Lewis D. Solomon

In answering this question, I see no relevance to the stories concerning golems, artificially created“humans,”to the situation of genetically engineered children who derive from a fertilized human egg, implanted in the uterus of a woman, who gives birth to the child. As one Reform responsum notes,“These stories arose in the Middle Ages and are akin to those found in other folk mythologies. The Golem was thought to be a clay or wooden figure brought to life by its master through the insertion of the divine name in its mouth, or the placement of the name on its forehead.”* The genetically enhanced child, however, is a human being** As the responsum continues,“It will have been formed from human material despite all genetic alternations... Hopefully, it will then not be enslaved to its maker or master, but will develop independently as other human beings. Unless such possibilities of independent intellectual and moral development are gradually removed, this would be a human being.”

BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF NON-THERAPEUTIC GENETIC ENGINEERING

Beyond textual analysis and knee-jerk fears about eugenics, nontherapeutic genetic engineering designed to pick or alter one’s offspring’s physical or behavioral traits, thereby fiddling with the genes controlling how we turn out, encounters strong resistance on a number of grounds, even assuming the requisite technical ability and the safety of the procedures. Opponents of nontherapeutic genetic therapy raise two major objections: first, it demeans human dignity, and second, it raises serious distributional questions as well as more minor reservations— namely, it gives too much power to the current generation and may increase prejudice against disabled individuals.” Each of these objections is debatable, however, resting on various assumptions and value premises.