Post readers react to elite's aim to create ‘super-babies'

Washington Post

4 days ago

Technology Post readers react to elite's aim to create 'super-babies'
'I'm torn,' one reader said. 'Having a child which would never develop a terrible disease ... would be wonderful. However, a little like playing god.'
(Camille Cohen/For The Washington Post)
By Michael Blackmon
and Alexandra Pannoni
July 19, 2025 at 7:00 a.m. EDT
Just now
1 min
Post reporters Elizabeth Dwoskin and Yeganeh Torbati published a must-read article detailing how Silicon Valley elites, including Elon Musk, are using novel gene technology to produce 'super-babies.'
The article set off a lively discussion in the comments section, where readers of various ages and perspectives sounded off.
Eager to hear more, we published a callout asking readers how far they would go to ensure a healthy baby and added a similar query to the prompt of the original article. We received more than a thousand responses.
Here are some of the best reader reactions, which have been lightly edited for length and clarity and are printed with permission.
Jessica Orlando,
37
Los Angeles
' I am coming at this question from a different perspective, having gone through IVF to combat infertility, and we now have an amazing son who is 19 months old. Our journey was different from many in that we went through four rounds of egg retrievals and embryo selections, but none made our doctor's cut for transplantation based on genetic testing given that the ones that made it each had what were considered genetic abnormalities. I personally reached my end point of doing more retrievals so we decided to transfer two abnormal embryos, asking our doctor to use the best quality that were available, and one of them grew into our son. He's wonderful and perfect in our eyes — no health issues or abnormalities and has an amazing personality and disposition. If we had followed our doctor's advice, he wouldn't exist today. '
Maggie Cooper,
43
Arlington, Virginia
' I am a carrier for cystic fibrosis (and have a mild form of the disease that presents in my lungs/sinuses), so my husband did genetic testing to see if he also was a carrier. While CF is not quite the early death sentence it used to be, it was not something we felt comfortable knowingly passing to a child. Thankfully he was not a carrier. Nine years ago, while I was pregnant with our first daughter, my husband was diagnosed with Stage 3 oligodendroglioma — a rare brain cancer. He had brain surgery and underwent radiation and chemo and, while there is no remission for this type of cancer, he has had no recurrence. He was adamant that we not have another child until his doctors could determine if his cancer was hereditary. After participating in natural history studies at NIH for many years, his doctors felt very confident that his cancer was not linked to genetics. We had our second daughter (via IVF) in summer 2023. '
Brenda Feeney,
79
Leesburg, Virginia
' I'm torn. Having a child which would never develop a terrible disease (Parkinson's, MS, etc.) would be wonderful. However, a little like playing god. Only the wealthy will be able to do this, so is their gene pool better than the rest of our? Most of the wealthy individuals we must endure today are cruel, vile and inhumane. Do we want more of these people? '
Paul Ojanen,
61
Duluth, Minnesota
' If you narrow selection over time, no matter what, you select for other unknown traits. As usual they are applying their very narrow field ... algorithms and computability ... to a process that needs randomness for long-term success. Eventually they'll succeed in what they want, a 'purebred' lineage, but with all types of unforeseen problems, just like purebred dogs. '
(Camille Cohen/For The Washington Post)
Jann Becker,
70
St. Louis
' We chose to adopt in part because I have bipolar disorder and substance abuse, both of which run in my father's family, that I didn't wish to pass on. Choosing to bear only the embryo(s) without a known problem is, to me, the most ethical choice for people who know there's a hereditary disease in their family that would seriously impact a future child's life. If all the women in a given generation used that process for a disease like, say, Huntington's, could be eliminated for that family — but that means all of those women would need to accept their own test results and undergo an invasive medical procedure before becoming pregnant. '
Anca Vlasopolos,
76
Centerville, Massachusetts
' These extraordinarily ignorant people know nothing about genetics and the bell curve. Geniuses do not have genius children. People on the lower IQ scale may have a very intelligent child. But the white-supremacy myth driving these attempts is merely what it is=racism. '
Justin Wilson,
36
Silver Spring, Maryland
' I love it! Knew the idea/process would eventually become a thing. It's concerning that so many of you think this is bad. Is it just envy? Irrational fear of technology? Something that could lead to a healthier population is undeniably a good thing in my book. '
Judy Pelowski,
66
Red Oak, Texas
' At my age, I'm not having any babies. However, I believe there's something to be said for natural selection. They've said for years that mongrel dogs are healthier than purebreds. … Are you really going to eliminate anyone who doesn't have a high enough intelligence level or might one day die? What if, during their lifespan, the low-intelligence individual can see things others can't or has strength the others don't have and saves someone? What if the unhealthy child is a genius? Who's going to do all the work that the designer babies can't do? Testing for terrible deformities or diseases that would not allow the child to make it more than a short time after birth, and only in a very pained way, yes. Testing that saves a person a life of pain, yes. Vanity testing? Are you sure you want to go that way? '
Chris Strohbeck,
67
Reston, Virginia
' I find it ironic that these so-called risk takers are so obsessed with eliminating any and all risk, whether perceived or not, whether scientifically supported or not. I am not in their age cohort, but it occurs to me that one of the most concerning aspects of advanced technology (AI topping the list) accelerated by young adults is that these entrepreneurs don't have enough perspective. It's not always true that age comes with wisdom, but time spent living a life does broaden your experience base, sharpen your decision-making, and develop your moral thinking. '
Francesca A.,
78
Oakland, California
' I became pregnant in 1986 after six years of trying various methods because of infertility. Because of my infertility, I was advised to wait and have an amnio rather than have a chorionic villus sampler test due to the risk of aborting the fetus in the latter test. Well, it turned out that my amniocentesis revealed our baby had the Trisomy 18 defect. Would pre-pregnancy genetic testing have indicated this as a possible risk? Obviously, in our case, finances would've been a factor, but I would never want to have to go through a late-term therapeutic abortion at almost 7 months again. '
Mary Redmond,
62
Philadelphia
' Prospective parents are 'rolling the dice,' like it or not. That's axiomatic from a genuinely scientific (Darwinian) perspective. These experts are con artists who add to the uncertainty. An old-fashioned fortune teller or astrologer might provide more 'value.' '