Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designer baby (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  19:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Designer baby
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is page about something theoretical -- "a human embryo which has been genetically modified -- which treats it as an entirely real thing. It is hopeless from the foundations up. I took what was useful here and merged it into Assisted reproductive technology in this series of diffs, along with content from Germinal choice technology, Reprogenetics, and New eugenics, all of which covered this same science fiction territory from different angles.  The page was restored in this diff, with its interesting edit note.  In any case, this page and topic should not stand alone in WP, and certainly not in its current form. The topic is covered solidly in the merged-to location in the ART page. If the content there is expanded with well-sourced content it can be split out at some point. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete It appears you did a great job of merging this into the other article. WestWorld42018 (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't delete This is an entirely real issue. Nuclei from human eggs are being transferred into other eggs to avoid mitochondrial disease in the U.K. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30094357 Research on gene editing of human embryos for other conditions is proceeding: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28942539. Technical leaders in the field are proposing applications of gene modification for enhancement: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29141159 StN (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The mitochondria topic is covered at Mitochondrial replacement therapy which has nothing to do with designing babies. As I mentioned the sci fi stuff ("proposing applications...for enchancement") is covered in the merge target. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence of the article states: "A designer baby is a human embryo which has been genetically modified, usually following guidelines set by the parent or scientist, to produce desirable traits." This is precisely what "mitochondrial replacement" (actually nuclear replacement in an egg containing healthy mitochondria) does. StN (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This is clearly a notable subject from the many reference provided in the article. It is also separate from Assisted reproductive technology since this relates to technology to assisting achieving pregnancy, and not in genetic modification of the baby per se. All of the other titles simply redirect to Assisted reproductive technology. That this is often talked about in terms of future applications doesn't matter - what matters is that it has received "significant coverage". FOARP (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is incompetently covered here as though it were real and in addition there are bad sources and no sources (essay writing/OR) for significant stretches; the content is sourced well and tightly written at the target page. There is no need for this page. Finally ART is ART and the same techniques would be used for this (if it ever starts happening) as are used and researched there. This too would be "assisted reproduction".Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Page quality issues aren't a deletion issue. Whether it is real or not doesn't matter - what matters is if it has received significant coverage, and it very obviously has (1 2 3) ART is a technique for assisting achieving pregnancy so it is clearly not the appropriate place for discussing the subject of genetically engineered babies (including babies potentially having genetic modifications having nothing to do with genetic diseases) in general. FOARP (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The topic is covered much better elsewhere. Yes ART is currently, actually used to help people who can't conceive; the concept of "designer babies" is discussed where it belongs there as some possible future application of current and under-research techniques, which is the appropriate context for it. Context matters in an encyclopedia. The theoretical ethical matters (which are all that the popular media refs you brought are good for) are discussed in the other page. I won't reply to you further. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Refusing to engage in debate isn't conducive to an AfD, which is about achieving consensus through discussion. It is not clear, at all, why the subject of designer babies (which, as you say, is in large part a potential future phenomenon, one widely discussed and given significant coverage) is best covered within a narrow article about a single current technique for assisting childbirth. Furthermore what you are really asking for here is a merge/redirect - so why is this being handled via AfD and not via the talk page? Finally, the subject of moving the content appears to have been discussed on the article talk page and closed with no consensus in 2009, so why did you simply merge the page without discussing it first on the talk page to see if it was possible to achieve a new consensus for moving? FOARP (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Debate is fine but this is clutter. You are not making valid arguments nor dealing with the reality of this trashy page and you have completely misrepresented the target page. Deletion debate is not about making invalid claims and I won't use my time "countering" claims not based in reality. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you are now responding, I hope you won't mind if I respond in turn. The subject of the target page is described in the header: "Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is the technology used to achieve pregnancy in procedures such as fertility medication, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy" (my emphasis). It is clear from this that ART is a technology (a specific technology) used to achieve pregnancy. The topic of Designer Babies is completely different - it is, as you have said, in large part a future phenomenon, not necessarily linked to any specific technology. Editing ART to cover the topic of designer babies does not make sense as they are separate topics - designer babies are created not just to facilitate pregnancy but for other reasons. The moral concerns around designer babies are not related to facilitating pregnancy, but instead theoretically possible future event such as the selection of e.g., hair-colour or skin-colour. Mergin makes no sense in that circumstance.
