Animal Testing and Designer Babies

Well it may not come into the minds of some people when talking about the connections between animal testing and designer (Genetically modified) babies, I found some connections between these two topics that relate to the class as well. First, let me start out in saying that I support animal testing and designer babies, to some extent. Animal testing has given us the basis in which we can create designer babies. They go hand in hand, because without first learning how to try to genetically engineer animals, we would have no knowledge to carry over to the human population.

I am skeptical of some of the facts presented in the animal testing presentation, such as the fact that 94% of animal testing was used for cosmetics. This blind stat which is lacking of a credible source and citation, can easily skew the seeing device in which we view the animal testing subject. I think that sometimes in this class the science is lost to a wikipedia and google search of the first kind of information that we can find. And, as odd as it may sound, Michael Crichton was more credible in most cases because even he had footnotes (which as we all know were "real"). I guess the problem that I have is that in a science studies class we focus on both the science and the implications of that science, but we cannot have the latter if the former is illegitimate. I guess we could go into a conversation of what classifies an argument as legitimate, but that is a conversation for a whole different blog post. In this case, a simple credible citation would suffice.

These obligations aside, the connections between designer babies and animal testing are substantial. Some may argue that both are unethical, both are inhumane, and that both empower humans far beyond whomever or whatever created this universe intended. In reviewing terms that these two topics relate to, I found ideas in my notes that I had previously forgot about. The ideas of biological determinism-the fact that in today's society it is accepted that if there is something wrong with you it is in your genes (argued against by Lewontin)- and the ever popular theory of "black boxes."

First let's start with biological determinism. This concept is present in both subjects in that designer babies are the basis in which biological determinism can take root, and further advanced through the use of animal testing. Because designer babies are based almost solely on genetics, biological determinism is legitimized as the cure to diseases and makes a person come out how we want him/her/it to. Animal testing gives us the knowledge to do this, as in this case I am talking about research done on animals that involves genetic modification and alteration.

As for black boxes, it is the basis for animal testing! Here, lets apply this chemical...alter this gene...see what happens when... The very fact that we do not know what we are doing or the expected outcomes let's us peek inside the black boxes of our own inventions. With this comes the ethical dilemma of are black boxes best kept sealed for our own good, and do we have the right to open these boxes and use them for our growth (ie. designer babies)? To these questions, I have my opinions, but no answers. I believe that the ethics of science have allowed us to progress more than we ever imagined, and the implications of designer babies, genetic modification, and animal testing are advancing our technological capacity. With this comes the question, do we have the right to advance past what is natural? But like I said, I really do not have the answers to that.