As technology advances, those who are afraid of technology, typically fundamentalist religious figures, attack these advances. In this case, genetic engineering is decried as "playing god" or "sinful" by the same fundamentalist groups who opposed surgery 150 years ago on the same grounds. For this reason, we need to make sure that laws regulating genetics are based on science not religion; so far, sadly, religion has won out over science in the United States.

Sent by Chuck Paugh | 2:12 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Is this "genetic design" or "genetic choice" nothing more the eugenics, with all it's negative connotations?

Sent by Steve | 2:13 PM ET | 04-15-2008

one word: Gattaca

Sent by Fiona | 2:17 PM ET | 04-15-2008

As for parents with unreasonable expectations, at least genetic enhancement might give the poor kid a fighting chance of meeting them.

Sent by Andrew | 2:17 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Haven't we all read Brave New World? Seems like a good parable for this: class devisions by genes.

Sent by Aidan | 2:19 PM ET | 04-15-2008

People should be allowed the choice of a designer baby if the technology is not harmful to others. I would never want a Prada child nor would I want to associate with people who did, but I can't see why my ideas should dictate their choice.

There should be no line drawn at all. Isn't this just an evolution of nature at the hands of its creatures?

-Portland, Oregon

Sent by Scott Millar | 2:20 PM ET | 04-15-2008

A critical question about selecting for something like low risk of late onset breast cancer revolves around how independent the person is from his/her genetics. My daughter is amazing, and I can't imagine the world without her -- would I have a completely different child (who I'm sure I would love just as much) if I had selected her genes for low breast cancer risk? Issues of whether the same soul would have been born in a body with different genes are scientifically imponderable, of course. But I've heard of genetic features that go together, e.g., blue eys and hemophilia in royal human families, deafness and albinism in dalmations, etc. Scientifically speaking, what is known about whether ancillary genetic properties are or aren't associated with, e.g., the breast cancer gene?

Sent by Glenn Horton-Smith | 2:21 PM ET | 04-15-2008

the point the caller made about rich vs poor was explored by hg wells in the time machine. the moorlocks were the poor humans who were modified to live and work underground to serve the rich eloi. of course the eloi did end up becoming food to the morlocks, so be careful what you wish for

Sent by shimon | 2:22 PM ET | 04-15-2008

What will happen when tomorrow's Hitler, or other unscrupulous world leader, gets ahold of this technology?

Sent by Janice Thomas | 2:22 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Why do people want to have the "blessing" they think they can have, and could turn out to be something other than they ulimately wanted, when you can have the "blessing" they didn't know they could have by letting nature take it's course. Life is a blessing and so many talk about being "blessed" because they had that child with Down's syndrome or other diseases and "unwanted" qualities.

Sent by Erin | 2:22 PM ET | 04-15-2008

What about children that will some day be born on the moon...Lunarians as I have heard. The effects of 1/4 Earth's gravity will "create" a different human species?

Sent by Darrell Havel | 2:24 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Designing babies and making clones are both nothing new. The tools are just getting better. Many people have twins, which are nothing but clones, and for hundreds of thousands of years men have been choosing wifes who are hourglass shaped. It is highly likely that cloning and genetic engineering will be used by those 20% who do not oppose it. Ethics has nothing to do with it. A thousand years from now don't be surprised to walk into a classroom and see a whole classroom filled with clones of whoever is popular at the moment.

Sent by Christopher Booth | 2:24 PM ET | 04-15-2008

I don't attack the technology, my opinion is what does this say about us as a society? I don't see it as playing God, but more as what kind of society do you wish to encourage? One more concerned with looks, and getting what you want? Or one more able to survive, adapt and overcome? While one can certainly tout the benefits of say abolishing cancer through genetic manipulation in future generations one also has to look at all of the ancillary discoveries which has come about from our research in say cancer, or AIDS that helps with so many other conditions, and which we otherwise would not have today if it has not been for said Cancer or AIDs existing.

Sent by Jarrett | 2:26 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Didn't totalitarian regimes e.g. NAZI and Communists try to selectively breed individuals? Why is this now seemingly now OK to do that which was vilified?

