Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Designer babies--why not?

M Evans1

  • 1University of Wales Swansea, Wales, UK.

New Zealand Bioethics Journal
|December 14, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Synthesis and degradation of sodium iron phosphate glasses and their in vitro cell response.

Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A·2004
Same author

Characteristics of a human monoclonal autoantibody to the thyrotropin receptor: sequence structure and function.

Thyroid : official journal of the American Thyroid Association·2004
Same author

The public health response to a case of Lassa fever in London in 2000.

The Journal of infection·2004
Same author

Assessing mental health in primary care research using standardized scales: can it be carried out over the telephone?

Psychological medicine·2004
Same author

Chylomicron-remnant-like particles modify production of vasoactive mediators by endothelial cells.

Biochemical Society transactions·2004
Same author

Burden and cost of imported infections admitted to infectious diseases units in England and Wales in 1998 and 1999.

The Journal of infection·2004
Same journal

Guthrie test samples: is the problem solved?

New Zealand bioethics journal·2004
Same journal

Cytogeneticists' stories around the ethics and social consequences of their work: a New Zealand case study.

New Zealand bioethics journal·2004
Same journal

Protection of health research participants in the United States: a review of two cases.

New Zealand bioethics journal·2004
Same journal

Stem cells: public policy and ethics.

New Zealand bioethics journal·2004
See all related articles

Objections to "designer babies" often focus on parental intentions, not the genetic technology itself. Arguments against genetic intervention are re-evaluated, suggesting concerns should be addressed differently.

Area of Science:

  • Bioethics
  • Reproductive Technologies
  • Genetics

Background:

  • The concept of
  • designer babies
  • raises significant ethical objections.
  • Many criticisms focus on parental desires and intentions rather than the specific genetic methods used.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically examine common objections to genetic intervention for creating
  • designer babies
  • .
  • To determine if these objections are specific to genetic means or applicable to broader parental intentions.

Main Methods:

  • Review of ethical arguments and objections concerning genetic intervention.
  • Analysis of the relationship between parental intentions and reproductive practices.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchGenetics and Reproduction

Related Experiment Videos

  • Logical deconstruction of arguments against
  • designer babies
  • .

    • Main Results:

    • Common objections to genetic intervention for
    • designer babies
    • primarily relate to parental intentions, not the technology itself.
    • These intentions can be realized through various means, including traditional genetic selection.
    • Existing objections do not decisively rule out genetic intervention in pursuit of
    • designer babies
    • .

    Conclusions:

    • Concerns about
    • designer babies
    • are not solely or decisively against the genetic intervention methods.
    • Ethical unease requires different arguments, distinct from those targeting specific genetic technologies.
    • The debate necessitates a re-evaluation of the ethical grounds for opposing reproductive genetic enhancements.