TimothySexton.com

 A classic episode of The X-Files revolves around a series of murders that take place among a community of carnival sideshow freaks. This community is populated both by those who are born with natural deformities such as a man with alligator skin, and by those who have chosen to join the ranks of the deformed, such as a man who has had a jigsaw puzzle tattooed over much of his body. Toward the end of the episode one of these self-made freaks makes a cogent observation that succinctly sums up the moral of the entire episode: "Twenty-first century genetic engineering will not only eradicate the siamese twins and the alligator-skinned people, but you're going to be hard-pressed to find a slight overbite or a not-so-high cheek bone".

This character, named Dr. Blockhead, who makes a living by driving nails into his nostril, further goes on to predict that the effort to create perfection via genetic engineering is doomed to failure because nature cannot abide perfection and evolution cannot survive without mutation. Regardless of the ethical considerations that are attached to the issue of genetic manipulation, it is incumbent that social regulations or restrictions be put in place to prohibit this kind of genetic enhancement on children by parents wishing to construct perfection.

Genetic perfection is, as the saying goes, in the eye of the beholder. And perfection is always in flux, always changing, always evolving. Movies of the late 20's and early 30s reveal that the ideal vision of feminine beauty was decidedly flat-chested and adorned with a short, almost boyish haircut. Flash forward a mere twenty years later and who were the ultimate movie sex symbols? Buxom, long-haired beauties such as Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield. Genetic enhancement in pursuit of an idea of perfection is hopeless because perfection is evolutionarily impossible. While genetic manipulation that turns a blind child into an adult with vision may contain less room for controversy, genetic manipulation to try to make a child taller or stronger in the hopes that he may have a career as an athlete is misplaced. In the first place, of course, it may not work; chances are it won't be perfect even if it does. And suppose it does work and one can add muscle mass or height to their child; that is no guarantee that the child will be interested in an athletic career. At this point the argument is still within the ethical domain, but within it lies a regulatory one. After all, the child has no recourse to expressing disapproval of his own genetic enhancement, therefore it is completely within the purview of the government to step in and protect that child's right to say no. If one can make an argument that an unborn, barely-formed fetus has a right to live, then certainly one can make the argument that a child living outside his mother's womb has the right to be protected from the media-manipulated desires of his parents.

Arguments have been forwarded that regulation of genetic enhancement may be in conflict with consumer demand; that the market forces of capitalism will determine which kinds of enhancement become the rule of the day. There is obviously some precedent for this; certain drugs are regulated against while others are legalized despite containing the same ingredients and having the same effects. Ultimately, however, consumer demand will always run into the matter of morality and ethics; no matter how large the consumer demand for cocaine may be, it is unlikely to be made legal in the US any time soon. Even so, of course, there is much evidence to suggest that the legal drug Ritalin is little more than a chemical cousin to its illegal counterpart. The question becomes, then, if consumer demand for genetic rescripting is large enough will it take the route of cocaine or Ritalin? Since doctors will be administering the enhancements, it seems more likely that soon it will be legalized like Ritalin rather than criminalized like cocaine, despite any moral outcries. Just like with Ritalin, however, leaving the decision to undertake genetic enhancement of children up to their parents is likely to be abused by parents who are simply too tired, lazy or uneducated to deal with the unpleasant, though hardly exceptional, problems that may be solved by drugging their kids.

While the problems associated with Ritalin prescriptions do in many cases warrant such tactics, it unquestionably is also prescribed in many cases because parents simply don't want to deal with high maintenance children. Regulations therefore are needed to protect children who may be not exactly what the parent ordered, so to speak. It is incumbent that genetic enhancement not be allowed to be used to keep parents from having to deal with the emotional baggage inherent in having a child who is considered too short, or with ears that stick straight out, or with a big nose.

Genetic enhancement seeks perfection, but in addition to the impossibility of perfection there is another reason why this should be forestalled. Perfection carries with it an implicit assumption of imperfection. Anyone who doesn't measure up to the idea of perfection is by definition less than perfect. We already live in a society where judgments of talent, ability, intelligence and capability are often confused with looks. How many movie stars have been incredibly good looking people but hardly great actors? How many studies have concluded that more attractive job applicants are likely to get hired over less attractive but more highly qualified rivals? Is that to say that there is something wrong with trying to become better looking? There is an ethical dimension to that question, of course, but ultimately the answer is that anyone should be allowed to improve their appearance-as long as they are legal age to do so. When parents begin flocking en masse to genetic architects, then Huxley's Brave New World will not be so far-fetched.

Those who have read Huxley's description of the process of "decanting" should immediately recognize the potential dangers of genetic enhancement. The children born in Huxley's nightmarish descriptions of the fertilization room and embryo store and decanting room stand as ironic counterpoints to the pursuit of perfection. What is perfection really, but homogenized mediocrity? If everyone looks the same, if everyone is created exactly equal, it is the ultimate in conformity because it leaves no room for improvement. If perfection is the ultimate goal of genetic enhancement, or least improvement toward perfection, and if everyone is attempting to achieve the same ends, the result will be just that, homogenized conformist boredom. Regulations are needed not only to ensure the safety of children and to protect them from parents who would engage in a Frankestein-like attempt to create children without any flaws, but it must also be considered as protection against the disruption of the natural evolutionary process. As many have pointed out, messing around with DNA is currently at the stage where nobody really knows if the outcome would create the perfect baseball player or the perfect killing machine.