Sent by Steve | 2:26 PM ET | 04-15-2008

We need to discover the genetic causes of disorders like autism and other developmental problems. These could be addressed ethically with genetic manipulation.

Sent by kat russell | 2:27 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Except for the technology advancements - isn't this what eugenics the "Hitler" idea was - developing the perfect people?

Sent by Charlene | 2:27 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Genetic engineering is a world wide phenomena. What would be the US response if another country (like China) began supporting genetic enhancement of their children? (go to war? start doing it ourselves? or just fall behind?)

Sent by Greg Dahlem | 2:28 PM ET | 04-15-2008

What do your guests think about a genetic condition such as albinism, which does not threaten viability or health, but affects cosmetic appearance? As close to a dividing line as possible?
And, what about the notion that by engineering out certain genes responsible for certain diseases, preconditions and conditions, that we might lose unknown (or known) advantages, even protections or requisites for evolutions, which these genes provide? Do we really know enough about genetics to "monkey" with evolution?

Sent by Anonymous | 2:28 PM ET | 04-15-2008

A good looking designer baby is harmless. What could be scary is a super-intelligent designer baby! A high level of engineered intelligence would have the potential for a far greater impact.

Sent by Scott Millar | 2:29 PM ET | 04-15-2008

The act of breeding humans in the image of God. Whats not to like about harnessing and understanding the power of biology?

Sent by Tod | 2:30 PM ET | 04-15-2008

I am the adoptive mother of a beautiful daughter with Down Syndrome. This topic outrages me! My late husband and I had one beautiful birth daughter, and were unable to have any other birth children. Bonnie came home to us at age 11 days. She is Native American, and parental rights could not be terminated until 11 days, due to the oxymon called the Indian Child Welfare Act. She was all hair, little meat, had a heart defect, which was surgically corrected at 18 months. She has been the light of our lives. My husband died of cancer three years ago. He always said Bonnie was born missing the Mean Gene. And so she was. She was and is pure sunshine. I am outraged that anyone would or could "engineer" such a beautiful being out of our world. How dare you...? I tried to call, but could not get through your busy signal.

Sent by Deb Stover | 2:35 PM ET | 04-15-2008

There was a movie made on the exact subject. the Movie is called Gataca. It brings up the social implications of a geneticaly modified human, and how everyone who is not modified is put into a lower class. As a result the unmodified humans can only get the jobs no one else wants.

Sent by Joe Morgan | 2:35 PM ET | 04-15-2008

How do you know the baby you designed is not going to susceptible to other future unknown disease?
Genes work together as a group or a team, natural weakness and natural strong ness are selected by nature of pregnancy. Selection of all good genes together by technology, how do you know they can be perfectly expressed as a perfect Baby? How can you predict that baby not going to susceptible to other environmental disease that you don't know yet?

Sent by Yuan | 2:35 PM ET | 04-15-2008

I think that the greatest potential genetic boon to mankind is the use of evolving technologies to create personal genetic profiles that can be used to select a good mother or a father for ones offspring. Not by cooking a super-baby up in the lab, but by mating the old fashioned way with a spouse chosen for the inclusion of positive traits and well as the exclusion of negative ones. Just as many Ashkenazi Jews now do through testing for Tay Sachs disease before they have children together, only on a much more comprehensive scale. This need not be taken to extremes, but rather used as a general selection tool for getting an edge on Mother Nature.

Sent by Charles Segal | 2:36 PM ET | 04-15-2008

I work with children with reading disorders. These individuals often are very talented and creative in other aspects of intelligence. If this kind of genetic engineering is implemented, these gifts may also be lost at the same time that the reading problems are eliminated--it is clear from the ways that brains develop that you would be changing the whole balance of cognitive skills.

I agree that we should address reading problems through non-genetic means and not change the essence of who that person could be at a genetic level.

Sent by Leslie in KY | 2:36 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Our genes have been evolving in part due to the constantly changing environment of our world. Humans have been on a quest to decouple our genetic evolution with that of the rest of the world. How much longer until that strategy backfires?

