When Aldous Huxley wrote "Brave New World"in the 1930s, he spoke of a future where different classes of human beings were artificially cultured, and where the ultimate disgust was for a man to have a father and mother, to want to marry one woman and to have children with her. The most dangerous banned book, the Bible, told of people begetting and also of answering for their actions to God. Life was sexless procreation and "happy pill" procreationless sex. It seems an oddly prophetic insight into technology v morality.
President Bush recently referred to this novel when making his speech   opposing any creation of stem cells from human embryos. Unfortunately, he gave permission to do research using the cell lines that have already been created from human embryos.

What is looming for us in a world where if science can do it, it will be attempted, right or wrong?

1...."Genome:"  The Final Frontier?  Genes and eugenics - Brave New World
The most efficient (and aesthetic) manner in which eugenicists could "cull" unwanted human beings from the population is through the testing of fertilized human eggs and the elimination of all but the very best.
     At this point in time, the best negative eugenics practice consists of subjecting the preborn baby to CVS (chorionic villi sampling), amniocentesis, or some other genetic test past 15 weeks, and aborting those who are considered unfit.  This is a messy, emotional and expensive project that could be vastly streamlined from the viewpoint of the eugenicists.
     The Genome Project is a multibillion dollar effort funded primarily by the Federal government.  Its objective is to identify and `map' all of the more than 10,000 human genes. This huge undertaking is already bearing fruit that eugenicists see as beautiful.  But we may find out that the fruit is deadly poisonous to human beings.
     Jerry E. Bishop and Michael Waldholz give us a progress report on the Genome Project and comment on some of the possible uses of its findings to date; "The list of common diseases that have roots in this kind of genetic soil is growing almost daily.  As of this writing [in 1990], it includes colon and breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, schizophrenia, depression, at least one form of alcoholism, and even some types of criminal behavior ... [S]ome contend that almost every disorder compromising a full and healthy four score and ten years of life can be traced in one way or another to a genetic vulnerability.
     "It is highly likely that within a decade tests for a variety of aberrant genes will be cheap and easy enough to permit testing of large numbers of people.  Initially, only those persons who are at risk of inheriting a defective gene might be tested.  For example, anyone who had a parent die prematurely of a heart attack might be tested - indeed, might want to be tested - to see if he or she had inherited one of the several defective genes that can render one susceptible to coronary heart disease.
     "As the list of known defective genes grows, there will be mounting pressure for mass screening of the population, at least of the newborn population, to pinpoint anyone predisposed to future illnesses.  There is ample precedent for such mass genetic screening of newborn infants ..."
          "Right now our society runs on the premise that everyone has a biologically equal chance to be anything he or she wants.  But what will happen when, in fact, the scientists find strong evidence that everyone's fate is greatly affected by the inheritance of a group of very specific and identifiable genes?
     "Indeed, by late 1989, a handful of social ethicists were beginning to discuss among themselves their fear that the gene discoveries would lead to the creation of a new social stratum called the biological underclass." [SF Movie "Gattica" deals with this] "People identified as having certain genetic weaknesses, they argued, might be discriminated against by employers, they might have difficulty getting health and life insurance.  Businesses, for instance, might be less willing to hire people predisposed to illnesses that could drive up the employer's health insurance costs.  Employers might want to begin screening prospective workers to detect their genetic susceptibilities.  The ethicists sprinkled their talk with such new dark-sounding terms as `genetic discrimination,' `genetically unemployable,' and `genetic labeling.'"
     Bishop and Waldholz then turn their attention from the implications of the Genome Project for the born to those that will inevitably one day heavily impact the preborn; "Indeed, among geneticists involved in Huntington's disease, there is a quiet, but intense debate over the ethics of aborting any fetus whose disease won't erupt until later in life.  Perhaps by then there will be a cure, or at least treatments to mute the disease's symptoms, some say.  Others argue, however, that abortion for even the slightest of risks is justified.
     "'I've had several conversations with people who say, `Well, with prenatal tests we can wipe out the gene in a generation or two merely by not allowing any fetus at risk to be born,'' says Hayden.
     "'Preimplantation diagnosis of genetic disease provides an alternative to the therapeutic abortion offered to couples at risk of producing children with severe inherited disorders,' Holding and Monk asserted.  `Preimplantation diagnosis could allow identification of normal and mutant embryos and the replacement in the mother of only those embryos shown to be free of the defect.'
     "The experiment introduces an entirely new dimension into the concept of prenatal genetic diagnosis, that of making a genetic diagnosis before pregnancy, thereby circumventing the question of abortion."
[Prolifers still regard this as the abortion of a living human, taking the beginning of life as conception, not implantation]
     "Such `preimplantation diagnosis' holds staggering implications for the use of the gene discoveries that are destined to come out of the mapping of the human genome.  As prenatal genetic diagnosis becomes simpler and easier, the temptation will arise to use it for less severe genetic aberrations.  It appears highly likely that young couples, possibly those in the next generation, will be able to make choices about the genetic traits of their children that would astonish today's generation.  As the genetic secrets of stature are uncovered, for example, couples would be able, if they desired, to select the height of their children within certain limits.  As the gene mapping proceeds, other traits affecting intelligence, athletic or musical ability, even personality could become matters of parental choice."
     The implications of this project are vividly clear.  It will be theoretically impossible to wipe out a defective gene unless coercion is employed on a massive scale because, without the use of force, there will always be those parents who value human life as a gift from God.  If such people are allowed to "spawn defective children," defective genes will never be eradicated.
     Bishop and Waldholz go on to describe how, in the future, only the rich will be able to select their offsprings' traits by an extensive program of genetic testing.  Thus, the rich would progressively become more and more advantaged over the poor in areas such as intelligence, beauty, and physical prowess.  And, of course, since only the rich could afford "genetic choice," taxpayers would be forced to fund it for the poor - just as with abortion.
     Pro-abortionists, of course, support the Genome Project because, as they like to say, "genetic engineering will greatly reduce the need for abortion."
 (excerpts taken from Jerry E. Bishop and Michael Waldholz.  "Genome"  New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1990.  Pages 17 to 20, 278, 308.)
Human genetic engineering has the potential to divide humanity into "super-humans" and slaves, and this "gene-ism" could "eclipse racism as the most destructive force on the planet", according to Boston University's Professor of Health Law, George Annas. Addressing a panel discussion at the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR), Annas said that the creation of a genetically modified "post-human" race could lead to genocide of those considered sub-human, or with inferior genes.Unesco's Jerome Binde said his organisation had identified three potential risks of the human genome project:  that if the gene sequences of particular groups were identified, these could be used as the basis for racial discrimination; that human embryos would be selected which favoured particular phenotypes; that human liberty could be denied if those genes which predisposed people to   certain emotions such as depression or anger were identified and modified. ( source article at http://www.health-e.org.za/view.php3?id=20010901)

