(In response to "Science Makes Sex Obsolete". Also fulfills the 500-word requirement.)

Lisa and Jack Nash were both carriers of a gene mutation that resulted their first daughter, Molly, to be born with a rare and fatal genetic disorder called Fanconi Anemia. In order to continue living, Molly needed a bone marrow transplant but it was impossible for the Nash's to find a match.

In addition, they also wanted to have more healthy kids so they decided on their best option. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis . Also known as PGD, this new technology allowed the Nash’s to enhance their chance of a "healthy" pregnancy by allowing them to “screen” the embryo for any genetic diseases before transferring the embryo back into Lisa’s uterus. Adam Nash was born and not only was he healthy, he was also the donor for his sister Molly. Because of Adam’s blood and stem cells, Molly was able to live. In a recent article “Science Makes Sex Obsolete,” author Brian Alexander adds on even more possibilities of what genetic engineering could offer – making genetically related babies for same-sex couples.

These technologies have definitely redefined human reproduction but despite its advantages, genetic screening and engineering is prompting a great amount of ethical debate. Would the technology of selecting embryos eventually lead parents to picking the “perfect” embryo and destroying the not-so-perfect ones? And how would we define what is “perfect”? As another barrier to human mastery and control is quickly crumpling, should we humans pause and reflect on what we are destroying?

Imagine a world where parents were consistently “shopping” for their children’s genes. Some might be searching for a “Michael Jordan” or a “Mozart” or even a “Shakespeare”. Now imagine a basketball team of Jordans or a concert hall full of Mozarts. This picture could be quite frightening! There would be no way of distinguishing the one, the only, Michael Jordan or even the works of Mozart. It would be almost impossible for an individual to stand apart from the rest. Having the choice of programming our children for greatness could eventually erode the notion of uniqueness and identity. Furthermore, our personal difference would become an abnormality and be constantly correcting these deviations from the norm.

In a book that I mentioned before in a previous response, with the “Nobel Sperm Bank” incident, The Genius Factory gave the reader a glimpse of other consequences that the human race could face one day as genetically designed babies become more demanding. Robert Graham, a eugenicist and multimillionaire, collected sperms donated by Nobel Prize winners, successful entrepreneurs, athletes, prodigies, and such and created a sperm bank that eventually became to be known as the “Nobel Sperm Bank”. When this project became public, flocks of women volunteered to be impregnated with the sperm, hoping to produce a “genius baby”. After two decades, the project was eventually shut down but the author of the book, David Plotz, was able to track down a few of the 200 children that were produced by the “genius factory”. Plotz found that most of these kids were just your regular teenagers. The majority of them were nothing like what the parents had been promised. Plotz concluded what many scientists have come to realize – that genes aren’t everything. Moreover, the products of genetic engineering did not meet expecatations.

As the growing expectations of what genetic engineering and screenings continue to grow, I believe that we humans should pause and think about the consequences. Rather than fight against fate and think of ourselves worthless if we fail biologically, we should instead come to terms with our own limits and cherish the boundaries that were given to us.