Sent by Renee | 2:37 PM ET | 04-15-2008

What about sickle cell anemia? Substantial research indicates that it developed against malaria. How do we decide good or bad?

Sent by Sam | 2:37 PM ET | 04-15-2008

I think that Marcy is missing the point. She is claiming that if pre-birth gene alteration is permitted it will create a divide between the wealthy and the poor. How is this different than todays society? With cochlear implants, lasik surgery, and even facial reconstruction for burn patients, how many of these very valuable services are available to poor families or families with limited or no health coverage?

Sent by Jeff in Baltimore | 2:38 PM ET | 04-15-2008

As an oncologist and a parent of a child with cancer I felt it necessary to comment on this topic. Certain inheritable cancer syndromes and metabolic conditions that lead to early death- can be prevented by IVF and PGD. I doubt the callers or medical students polled would disagree with this if their child suffered from one of these conditions. Thank you.

Sent by Robert Lufkin | 2:38 PM ET | 04-15-2008

I just heard the comment about allowing parents the freedom to improve their child's genetic inheritance and I have to add that if you do that we as a nation should very strongly begin to educate our children about genetic differences and make sure they are fully knowledgable and have been around many different types of genetic differences. I think of Down Syndrome, and many other types of 'differences. I just took a class on biomedical ethics and was astounded at the callous approach many of the younger students in the class took to beginning of life eugenics. Instead of changing laws, I'd like to change people's understanding of what is a viable reason to end a young life, in utero or out.

Sent by Jill | 2:39 PM ET | 04-15-2008

I have over 20 years experience in health care as a nurse, and now as a certified nurse-midwife. I have worked and trained along with medical students and am aware of the differences in nursing and medical educations. It seems clear that medical education focuses on doing the research but not looking at the implications. Nurses are trained to look at how health care technologies can affect patients in a social, cultural, and ethical context. The answer is not to stop research but to improve educating all health care providers in bio-ethics.

Sent by Jean Lein | 2:39 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Genetically perfect babies? It's already happening! I'm a 21 year old senior in college, and as a woman I see plenty of classifieds asking for egg donors who have extremely desirable traits: good looking, athleticism, Ivy league graduate, etc. Super rich couples are already trying to have perfect babies by getting the perfect egg donors and paying a handsome price that would appeal to many girls my age who are under the weight of college debt.

Sent by Ali at IU | 2:40 PM ET | 04-15-2008

It is a trend in the deaf community to select and implant deaf embryos. What are people's thoughts on this?

Sent by L H | 2:46 PM ET | 04-15-2008

The ethics of genetic engineering are simple and crystal clear if one starts with the FACT that scientists and soon-to-be parents are manipulating and selecting live, growing human beings; and killing the ones they don't want. Absent this, yes it gets complicated; and all outcomes are wrong.

Consider what society would think if parents seeking to adopt one child were given 10 children to choose from; with the nine not chosen killed. Society would never permit this because they're children--living human beings! It's no different with embryo's--they just don't have the same standing and rights because they haven't exited the womb. Sadly, societal ignorance permits this.

Sent by Jim Scofield | 2:49 PM ET | 04-15-2008

I am have dyslexia. On your show today, some one mentioned how they could possibly, genetically correct for dyslexia, as if this would be a benefit to society and children.
While this innovation, might have improved my spelling. It would have changed me. While it is true I struggled a bit learning to see the difference between: B and D or WAS and SAW. I also think it allows me to see some things clearer or in a new way. Like many dyslexics, I have experienced a greater ease in some school disciplines (math and science) while struggling with language.
I wonder how many wonderful minds in the math and sciences may be lost if, we start "fixing" people.

Sent by Nina Ferre-Cohen | 2:54 PM ET | 04-15-2008

My 4 year old daughter is a savior sibling a.k.a. designer baby.

I like to call her "One Fit Savior".

Specialists from a clinic in Chicago helped us select an embryo (6 cells) that had compatibility with my son who was born with a terminal disease. After birth she donated umbilical cord and bone marrow stem cells for her brother.

He had a stem cell bone marrow transplant 3 and a half years ago and after a very long and difficult recovery, he's cured.