Adding and manipulating  genes in humans "it's likely to be risky. You know, when you're working with sheep, if you've got a pile of dead lambs in the corner, apart from the smell it's not a problem...If you've got a pile of dead babies in the corner, it's another matter altogether."Professor Grant Sutherland, head of Dept of Molecular Genetics and Cytogenetics and Adelaide Womens and Children's Hospital

2. Chimeras and hybrids - poor half-human monsters - for what purpose? pig/human hybrid report
     The Pig/human hybrid                Cloning Teams Cross Pig and Human DNA
                     report by Jonathan Leake and Nick Fielding October 8, 2000  Australia

 Source: http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/10/08/stifgnaus01001.html**

                     SCIENTISTS have successfully produced an embryonic pig-human hybrid.
Human DNA was inserted into pig cells which became tiny embryos. The researchers have not revealed what happened to them, but suggest they could have been grown further by being implanted into a womb - and that either a pig or a human mother would have been suitable. The intentions of the researchers are not made clear in an application they have submitted to the European PatentOffice.
However, such embryos would be ideal for research into therapeutic cloning, when cells are cloned, grown into tissues such as nerve cells and then used to treat a patient. The researchers, from StemCell Sciences in Australia and Biotransplant in America, both big players in the biotechnology industry, took a cell from a human foetus, extracted the nucleus and then inserted it into a pig's egg cell.
Two embryos were grown to the 32-cell stage, which took a week. Experts in medical ethics are deeply concerned about the patent application, which has a strong chance of being granted. They say the research exploits loopholes in European law. It is not illegal because the embryo is not technically human. Dr Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, said: "This kind of research depends on devaluing human beings."
Nobody knows whether the hybrid embryos could have be-come living beings. They would be much more human than pig because about 97% of DNA is in the nucleus, which was human. There would,however, be some effect from the 3% of DNA from the pig.

Palo Alto, CA (LifeNews.com) --15th Feb 2005 A Stanford researcher has received initial permission to create a human-mouse hybrid as long as the creature acts like a mouse and not like a human being. The researcher hopes to use the studies to learn more about various diseases that plague humans. Stanford biologist Irving Weissman's research team would inject human cells into developing mice. Some cells would be cancerous or have other diseases while others would be perfectly healthy.