 * BTW - Refusing to even engage with the arguments against deletion is not conducive to the conduct of an AfD, because AfD is about reaching consensus and that can only be achieved through discussion. Especially where an article has existed for a long time and has already passed through a deletion discussion there will always be arguments against deletion that should be addressed by the proposer. Your proposed grounds for deletion include things that are not relevant to an AfD (i.e., whether designer babies are purely theoretical or not, whether or not they are a future phenomenon, whether or not the editor who restored the page after you wiped it did so correctly), these things don't matter for AfD because, per WP:RUBBISH, AfD is not for clean-up, page-quality, or other surmountable problems. The only place where I see you having a point is that there may be duplication, but if there is duplication it is hard to see how it can be duplication with ART since ART is a very different topic based on a simple comparison of the opening paragraphs of each topic. FOARP (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete I had to write a paper on this topic and I severely doubt I am the last one who will have to. This article helped briefly sum up what exactly "designer babies" are in a non-biased format. The other article contained information that was unrelated to my topic, and so I found it very confusing and finding the information I needed was hard. Please do not delete this, as it was very helpful to me and I'm sure that it will be helpful to others as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:100:817f:d7f7:2970:6012:617a:19ed (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC) — 2601:100:817f:d7f7:2970:6012:617a:19ed (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The useful content is at the redirect. My goodness what an odd keep rationale. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that this may be just a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL argument, but the real question here is whether you were right to copy that material over to Assisted reproductive technology and whether it really belongs there. I don't think it does, since ART is a specific current technology used for assisting pregnancy, which is very different to the subject of design babies, which are in large part a future phenomenon that doesn't necessarily involve the technology discussed in ART and may be done for purposes other than assisting pregnancy. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Per recent news about the Chinese scientist, He Jiankui. The New York Times states "If true, some fear the feat could open the door to 'designer babies.'" Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ethics of that sort of thing are already discussed at the ART page, and if people look for "designer babies" they will be sent there, as they should be. As the NYT states actual designer babies are still science fiction and will be for a very long time. Jytdog (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Something being science fiction isn't a valid rationale for not including it as an article in Wikipedia. The only thing that matters is if there's significant coverage showing it's notable in independent, reliable sources and it doesn't fall under WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per the nominator's rationale, article Designer baby should have been put into the process of proposing a merger, not articles for deletion. Deletion means deleting the page's entire edit history, which is not applicable for this case. The result of proposing a merger will be either "keep as an independent article" or "keep as an redirect page". In either case, the result will be "keep". It is not appropriate to discuss the merger issue on the AFD page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the term "Designer baby" is a lay/pejorative term mainly used in ethics to describe future possibilities of ART/PGD and CRISPR. I'd like to work on this article in light of Lulu and Nana. -- Callinus (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Assisted reproductive technology Human germline engineering. Designer baby is a WP:NEOLOGISM (though used in lay-media), and relevant content has already been merged to the target. Nothing in the keep votes really justifies keeping as is as opposed to an uncontroversial redirect considering the current state of the two articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But why that particular page? ART is a very different topic to designer babies, since it is a specific technology for assisting childbirth, rather than the general subject of genetically editing babies using any technique for purposes that go beyond simply assisting childbirth. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Specifically Assisted_reproductive_technology, though Human germline engineering might be an even better redirect. The current article is really just a summary of Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and Human germline engineering, so there really isn't unique content either way that isn't already handled by any of the above articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Creating designer babies *isn't* (or at least, isn't specifically) a speculative use of ART, since it isn't tied directly to a single technology and isn't specifically about assisting childbirth. Human Germline Engineering looks a more suitable target but ultimately that's better discussed in a merge/redirect discussion, not an AFD. FOARP (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * AfDs are where merge/redirect discussions can occur if you weren't aware. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The use of the term "Designer babies" was popular before this latest kerfuffle. There is more than enough information out there to write an article on the ethics and potential of such a process if it ever becomes a reality. AIRcorn (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As an aside, since the content in the article has been merged to another article at the very least the edit history needs to be kept for attribution. The easiest way to do this is to keep it at a redirect, but if it gets consensus for deletion it will need to be kept at a subpage or something similar. See WP:MAD for a better explanation. AIRcorn (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Aircorn I had redirected this. Unfortunately this very bad page was restored and rather than edit war I went for deletion. This is going to fail and I am going to argue for merge. This page is a magnet for woo and hand-wringing in ways that you and I are familiar with. I redirected this and several others to the science-based core page, and that is where the content should be. A redirect is fine... Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand, but we deal with this stuff all the time and that doesn't necessarily mean the article can't or shouldn't exist. I am not sure where I would stand on the merger proposal, as merging this to ART could cause undue concerns. I would also suggest you slow down a bit with the redirecting. Its this all in guns blazing approach that got you in trouble in this topic area in the first place. After a lot of hard work it has become relatively stable for the last little while and I would hate for it to return to the time sink it used to be. AIRcorn (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Widely used in the media, the previous article to a section of which this page previously redirected was sufficiently different in it's content (it was actually the Assisted reproduction techniques article). Openlydialectic (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep a thorough article, many sources, this should not even be a discussion. Especially now with the news that the scientist He Jiankui has possibly been successful. Zaathras (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of that sourcing is just summaries of what's at Preimplantation genetic diagnosis human germline engineering, etc. if you look at how the article is actually sectioned out. Regardless of sources, the current article is really just a bunch of summaries put together from other articles with nothing particularly unique that would satisfy the requirement for a standalone page, especially since it's redundant with human germline engineering. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. While I find the concept to be a confused and unprincipled one as it implies a distinction between 'medicine' and 'improvement' that doesn't exist in reality and have no particular opinion on whether it should be merged into PGD & editing articles, the nominator is incorrect in calling it 'something theoretical' and implying it is absurd to 'treat as entirely real'. This is badly mistaken and discussions should take into account that 'designer babies', as popularly understood, already exist and will only become more of a thing in the near future.
 * On the editing side, He's CRISPR babies would seem to be 'entirely real' and certainly not 'science fiction' and are being criticized for attempting to add what most would consider an enhancement (HIV resistance) rather than fixing any genetic disease or disorder. (They weren't announced when this was nominated, but as human embryos have been edited for 4 years now, everyone knew this was only a matter of time, and not 'something theoretical'.) On the PGD/selection side, Genomic Prediction in NJ began offering selection on many complex traits months ago and has customers and is just one of (at least) 3 such companies, and of course people have been doing PGD for optional non-medical purposes (even excluding generic embryo quality) like sex, eye/hair color, or most infamously, deafness, for many years now - and those are just the documented traits people are willing to own up to, I am told rumors that other things have been selected for in the past. If none of that counts as 'designer babies', then I have no idea what would. Further, all that is just what has already happened. Harvard's Neuhasser is continuing to research CRISPR editing of sperm, I know people who are seriously looking into CRISPR injections for adult in vivo edits (as potentially much cheaper & more reliable than editing embryos), the very rapidly advancing work on human gametogenesis or oocyte maturation may take GenPred-style PGD from a curiosity to compelling, and we're not even talking about what becomes possible with gametogenesis+PGD in a iterated multiple-generation ('iterated embryo selection') or with the Moore's-law-like progress in genome synthesis (currently at yeast-scale synthetic organisms, and heading towards human-genome scales).