Treatments like this one will help us find a cure for many diseases like diabetes, sickle cell anemia, parkinson's, alzheimer's, spinal cord injury...

Researchers need help. Theres a lot to be done regarding stem cell research.

We will be able to swap healthy cells for damaged ones with cells that are a perfect match for a patient's own. This will restore health and life to patients now without hope.

This will cure currently incurable diseases.

This will revolutionize medicine.

Sent by Andres Trevino | 2:56 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Star belly sneeches! Until we are a world of clones, and probably even then, there will always be differences, the key has and always will be teaching our children to embrace differences, this can not be legislated. If we can "improve" or model children to have greater potential and a better life then more power to the entire human race. The reproductive rights of a woman or a family should be their own, not controlled by the flavor of the year in the government. Far too often religious, political or mere personal opinion color rational and scientific research and choices. Just ask the 1500 Americans dying of cancer everyday. We should further our knowledge and quest for answers not suppress it with archaic myth and superstition.

Sent by John | 2:59 PM ET | 04-15-2008

As anyone can see from the above comments there is no need to worry about bio-diversity - there are plenty of people who prefer to make babies the old fashioned way - there will never be societies full of Johnny B Good, but there will be classrooms full of them. Issues of treating people equally are more fundamental - all persons *must* be treated equally, and provided complete medical care, like in France, for example, which has the best medical care in the world.

Sent by Christopher Booth | 3:15 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Darn-It. I was listening to Rush and missed the most exciting topic of the year. Oh, I would've loved to have called in on this subject. I whole heartedly support genetically engineering children for numerous reasons. I think people opposed are technophobic. Neal, can we talk about this again, Please! and will someone give me notice.

Sent by Michael Fry | 3:18 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Thirty years ago, several months before my birth, my mother underwent an amnioscentesis, which was recommended for older expectant mothers at the time. The results indicated that I might be born with a mosaic chromosomal abnormality--some of my cells ok, some very abnormal. My mother was informed that the most likely outcome would be a child with severe retardation at best. People who go on and on about "reproductive freedom," and how parents should be able to make whatever choices they want to about what kind of children they have, tend to have a very limited view of freedom to my mind. My parents were very fortunate to believe that they had the resources, both emotional and financial, to take care of a severely disabled child, and were willing to take the risk that they might have to. If we truly want to promote reproductive freedom, we need to allocate our resources as a community so that no parent is forced to choose between having a child with a disability, and providing for the rest of their family. Thirty years ago, the situation was the exact opposite for my mother and others like her. She was offered all sorts of counseling and assistance should she have chosen an abortion, and none (with the exception of whatever medical assistance was covered by her insurance) should she decide to give birth to me. My mother reminded me of this story the day she found out that I had gotten a perfect score on the SAT. I've always felt tremendously lucky--not just to have turned out healthy, but to have a mother who did not believe in genetically selecting her embryos. Perhaps because of this, I also feel quite strongly technologies for genetic selection of children after fertilization are not technologies that should be permitted for anyone. Given that genetic testing during pregnancy has improved in accuracy since 1978, for a while I reassured myself that it was unlikely that there are a large number of other women who were in the position of my mother, and would have given birth to a healthy child, but felt they had to have an abortion, because they didn't believe they could take care of the disabled child they were being told they would have. But since being diagnosed with a mental illness five years ago, I have felt even more strongly that genetic selection is wrong. I am a unique person, with a lot to offer the world, that some other child of my parents would not be able to contribute. Is someone who would never face my illness more worthy of life? It especially bothered me to hear one of today's guests discuss eliminating dyslexia. The challenges faced by people with dyslexia, it is well documented, often lead to increased success in entrepreneurship later in life. People with total, congenital deafness, if taught how to sign early, have visual and language abilities that virtually no hearing people ever achieve. We need to eliminate prejudice, and not "abnormal" genes.

