiles of those, as well as lots of small countries trying to build them on their own (some successfully so). Human genetic engineering, on the other hand, probably doesn't need much more than the equivalent of a well-stocked clinic - a couple of millions of dollars as starting capital, once the basic procedures have been proven to work. How will it be possible to suppress that?

No, I think the entire debate on whether we should "permit" human genetic engineering is pointless. It is not within our power to prevent it. Instead, we should concentrate on trying to work out the consequences of it - such as that the "inherent abilities" of children might depend a lot on how much their parents are able to spend on their DNA - and figure out a way of dealing with them so that they cause the least disruption of our societies.