 * So, make of that what you will in discussing whether to keep this article or break it up into others. --Gwern (contribs) 19:19 1 December 2018 (GMT)
 * The two humans created in He's widely condemned clinical trial are not "designer babies" as that term is generally used - they are not meant to be smarter or prettier or faster; there is some putative (weak and widely criticized) medical rationale. The concept of designer babies is still science fiction. Adult somatic gene editing has nothing to do with germline gene editing of embroyos. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I already explained, they are being condemned in considerable part because they fall under most conceptions of 'designer babies' in the edit not fixing an inherited genetic disease like beta-thalassemia or Huntington's but an optional enhancement granting enhanced HIV resistance. (How many people define 'designer baby' as solely and exclusively 'smarter or prettier or faster'...?) And perhaps the context was insufficient, but I never said merely 'somatic', I said 'adult in vivo edits': specifically, injections into testes. (Their rationale there being, among other things, that while you only have 50% chance of passing it on when you have modified sperm rather than embryos, it's easier to edit testes long in advance of reproduction and it avoids entirely the large expense of IVF, so allows use in more than IVF's ~1% of live US births.) Even dismissing both of those real-world examples, Neuhasser, Genomic Prediction, the two stealth companies, and all the past uses of PGD for optional things remain real and not 'sci fi' as you repeatedly claim in your minimizing comments. --Gwern (contribs) 09:06 2 December 2018 (GMT)
 * Nope, he justified as a medical thing. On the Harvard sperm thing, people have been gene editing human embryonic stem cells and yes sperm for a while now. That is still basic research. Nobody sane is creating babies, as the reaction to He's work shows. On the Genomic Prediction company, their EPGT test is putatively medical (and I am surprised they are allowed to market that test, and wonder how long it will be before the FTC and FDA come after them....).  I have no idea what you are on about, with regard to people injecting stuff into their testicles. This is WP not PeopleDoingorTalkingAboutWierdShitOpedia. Jytdog (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And btw, with regard to this: and we're not even talking about what becomes possible with gametogenesis+PGD in a iterated multiple-generation ('iterated embryo selection') or with the Moore's-law-like progress in genome synthesis. That is science-fiction, futurism, what have you. When tech people approach biology (and medicine) they often have these sorts of ideas, and what you get is Theranos.  Biology is difficult; medicine is even more difficult. See this important blog posting, (and this further commentary on it" Software Eats the World, But Biology Eats It"). You might find WP:Why MEDRS? interesting/useful....
 * Designer babies are science fiction stuff, in 2018. It is still illegal in most of the world to edit the germline of a person (or intended person) Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He justified it as medical thing but no one is buying it. Again, they are designer babies: they are not being edited to cure any disease they have, or are likely to get, but to add in an optional enhancement present in only a small minority of humans. I see you have moved from 'this is sci fi' to 'no one sane is creating babies... Your dismissive comments about GenPred or the testes editing do not respond to my point that they exist and are real, the point of sperm editing research is to, you know, use them at some point, you continue to ignore my other points about past applications of PGD, and it would be ridiculous to dismiss things as 'sci fi' simply because they have not happened when they are obvious straight-line applications of existing research (like, say, implanting CRISPR babies). Again: this is not sci-fi.
 * To the closing admin of this AfD, you may want to also take into consideration Jytdog's behavior on Articles for deletion/Genome-wide complex trait analysis. By the way, Jytdog, how is nominating this article for deletion not a violation of your indefinite topic ban on GMOs? CRISPR designer babies are pretty obvious 'genetically modified organisms', even if we exclude PGD etc. --Gwern (contribs) 21:12 2 December 2018 (GMT)
 * I've acknowledged below that this is ~probably~ be going to be kept one way or the other. The !votes are what they are and we will deal with the page after the close. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And your lifetime topic ban you are violating by this and the other AfDs? --Gwern (contribs) 22:35 2 December 2018 (GMT)
 * Please play the ball, not the man. My TBAN is on ag biotech, not this sort of thing. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted". And no, I think this is relevant to this AfD, whether it should even have been allowed to be opened in the first place - never mind your subsequent harassment of users for disagreeing with you. --Gwern (contribs) 23:04 2 December 2018 (GMT)
 * The locus of the case was ag biotech. I have been regularly editing human gene therapy and related topics and you are the first person to make drama over this. In any case, WP:AE is thataway. What you are doing here, is really inappropriate. I won't be responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll note that we also had a blown up Human germline engineering page which covered the exact same topic as this page and was created as a student project in 2017. Gah. I have merged that into the Assisted reproductive technology page with the other ones so it now redirects there. Maybe the best thing to do, would be to redirect this page to Human germline engineering, and bring the consolidated content at the ART psge there with a bit of expansion to include "designing" via pre-implantation selection.  This is probably going to end up as keep or no consensus at best.... and I guess we can discuss after the close.  Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If anything, I haven't seen anything in the keep votes that would count against a redirect (most didn't seem to look at the state of the articles in the first place). The closer would have a tough time saying the page shouldn't be redirected, but that redirect is probably going to happen one way or another. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I am surprised nobody has mentioned that WP isn't a dictionary because that argument may be applicable here. However, due to this passing GNG, I think it's a definite keep. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  07:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.