Sent by Rich Stenberg | 3:19 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Your guest (the women) said we shouldn't have genetic manipulation because this would lead to a superior group and then the elite would be come the leadership class.
That is happening today. The intellectual elite run the country already.
Who goes to the Best schools - the most intelligent/smartest.
Only the smartest and the best are hired.
Who does Microsoft hire, who are interns, and who gets hired first, the 4.0s.
Who plays college, and pro sports, those with the greatest speed and physical agilities.
Already, those with limited skills and intelligence are already suffering from being constrained to the lowest rung jobs.
And who gets sick and diseases - those with poor genes.
If someone could deselect the breast cancer gene from a family and future children wouldn't that be a wonderful gift to a child.
If it were possible why shouldn't we do what nature does already, makes some women immune to breast cancer.
Bring on making humans better. Let's move to removing the worst of diseases before a child is born rather spending horrendous sums on medicines and treatments to cure those in later life. Especially since the cures in many cases are so painful and out of the financial reach of most people.

Sent by fairoakien | 3:25 PM ET | 04-15-2008

In order to do this kind of genetic selection routinely, every baby would have to be conceived via IVF. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Sent by janet | 4:59 PM ET | 04-15-2008

What Ms. Darnovsky was talking about happening with regard to the social consequences of genetic engineering on humans as exemplified by the film Gattaca is already in effect. It is in effect for those in our society who have done nothing more than make use of abilities or exploit characteristics they were born with. Our society already rewards people for doing nothing more than being born beautiful or with athletic ability or with higher intelligence or certain innate personality elements which enable them to succeed. Why should this be? Genetic engineering for these purposes will lead to even greater inequities in our society than already exist.

Obviously the distinction should be made that it would be beneficial to employ genetic engineering to eliminate inherited diseases and birth defects.

Sent by jack | 5:39 PM ET | 04-15-2008

My university Genetics class this year seemed to be full of careless people, who would rather be watching The Hills or playing video games. These are the people who will make the decisions of tomorrow. It's no surprise to me that the world is in the state it's in when I experience situations like this, including genetics.

Sent by KW | 6:46 PM ET | 04-15-2008

I am heartbreakingly confused about what to think on this topic. I am the mother of a teenage son with severe Spina Bifida AND a "perfectly healthy" 9 year old. They are both perfect to everyone who has the pleasure of knowing them. I cant imagine a world without the challenges and joys that both boys bring to our family and our society. I would never had been wise enough to "design" our family to be this full and wonderful. Perhaps we need the challenge and diversity of "imperfections""flaws" and "disabilities" in order to realize true human beauty. All I truly know for certain is: Thank GOD I never had a chance to screw up the "perfect" design of who these kids miraculously happened to be.

Sent by kish finnegan | 8:46 PM ET | 04-15-2008

Mr Green mentioned early in the show about casting this question out to a class of med students; I believe he said "80 %" did not think gen-selection was a particularly good idea. I think he followed that by a broad comparison of gen-engineering with "Test-tube Babies" of 20 years ago and said something like, 'people are always resistant to new technology, but over time they will adapt to said technology.' (Paraphrased)

What I hear little about is; should not the "new technologies" we are always faced with have to adapt reciprocally to the society or humanity into which it is being introduced?

Tech has brought us many wonders, but many horrors as well; any thinking human being will always look at these things and say, what are the pluses, and perhaps, more importantly, WHAT are the MINUSES???

Sent by Bert McGrath | 9:13 PM ET | 04-15-2008

I listened to most of this program today and read most of the comments. I wanted to present a different point of view.

This is just one of many ethical questions that will face humanity in the next few decades. but while the comments all centered on the "pro and con" of the topic, none addressed the the real question. Can humanity be trusted to use this new technology for the greater good?

While I have great hope for the future, I still see our race as being self-centered and short sighted. Few others species on this planet are as ruthless to each other as we are.

While I don't want to sound "preachy", I think the answer to the question lies in whether we can, at the very least create guidelines for genetic engineering that can serve to make breakthroughs available to all, be completely transparent to the public and serve to improve the well being of humanity.

I look forward to the days when our species is advanced to the point where we, as a collective group, do things like genetic engineering without the selfish motivation that dominates us now.

When we become a truly advanced society, the "ethics" question will be moot.

We are not there yet.

