By Katharhynn Heidelberg

You won’t find them at the five-and-10 cent store, but as biotechnology continues to develop at "warp speed," genetically enhanced babies might soon be coming to a womb near you.

Technology is a mixed bag. It can be man’s best friend, but it can also be man’s worst enemy. We must then balance our needs against our ethics, without surrendering to paranoia.

That balancing act is increasingly delicate. Advances in genetic engineering have aided human beings in the medical realm, and have been a boon to some infertile couples desperate for a child.

Scientists recently took genetics to the next level by creating the first genetically altered primate, a Rhesus monkey, according the Jan. 22 edition of Newsweek. The purpose: "to create primate models of human diseases." The potential benefits are obvious, and should naturally be pursued...but only to a point.

Just what that point should be raises a storm of controversy and provides few clear answers. If we genetically alter Rhesus monkeys to the point that they can indeed "lead more quickly to vaccines or treatments" for cancer and disorders like schizophrenia, this is unquestionably a good thing (at least for humans).

If this knowledge is then applied to human reproduction, however, it raises questions with increasingly gray answers and the spectra of suspicion. If scientists can alter the human genetic code, might not world governments employ scientists to do that very thing — for better or for worse? If we object to governmental gene tampering, how can we even consider doing it on an individual level, to our children? Should infertile — or simply choosy — couples indulging in low-level "engineering," spend thousands of dollars on a supermodel’s eggs to get the sort of child they "want," or should they make the most of what nature provides?

"If parents want a tall, thin, hazel-eyed, athletic, brainy kid, whose business is it?" the Newsweek article asked. Perhaps a better question is whether parents like this actually want a child – a living, breathing, thinking being — or if they would be happier with some cross between a Barbie™ and a personal computer. Perhaps they should look to the field of robotics, not genetics, to supply them with progeny.

The article also makes the case that parents presently hire tutors, music teachers, coaches and SAT advisers, and points out no one has complained that such advantages are not very egalitarian.

But egalitarianism is hardly the point — the issue is about ethics. Is it right that a child be predestinated without his or her input as a free-thinking individual? Granted, it happens that we all play the cards we’re dealt when it comes to genetics, but the difference is, God does the dealing.

Do parents who want that designer baby have the wisdom to step into God’s shoes? Are they aware that genetic selection hardly guarantees perfection? Will they forever hold their child to preconceived standards, setting him up for disappointment at the failures others take in stride? And, will that child value his achievements as justly earned, or view them only as what is expected?

Genetic "monkeying" around for medical purposes is one thing. Whether it is appropriate for the sake of vanity is another. We think of success stories like the children who have dodged genetic bullets, but rarely do we think of how far genetic research can take us, and whether we really need to go there.