A recent study found the following: “46 percent of adults approved of genetic modification of babies to reduce the risk of serious diseases”; however, 83 percent disapproved of using genetic modification to make a baby smarter, saying it would be “taking medical advances too far.”¹

No: Current efforts suggest that such technology will be prohibitively expensive. For instance, a type of gene therapy that addresses hereditary eye disease currently costs $850,000.² Accordingly, the result of GE will be “a dystopia of super-people and designer babies for those who can afford it.”³ Giving additional advantages to the ultra-rich—such as a dramatically increased IQ and the ability to work on three hours of sleep⁴—will only exacerbate wealth inequality. At present, the top 10% have more than three times the bottom 90% combined.⁵ As research demonstrates, such wealth inequality is inversely correlated with both socioeconomic mobility and democracy.⁶ At our current level of inequality, for instance, the economic elite have over 1000x more political influence than the average American.⁷

Yes: The opposition assumes that GE will be available only to the rich. Like any public service, however, it can be regulated and subsidized by the government. By removing variations in the genetic lottery, GE could actually help to reduce rather than increase inequality. Rather than only a few being born with superior intelligence, aptitude, and looks, everyone could be a genetic “winner.” Even if such technology remains in the hands of private enterprise, however, it would still be worth developing. The intellectual history of the world repeatedly demonstrates one maxim: an extremely small minority of people have produced the overwhelming majority of intellectual discoveries. If we could regularly produce super geniuses we might solve many of the world’s current problems: the cancer epidemic, climate change, global poverty, etc.

Find Out More

In the past year, 3.7% of Americans (8.3 million) had thoughts of suicide in the past year, 1.0% (2.3 million) developed a suicide plan, .5% (1 million) attempted suicide and a small fraction of a percent (45 thousand) committed suicide.¹ Nearly 5% of Americans (15 million) attempt suicide at some point in their life.²

No: PAS is not only a violation of the hippocratic oath, but it will also increase the suicide rate approximately thirty-five times. First, the “success” rate will move from 4% to 100%.³ Secondly, suicide will become normalized: after Thirteen Reasons Why was released, for instance, searches for “’how to commit suicide” were 26% higher than normal.⁴ Similarly research suggests that contagion can dramatically increases suicide risk: 5 to 12% with the death of a stranger; 12% with a public figure; and 65% with a friend or family member.^4,5,6 Accordingly, PAS will result in nearly 2 million Americans dying by suicide each year—over three times the total number of deaths from all forms of cancer..⁷ Furthermore, 70% of all suicide attempts were made less than an hour after decision, indicating that impulsivity was the cause. This explains why only 4% of “people who survived intentionally hurting...themselves went on to die by suicide within 10 years.” In other words, 96% of survivors regretted the decision enough not to try again.⁸ Data from other countries suggest that the primary reasons for suicide are potentially resolvable. In India, for instance, family problems (24%) were the number one cause.⁹

Yes: the above statistics precisely the reason why PAS should be legalized. Only when it’s made legal can regulations be put in place and suicide risk lowered. For instance, educational classes will mitigate against contagion; physician assessments against impulsivity; and short-term therapy against regret. Secondly, desperate people will resort to desperate measures, which will almost always include collateral damage: bystanders may be unwilling participants (.4% of suicides are by traffic and 2.3% by falls); observers (17% of suicides occur in public); or unfortunate finders (about 80%).^10,11 Preliminary evidence suggests the experience is traumatic. In one study, for instance, nearly every observer met at least one criteria for PTSD.¹² In other words, PAS makes the process easier for both parties: in one, participants pass away peacefully having said farewell to their loved ones; in the other, someone close discovers a potentially mutilated body. Finally, government should not be allowed to refuse the most fundamental right: the freedom to choose whether to live or to die.

Find Out More