Sent by Brian Clark | 9:17 PM ET | 04-15-2008

One key thing that I feel most people have missed in this debate is that designer babies will destroy our genetic diversity. I think its safe to say that no-one wants the gene for heart disease, but what if it does for a future disease what sickle cell anemia does for malaria? We run the risk of engineering ourselves out of existence because we're all too "perfect".

On the show, they mention the possibility of the wealthy hoarding the lion's share of "good" genes, and that the solution is to make them available to everyone. Either someone will realize the diversity problem, initiate the clamp down of peoples choice, and thereby increase the rift between the rich and poor (because the rich will find a way), or one day we're all but wiped out by disease. I wish I saw a better solution.

Sent by Kevin | 9:53 PM ET | 04-15-2008

first of all i find genetically engineering exciting thinking abt all the possibilities that we could help cure but ethically i am opposed for many reasons... but some questions i have is abt epi-genetics and the role that the markers/ tags (methyl markers found on our genes )play. recently watched a program on NOVA about this same subject and research shows that these markers play a major role and no matter how much we like to pick and choose a perfect genome they research also shows that the environment that we are raised in will change these markers in early development some of them even disappearing causing a gene to appear as if it were not even there. leading to possible false expectations -- and if we can change these genes or methyl markers couldn't we do this after their birth when the individual would actually be able to be involved in the decision? crazy thought... isn't choosing which genes we do and don't want in our child somehow be in conflict with that childs' individual rights such as when a child is born a hermaphrodite ?

Sent by inquistive | 11:04 PM ET | 04-15-2008

I wonder why no one has thought about the issue of whether or not we actually can do genetic engineering safely. There are so much genetic material that we don't understand, so many things that we cannot pinpoint on our DNA. There are certainly some great benefits to being able to make a baby who is compatible with a sick child to save a life, but we need to understand that it isn't like we can change just one gene and not have it affect another. Our genetics isn't a series of genes independently functioning, but rather a mesh of information that interplays with one another. Several of our genes have multiple functions. Who is to say if we start playing with this vital information without a full understanding of the genetic code (something that will likely never actually happen) that our intentions may be noble but our results could be worse than what we imagined -- the road to hell, as they say.

Sent by Stacy | 9:10 AM ET | 04-16-2008

My son was born still at 31 weeks - no reason was found through testing me, my placenta, and an autopsy on my baby. Though genetic research to date could not have prevented my son's death, perhaps in the future, people could select embryos to prevent the tragedy of stillbirth.

However, I am sickened by the idea of parents selecting traits with the goal of having a "superior" child. As the mother of a child who has died, what I would give for my child to have lived, regardless of what flaws or strengths he would have had, is immeasurable. Our children are amazing and valuable no matter what physical or mental attributes they have.

Sent by Wendy Juniper | 10:18 AM ET | 04-16-2008

I am absolutely opposed to genetic enhancements that can be inherited. Future bumper sticker: DON'T VOTE TO ALLOW OTHERS TO CREATE KIDS THAT WILL PERMANENTLY ELIMINATE UPWARD MOBILITY FOR YOUR KIDS. If we are to play god I say we play the god of the best of all the great spiritual traditions. This won't require smarter more beautiful and talented people who will have super human capabilities. Super people in a world of fast vanishing life supporting assets could possibly turn to lifeboat morality and eliminate the billions of "excess" people.

What we need is a future human being that won't (can't) kill others in the competitive struggles that have continuously spawned war, torture, slavery and indifference to suffering in others since civilization produced the first wealth. We need a human that will come much closer to living in accord with the golden rule and is much less greedy. Biological engineering of genes and environment to design future people must be limited to therapeutic and corrective purposes and within the architectonic of ultimately attaining morally improved people.

Sent by scott guth, m.d. | 10:34 AM ET | 04-16-2008

Marcy's representation of Eugenics as only crackpot science NOW, but was good science then, is ridiculous. Eugenics was always more of a political and social movement, and while it was possible to find scientists who were believers as well, this was NOT the science of the day, any more then it is now.

