240 Chapter 10
whathappensin the wildernessthannaturalselection—naturalsorting.^53 But oncereproge-
neticsestablishesitself,a formof naturalselectionthatis literal“selection” willthen
directevolution.Thisis becauseromanticcoupleswillexercisetheirvolitionto select,
mostconsciously,whichgenetictraitsof theirsare replicatedandwhichare not.Sucha
technologywouldbe a boonto couplesthatworryaboutpassingon theirhereditary
healthailments.Therecombinationof an embryo’s DNAcan helpthatembryodevelop
into a childwhois immunefromcysticfibrosis,sickle-cellanemia,diabetes,heartdisease,
allergies,and heritableformsof cancer.
Suchhumanenhancementis privateand consensual.No spoliationoccurs.No would-
be parentis beingforcedintothis.Nobodyis beingmurdered,coercivelysterilized,or
barredfrompeaceablytravelingfromone countryto another.To be sure,the embryothat
willbecomethe couple’s childdoesnot itselfconsentto the geneticalteration.But it is
ontologicallyimpossiblethata prenatalentitycan offeror withholdconsentto anything
its parentsdo thatmayaffectthe circumstancesintowhichhe is born.I, for instance,
neverconsentedto havingbeenborn,thoughI am verygratefulthat this eventoccurred.
SomeAshkenaziJewishcouples,in whichbothpartnerscarrythe genefor Tay-Sachs
disease,knowbeforehandthatshouldtheychooseto havechildren,thereis a 25 percent
chanceof theirchildbeingbornwithTay-Sachsdiseaseanddyingwithinthe firstfive
years,and a 50 percentchanceof theirbabybeinga carrierfor the gene.^54 Despitethis,no
law proscribesthemfromhavingchildrenanyway.Thisis despitethe considerationthat,
shouldany of theirchildrenbe bornwithTay-Sachs,thatchilddid not consentto having
beenconceivedin the firstplace.In fact a proposalfor anysuchlawforbiddingthese
couplesfromconceivingchildrenwouldbe properlycriticizedas an implementationof
governisteugenics.Shouldit be legalfor a manandwomanto try to havechildren
subsequentto beinginformedthatthereis a one-fourthchanceof theirchildhavingTay-
Sachsdisease,whenthatchildcouldnot consentto it? If the answeris yes,it shouldbe
legalfor a manandwomanto enhancetheirchild’s genomewhenhe is stillin the
prenatalstage,whenthe embryocouldnot haveofferedor withheldconsent.My point
shouldespeciallybe concededif one doesnot considercircumcisiona formof spoliation,
giventhatno babyhas the contractualcompetencyto offerconsentto thisparticular
permanentmedicaloperation.Providedthatone understandsthatit is not spoliationfor
parentsto enhancetheirfuturechildwhilehe is in embryonicform—whenit is ontologi-
callyimpossiblefor himto offeror acknowledgeconsent—it shouldbe clearthatprivate
parentsarrangingconsensualagreementswithdoctorsto enhancetheirfuturechildren’s
genesdoesnot spoliateanyone’s Lockeanrights.
PrincetonUniversitymicrobiologistLee M. Silver(b. 1952)dispensessomegoodad-
viceon the ethicsof this issue.Justas parentsexercisean ethicalprerogativeto endow
theirchildrenwithadvantagesin life by sendingthemto excellentprivateschools,Silver
reasons,theyalsopossessa rightto imbuetheirchildrenwithcorrespondingadvantages
at the geneticlevel.“Thereis no difference,” he advises,“between‘afterbirth’ and ‘before
birth’ if the goalis to giveyourkidsadvantages.Whatdifferencedoesit makewhenyou
givethoseadvantages?”^55 (emphasishis).JamesDeweyWatson(b. 1928)—oneof the
NobelPrize-winninggeneticistswhoco-discoveredthe double-helixstructureof DNA—
providesotherhelpfulcomments.LikeSilver,Watsonis frequentlyfacedwiththe argu-
mentthat germlinegeneticengineeringwouldgivewealthypatentsan “unfairadvantage
overeveryoneelse.” In responseWatsoncommentsthatthereare alreadypeoplebeing
“bornwithbetterabilitiesthanothers,and we don’t say theyshouldn’t be born.”^56
Dreadfully,giventhatprivate,free-marketreprogeneticsinvolvesimprovinghumans
at the geneticlevel,hordesof socialactivistsdecryit as a revivalof eugenics.They
predictablylikenit to the workof CharlesDavenport,KarlPearson,and the Nazis.Anti-
biotechactivistandreverendPatrickMahoney,for one,condemnsit as “horrific” and