While the team has no immediate plans to create the human-mouse chimera, it is a theoretical question that they say could help facilitate research.The development comes as the National Academy of Sciences is set to unveil guidelines on stem cell research and chimera this spring.Because federal law doesn't address the issue, the Stanford team asked the research university where it should draw the line.

Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee that considered the proposal, told the San Jose Mercury News, "We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures . . . or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop."

"We think if he takes appropriate caution -- including stopping at each step along the way, to see what's happening -- the research is ethical,'' he said.

Weissman's group asked for permission two years ago and he told the San Jose newspaper his intent is not scientific experimentation with chimera but an honest effort to study diseases such as brain cancer, stroke, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease.The university has partnered with the Palo Alto-based Stem Cells Inc. on the research.

3. Artificial wombs?
Jeremy Rifkin
Guardian Unlimited
Thursday January 17, 2002
As shocking as these developments have been, there is still another biological bombshell waiting in the wings - and this one provides the context for all the others and changes forever our concept of human life.
Researchers are working to create a totally artificial womb. Several weeks ago,a team of scientists from Cornell University's Weill Medical College announced that they had succeeded, for the first time, in creating an artificial womb lining. The scientific team,led by Dr Hung Chiung Liu of the Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility, stimulated cells to grow into uterine lining, using a cocktail of drugs and hormones. The goal of the research is to help infertile couples by creating an entire womb which could be transplanted into a woman.

Yosinori Kuwabara and his colleagues, working in a small research laboratory at Juntendou University in Tokyo,are developing the first operational artificial womb - a clear plastic tank the size of a bread basket, filled with amniotic fluid stabilised at body temperature.For the past several years, Kuwabara and his team have kept goat foetuses alive and growing for up to 10 days by connecting their umbilical cords to two machines that serve as a placenta, pumping in blood, oxygen and nutrients and disposing of waste products. While the plastic womb is still only a prototype, Kuwabara predicts that a fully functioning artificial womb capable of gestating a human foetus may be a reality in less than six years.Others are more sceptical, but say we will probably see the mass use of artificial wombs by the time today's babies become parents.

Artificial wombs will most likely first be used as intensive care units for foetuses in cases where either the mother is ill and can no longer carry the child or where the foetus is ill and needs to be removed from the mother's womb and cared for where it can be easily monitored. We can already keep foetuses alive in incubators during the last three months of gestation.And researchers routinely fertilise eggs and keep embryos alive in vitro for the first three to four days of their existence before implanting them in a womb. Scientists like Kuwabara are attempting to fill in the time between the beginning and end of the gestation process - the critical period where the foetus develops most of its organs.

Eventually, say many scientists working in the new field of foetal molecular biology, being able to grow a foetus in a totally artificial womb would make it easier to make genetic corrections and modifications - creating designer babies. The artificial womb may even become the preferred means of producing a child. Women could have their eggs removed and men their sperm taken in their teen years when they are most viable and kept frozen until they are ready to have a child. Mothers could spare themselves the rigours and inconveniences of pregnancy, retain their youthful figures and bring the baby home when "done".

Far fetched? Thousands of surrogate mothers' wombs have already been used to gestate someone else 's fertilised embryos. The artificial womb seems the next logical step in a process that has increasingly removed reproduction from traditional maternity and made of it a laboratory process.

Of course, many women, when asked, say they would prefer to have the experience of being pregnant and having the baby in their own womb. But their expectations might represent the dying sensibilities of the old order.
In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, the "normal" people were genetically designed, cloned and gestated in artificial wombs - a biological assembly line process churning out ideal genotypes. Only the savages living in the remote reservations still carried their own babies in their bodies and breastfed them after birth. The practice was considered disgusting and
something only animals did.

In the Brave New World, erotic sexual activity is encouraged and freely practised but completely divorced from the process of reproduction. Huxley wrote his novel in 1932, before the contraceptive pill had arrived. By the 1970s, however, sex and reproduction had branched into two separate realms, thanks, in large part, to the pill. It is also interesting to note that the
pill made its debut at about the same time that researchers first began to use artificial insemination on a wide scale. While the pill revolutionised sex, removing it from the process of reproduction, artificial insemination, then later in vitro fertilisation, egg donation, surrogacy and, soon, cloning further separate the components of reproduction from the biological act of mating. The artificial womb completes the process.

