adminWhen a mainstream media clip shows former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang telling Will Cain that the technology to genetically modify babies is “along the horizon,” hardworking Americans should sit up and take notice. This is not abstract science fiction any longer; it is a real policy and moral crossroads being discussed on cable television and in private boardrooms. If voices on both sides of the aisle are now casually debating redesigning our children, the American people must demand answers and accountability now.
The science behind so-called designer babies is no longer hypothetical: tools like CRISPR have already been used in human embryos, and a Chinese scientist’s 2018 experiment produced the first widely reported genetically edited children, sparking global outrage and a wave of ethical scrutiny. That history proves the technology can be misused and that the consequences cross borders and generations, because germline edits are inheritable and permanent. We cannot pretend this is merely a laboratory curiosity when past actions have already upended global norms.
Worse, a growing cohort of Silicon Valley players and private biotech ventures are quietly angling to commercialize embryo selection and editing, turning human reproduction into a boutique service for the wealthy. When rich investors and start-ups treat human life like another product to be optimized, the social consequences will be catastrophic: two-tier humans, a market for genetic privilege, and a moral descent into the very eugenics we tell our children we reject. This is not speculation; watchdogs and policy groups are already sounding alarms about private money rushing where public safeguards lag.
Scientists and ethicists have long warned that what starts as disease prevention can quickly morph into trait enhancement, and the media has repeatedly covered the accelerating debate over whether germline editing should ever be permitted. Responsible researchers call for moratoria and robust public debate because the risks are unpredictable, and the subject of these experiments is a human being who cannot consent. The ethical urgency is clear: we owe every future child the protection of a society that values human dignity over technological hubris.
Conservatives must lead this fight, not cede it to technocrats and utopian transhumanists who think they can redesign humanity with venture capital and code. The argument that gene editing will be used only to cure disease collapses under practical incentives: if the wealthy can buy advantage, they will, and the rest of America — middle-class moms and dads, blue-collar workers, veterans — will be left to compete on rigged terms. History shows that when elites rush ahead of ethics, ordinary people pay the price; we should reject any policy that institutionalizes biological inequality.
What should be done now is straightforward and patriotic: Congress and state legislatures must act to impose strict limits or bans on heritable germline editing, require transparency for any embryo-manipulation research, and protect parents from coercive practices that would pressure them into genetic tinkering. This is not anti-science; it is pro-humanity — defending the sanctity of children and the natural rights of families against a biotech aristocracy. Public debate must not be outsourced to billionaires, universities, or late-night pundits; it belongs in the light of day in town halls and in the halls of Congress.
Americans who believe in faith, family, and the dignity of every life should reject the cold calculus of designer genes and demand leaders who will stand between our children and the laboratories. We have a duty to preserve an America where children are loved for who they are, not engineered for what someone else thinks they should become. If Andrew Yang and other public figures want to have a conversation about the future of genetic technology, fine — but let it be on our terms, under our laws, and guided by moral clarity, not profit.
