Inequality and Human Genetics
By Richard Hayes,
The New York Times
| 09. 16. 2008
[Letter to the editor]
David Frum correctly acknowledges that income inequality in the United States has been growing steadily and that the use of genetic technology by the affluent to enhance the "intelligence, health, beauty and strength" of their offspring would exacerbate this trend. But his suggestion that this challenge could be addressed by somehow ensuring that all have access to such technology is woefully misguided. The advent of these technologies would spark a techno-eugenic rat race impossible to constrain absent some system of authoritarian, allocative control. It would fundamentally change the way people regard their children and one another and undermine the integrity of the common human nature that sustains all human values, beliefs and institutions. The genetic modification of our children is a practice that conservatives and liberals alike should be able to agree poses far more risks than benefits, and should be taken off the table as an option.
Richard Hayes
Executive Director
Center for Genetics and Society
Oakland, Calif.
Related Articles
By Jenny Lange, BioNews | 12.01.2025
A UK toddler with a rare genetic condition was the first person to receive a new gene therapy that appears to halt disease progression.
Oliver, now three years old, has Hunter syndrome, an inherited genetic disorder that leads to physical...
By Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
By Pam Belluck and Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 11.19.2025
Gene-editing therapies offer great hope for treating rare diseases, but they face big hurdles: the tremendous time and resources involved in devising a treatment that might only apply to a small number of patients.
A study published on Wednesday...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...