Yet it raises troubling questions. We know that a foetus responds to the mother's heartbeat, as well as her emotions, moods and movements. A subtle and sophisticated choreographic bond exists between the two and plays a critical role in the development of the foetus. What kind of child will we produce from a liquid medium inside a plastic box? How will gestation in a chamber affect the child 's motor functions and emotional and cognitive development? We know that young infants deprived of human touch and bodily contact often are unable to develop the full range of human emotions and sometimes die soon after birth or become violent, sociopathic or withdrawn later in life.

How will the elimination of pregnancy affect the concept of parental responsibility? Will parents feel less attached to their offspring? Will it undermine the sense of generational continuity that is so essential for reproducing and maintaining historical continuity and civilised life? How will the end of pregnancy affect the way we think about gender and the role of women? Some feminists argue that it will finally mean liberation. Years ago the feminist writer Shulamith Firestone wrote enthusiastically about the prospect of an artificial womb: "Pregnancy is the temporary deformation of the body of the individual for the sake of the species.Moreover,childbirth hurts and isn't good for you. At the very least, development of an option should make possible an honest examination of the ancient value of motherhood."

Other feminists view the artificial womb as the final marginalisation of women, robbing them of their primary role as progenitor of the species. The artificial womb, they argue, becomes the quintessential expression of male dominance, a way to create a mechanical substitute of the female womb. Armed with the artificial womb, asexual cloning technology and stem cells to
produce all the extra body parts they need, men could free themselves, once and for all, from their dependency on women.

The artificial womb represents the completion of an even longer historic process that began nearly 400 years ago at the dawn of the scientific age.It was Francis Bacon, the father of modern science, who referred to nature as "a common harlot". He urged future generations to "tame, squeeze, mould" and "shape" her so that "man could become her master and the undisputed
sovereign of the physical world". No doubt some will see the artificial womb as the final triumph of modern science. Others, the ultimate human folly.
Many people will likely say, why worry? Surely the artificial womb is far off on the horizon. Five years ago,we thought the same thing about human cloning and using stem cells to produce body parts.
(Jeremy Rifkin is the author of The Biotech Century (Gollancz) and president
of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington DC)

4. Experimentation involving human embryos and chimeras  www.TruthTV.org   (Flash shockwave site)   (look under experimentation)(caution - these experiments are very upsetting to read)

5.  Designer babies - the future IVF industry??
August 2000, a Colorado couple, Lisa and Jack Nash, gave birth to an IVF baby conceived in a Minneapolis laboratory with the aim of helping treat their six-year-old daughter, suffering from Fanconi anemia.It was the first time pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) had been used for the expressed purpose of ensuring a perfect stem-cell donor.
16th February 2002 Britain's first designer baby born to supply bone marrow cells for an ailing sibling.
22 February 2002 Another British couple given permission to create a perfect genetic match child in hopes of a cure for a brother with a rare blood disorder.
27 February 2002 Glasgow Royal Infirmary applies for license to create designer babies for couples with genetic disorders.

Cybercast News Service; April 16, 2002 Australia
Mr Curkowskyj and his partner, Tania Kutny, have been given the go-ahead to screen embryos during in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, to enable the selection of one that will both be free of the faulty Fanconi anemia gene, and also have the exact type of tissue cells needed to treat their daughter Christina. Permission for the procedure, known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), came from the Infertility Treatment Authority in the couple's home state of Victoria. Four other Victorian couples are hoping for the go-ahead too. 

The controversial procedure involves creating embryos using IVF, screening them to ensure they are free of disease, then further testing to ensure the embryo's and the child's tissues are compatible. If those tests are successful, one embryo would be implanted in the mother.Once the baby was born, the blood from its umbilical cord would be used. If that did not work, a bone-marrow transplant might be necessary. 

As with "leftovers" from IVF treatment generally, the Kutny-Curkowskyj human embryos that are created but not found suitable to be implanted in the womb will either be killed or frozen. A transfusion from a perfectly-matched sibling is the only known effective treatment for Fanconi anemia. It is hoped blood from the IVF baby's umbilical cord will help his or her sister's bone marrow to regrow.
Pro-life campaigners say the case, the first of its kind in Australia, is another grave step towards a society in which human beings are regarded as commodities, while human embryos that don't make the grade are discarded. Although pro-life advocates prefer obtaining stem cells from umbilical cord blood rather than from destroying human embryos, human life would be destroyed in this case in order to find the "perfect baby."
(cf. article on this The Australian, 13/03/2003 James Madden)

