How Far Is Too Far in Enhancing Kids’ Genetic Traits?

c. 2007 Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly (UNDATED) Every evening before bed, 12-year-old Mitchell Greenwood gives himself a shot of human growth hormone. He’s healthy, but at barely 4 feet tall, he’s below the normal height for his age. “I’m just hoping that I get those couple of inches that I really want, that I’m taking […]

c. 2007 Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly

(UNDATED) Every evening before bed, 12-year-old Mitchell Greenwood gives himself a shot of human growth hormone. He’s healthy, but at barely 4 feet tall, he’s below the normal height for his age.

“I’m just hoping that I get those couple of inches that I really want, that I’m taking it for,” Mitchell told the PBS program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly.


Mitchell is genetically pre-disposed to be short _ his mother, Lisa, is 5 feet 3 inches tall, and his father, Doug, is 5’4”. Mitchell’s doctor projected that Mitchell may not grow more than another foot, and said human growth hormone might help add an additional two or three inches. The family decided to try it.

“For Mitch, there have already been things in his life that he’s wanted to do but that he’s been unable to do because he is too small,” Lisa Mitchell said. “I think parents will always choose the things that will help their kids grow to be happier, more productive adults.”

Scientists already know which genes are responsible for particular illnesses, and clinical trials are underway to find new treatments for genetically-based diseases. But, ethicists ask, what if this newfound genetic knowledge is used not only to cure, but also to enhance physical and mental capabilities _ and to enable parents to select the traits of their children?

“Aiming at giving our kids a competitive edge in a consumer society _ that, in principle, is a goal that is limitless,” said Harvard University professor Michael Sandel, a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics.

“There is no end. In fact, one can imagine a kind of hormonal arms race, or genetic race _ whether it’s to do with height, or IQ _ conceivably in the future.”

In 2003, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of human growth hormone for healthy children who have no defined cause for their short stature.

“The decision was controversial because there were a lot of people who felt that this was cosmetic treatment,” said Dr. Paul Kaplowitz of the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington. “If I see those children, I simply say, `This is not an appropriate use of growth hormone.”’


Sandel, too, said he supports the use of new biotechnologies to cure illness, but he strongly opposes its use for enhancement.

“My argument is not that we must never intervene in nature,” he said. “My argument is that there is a moral difference between intervention for the sake of health, to cure or prevent disease, and intervention for the sake of achieving a competitive edge for our kids,” Sandel said.

Others, like University of California at Los Angeles professor Gregory Stock, author of the book, “Redesigning Humans,” say the line between therapy and enhancement is never clear-cut.

“Any time there is a reduction in some disease process, in some affliction _ which we can all support _ the possibility exists of other enhancements.” Stock said. “And I see this as a very robust development. I don’t see that we’re moving toward some sort of cliff.”

Few people think twice about getting their kids braces, but what about genetic help to boost memory? Stock’s company, Signum Biosciences, is researching therapies for Alzheimer’s patients. He said he is not concerned that parents might also use that therapy to help their children do better in school, for example.

“If we could enhance our memories, to me that superficially seems desirable,” he said.

Technologies are also moving forward that may one day allow parents to pre-select various traits in their children, including personality or temperament. Dr. Andrew Silverman of Scarsdale, N.Y., is already helping couples choose the gender of their children, but says he would not help them pick personality traits.


“The greatest joy and mystery of life is seeing how your kids turn out, because they are in the same home environment. They have relatively the same genetic spread, assuming it’s the same marriage. How they turn out is the wonderment of life,” he said.

Sandel, of Harvard, opposes both sex selection and procedures to select personality traits of children.

“The norm of unconditional parental love, I think, depends on the fact that we don’t pick and choose the traits of our children in the way that we pick and choose the features of a car we might order,” Sandel said.

Stock said he believes there is a moral responsibility to push forward with research, trusting that human beings have a great capacity for adapting to technology.

“So where is this going to lead us?” Stock asked. “We don’t really know. To be engaged in this process, which is changing the world around us, which is changing ourselves, which is life beginning to get control of its own processes and to act upon that information. To me, it’s awe-inspiring.”

(OPTIONAL TRIM FOLLOWS)

There are other larger social questions, such as cost.

“A course of growth hormone to add extra inches could easily get close to $100,000,” Kaplowitz said. “And the question is, who is paying for this? Well, in most situations the insurance companies are paying for this.”


Some worry about the creation of two very separate classes of people _ those who can afford genetic enhancements and those who cannot.

“It will only deepen the gap between rich and poor, and possibly inscribe that gap in our biology,” Sandel said.

DSB/CM END LAWTON900 words. With optional trim to 800.

Photos of Sandel and the Greenwoods are available via https://religionnews.com.

A version of this story first appeared on the PBS program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly and is available to RNS clients.

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!