Sent by Jay | 11:27 AM ET | 04-16-2008

What about genetic mutation? If we decide to pick and choose what characteristic we want we may miss out on natural selection of traits we have not thought of as beneficial. If Steven Hawking's parents could have selected for a child that would not have developed Lou Gehrig's Disease, we would have missed out on all that he has offered to the world.

Sent by Umber Quazi | 12:37 PM ET | 04-16-2008

I'm not against having this conversation but I believe that we are really putting the cart before the horse on this one. The idea that we can tweak the "reading gene" or that we can just change some DNA sequence to allow a child to have a 40" vertical jump is just not correct. There are some genes that control individual traits (i.e. brown and blue eyes) but reading is a complex behavior and there is no reading gene, similarly Michael Jordan doesn't have a better 'fade-away jumper gene' than the rest of us, he is an athletic man with amazing muscle memory. The arguments by both your guests leave out the complexities of environment on embryonic development, and if this technology takes off it will simply lead to many disappointed parents because if anyone claims to have cloned the 'smart gene' and offers to introduce it to your baby, please come see me about a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale.

Sent by Jamie Mahaffey | 1:18 PM ET | 04-16-2008

If anyone saw Frontline on pbs last night, one can see a potential solution to this controlled genetic evolution. Through spousal choice in mating, these superficial traits are already somewhat controlled by the parents to breed the children they want. I believe the administered genetics of the future should only control for health and disease control in that limiting cases like downs syndrome and creation of a new technology in fighting superbacteria and superviruses as those beings evolve to our medicines.
The Frontline took a look at a few Health Care systems around the world and I believe that Tiawan's method of picking and choosing what works out of other Nations health care systems along with national ID health cards seems to be the answer. No matter what, the US will have to scrap the health care system we are on to accommodate the baby boomers generation. I believe taking the best of what is around the world, we could create a system that controls the creation and the application of medicine through mandatory universal health care through limited raised taxes,low-base patient fees, and health community departments that set prices of drugs and procedures while also advising government regulation and policies on genetic manipulation.

Sent by Jared | 2:16 PM ET | 04-16-2008

If the technology to create designer babies isn't arduously expensive, then I'm sure market demand will eventually cause it come to pass, whether universally desired or loathed.

There is a slight problem with mankind mucking with it's own gene pool though. What's to say some of the so-called less desirable genetic traits we'd remove won't actually become vital in the right pathogen environment? The process of removing undesirable genetic traits from the newborn population would seem to be a recipe for limiting the diversity of the human gene pool, and thus providing the right pathogen with 'free pass' into the entire genetically modified population.

Sent by bill clawson | 5:05 PM ET | 04-16-2008

Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
[Khan Noonien Singh is a fictional product of eugenics]

Sent by Pat | 12:57 AM ET | 04-17-2008

When given the choice most will choose the best. Yet what is considered the best comes from society. People forget that society is a social construction & as such can and will change it's standards. So what is fashionable today may not be the fashion of tomorrow. One thing we do know is that genetic diversity is a good thing and it's functional. Why in a time when we are concerned for proserving our bio-diversity would anyone contribute towards a science that promotes diminishing our human diversity!

Sent by C.L. | 12:38 PM ET | 04-17-2008

There will comes times when pre parent will just enter the hospital to choose what their babies will look like from a catalog

Sent by Pre-parent | 10:47 PM ET | 04-17-2008

To be honests I think designing babies is pear wrong. You should be happy of what god gives you. If everything is perfect think about all the problems you had but face. And your child nots going to have, and father the child will grow without.

Sent by Felicia | 1:22 PM ET | 05-16-2008

I believe that designing babies to be more desirable is wrong. However, removing genes for disease is a good thing because we all know that disease is bad, plain and simple. I also think that once they are old enough they should be able to choose for themselves whether or not they want to genetically alter themselves in any way (as long as it's not harmfull to anyone). I really think this is what will inevitably be the Supreme Court's decision when it becomes a huge topic in the NEAR future.

Sent by Jack Gronsky | 12:32 AM ET | 07-06-2008

You don't intend to talk about genetics because its something that you don't understand. I was chosen deaf during IVF and am very happy.

Sent by Anonymous | 4:56 AM ET | 08-26-2008