Discussion by members

As we explored biomedicine, we learned about the international criticism of human embryo editing in China and wondered how far this field could be accepted. Therefore, through group discussions, we decided to face biomedicine anew and expand our knowledge as human beings living in the future.
Theme.

	"Will human genome editing of fertilized eggs be allowed when the technology is proven safe? What do you guys think of this so-called designer baby debate?

Right now, there's a fear that it could affect another gene, but what happens when it's proven safe?

	I think I'm against it. I don't think it's ethical, and I think it could lead to discrimination and prejudice.
	You've also got the issue of liability in case of emergency, and the issue of children's rights.

But designer babies, human genome editing was originally intended to prevent birth defects, right?　I don't think it's completely evil, but...
That's right. There are many people in the world who have had to give up childbirth for fear of inheriting diseases. The way of thinking changes completely depending on the person's position, doesn't it?
Some people are saved by this technology, so shouldn't it be allowed to be used for the purpose of disease prevention?

	But you know, we don't know everything about diseases. Even if we can prevent the diseases we want, we might get more terrible diseases that we don't know about.
	It also acts as viral interference. The disease that we are trying to cure may contain a more terrible disease.

I see. That's one way of thinking about it. But I still think it's better to save those who can be saved now.

	I think we can also think of illness as individuality. Doesn't fixing a disease before it is born take away its individuality?

It all depends on the person, I guess.

	So instead of allowing genome editing of fertilized eggs to be widely accepted, why don't we create a system where experts can judge each case? We can discuss whether the editing is unavoidable, such as to prevent the transmission of a serious disease, or not.

How can others judge the individual right of childbirth?

	Then the experts can only share their opinions, and the final decision-making power is transferred to the person himself. However, if the editing has a negative impact on the people around them, or is clearly not good, it should not be allowed. Why don't we do it this way?
	I think such a system needs to be created. I think it's important to have discussions that transcend the boundaries of opinion based on a clear understanding of the issues and problems, rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing.

As for us, we basically have a negative opinion about designer babies. The reason being.

Genome editing can affect other genes.
Even if genome editing can prevent a particular disease, it may cause another disease to appear.
The unborn child also has the right not to be designed.

However, considering the advantages of designer babies, we concluded that it is important to make rules so that genome editing can be done in an appropriate way in the future, such as deciding on an individual basis or discussing whether genome editing is appropriate with experts before implementing it. We came to the conclusion that it is important to create rules so that genome editing can be done in an appropriate manner.

	Talk to others, you'll find something new!