Beginning with the  seemingly "worthy and desperate" cases  such as creation of several embryos for a couple who have genetically transmitted diseases, or in the hope of curing an existing child with a severe medical condition, pre-implantation diagnosis will mean only the certified "disease-free" or "correct blood group" or "perfect  match" embryo will be implanted. All the other embryos, even perfectly viable healthy ones, will be discarded with little thought for their rights.
Other couples will demand gender-based designer children, "a girl for me and a boy for you" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62067-2004Dec13.html?referrer=email

or children with a particular talent.
This consumer style choosing of designer children ignores the fact that living embryos are being discarded along with each choice.
With each test to screen for genetic disease such as cystic fibrosis,Tay-Sachs and sickle-cell,  the cost becomes more expensive, making the perfect child the option of parents who are rich enough. Medical insurance does not cover the cost of such tests.
Eventually doctors run the risk of being sued for imperfect results! Genetic screening would then become mandatory to avoid legal repercussions such as "wrongful birth" suits.
24th November 2004 Parents have an obligation to have the "best" child possible, and that includes using genetic technologies to enhance humans. To neglect to do so would consign future generations to chance, rather than making rational choices about how we should live, Julian Savulescu, a bioethicist at Oxford University and Melbourne's Murdoch Children's Research Institute, said yesterday. The Sydney Morning Herald:http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2004/11/15/1100384498658.html

2004 Researchers in the United Kingdom have received the go-ahead to create cancer-free "designer babies." The British government's fertility watchdog agency is allowing a London clinic to screen embryos created by in vitro fertilization for genes that might lead to cancer. Critics note that there is a possibility that these unborn children would never develop cancer if they were permitted to be born. Scientific experts say if a parent carries the cancer gene, there's a 50 percent chance it will be passed onto his or her children. Four couples affected by bowel cancer are expected to start the procedure by year's end.
One of the patients, an accountant for Bristol, hailed the decision, saying it will prevent cancer from being passed on to subsequent generations.

Opponents fear the cancer screening could lead to widespread genetic screening for a host of other illnesses. Fertility clinics in Britain currently screen IVF embryos for cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease.

Josephine Quintavalle of the pro-life Comment on Reproductive Ethics responded to the Authority's latest decision by saying, "We are not thinking about curing the disease, but about eliminating the carrier. It is pretty shoddy medicine."

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has also been vocal in its opposition to so-called “designer babies.” SPUC spokesman Paul Tully said in July, "The designer baby may be allowed his or her right to live, but that same right will be denied to his embryonic brothers and sisters. These unwanted embryonic siblings could be flushed down the sink, frozen or used for experiments.
"Although one should do everything that is ethical to relieve illness and pain, it cannot be right to destroy human life like this. This unethical procedure undermines any benefit which could come from it," Tully added.

Related web sites:
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

Also scientists are seeking permission to carry out experiments that would result in children being born with three biological parents.The aim of the technique is to prevent mothers passing on degenerative genetic diseases to their children.'By creating a child with three genetic parents, these scientists are taking the first step towards genetic engineering of human beings. That is not a direction in which we should be going,' said Dr David King, director of Human Genetics Alert.

Read article at Guardian:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1329371,00.html

Eugenics in the Springtime by C Ben Mitchell
Designer baby or problem child? Feb 28 2002

 6. Scientists Want to Create Hybrid Embryos for Study

Researchers at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine in New Jersey are proposing creating chimeric (or hybrid) embryos for research on embryonic stem cells. In initial studies, the scientists took 107 embryos which were deemed defective in some way, harvested 247 stem cells from them, combined the stem cells creating 36 embryos, and then put the embryos into a
hollowed-out egg. The embryos survived, growing normally for five to six days.

The researchers believe this is a way to obtain a new source of embryonic stem cells that doesn't have ethical problems because the embryos in question have "virtually no chance" of coming to term if implanted into a uterus.

Since when did our ability to survive determine whether or not we are worthy of protection? Our expected life-span cannot be a determiner of our right to continue living.
The Institute is attempting to find funding to continue its work.

--To read the New York Times article, follow this link after signing up for free membership :
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/health/04STEM.html

Source: Biotech Policy Update - July 2002

6. Routine screening for the unfit unborn pressures pregnant women to have abortions:
2004 Genetic Screening Encouraging More Abortions
In Canada, a University of Victoria professor says her country's health care system is sliding toward something resembling Nazi-style eugenics.In a recent speech, Tanis Doe, a professor of social work, told her audience that the widespread practice of pre-screening pregnant women and their offspring for genetic diseases has turned into a system for purging society of the disabled not unlike eugenics programs of the past.