If you could modify your children’s genes, what would you change?

puzzle baby flyaway

Scientists focus on gene editing to eliminate certain debilitating hereditary diseases, but the technology could accomplish a lot more. Recently, the team at Superdrug surveyed the public on what they would modify in their future children if they could, and the results are surprising.

According to the survey, carried out by Superdrug Online Doctor, prospective parents who viewed baby modification as ethical explained that they would most likely alter their child to make them healthier and more intelligent, followed by increased creativity and attractiveness.

When it came to specific physical characteristics, Europeans answered that they would genetically modify their child to be a blonde-haired blued-eyed girl of average height. Americans, on the other hand, identified their ideal child as a black-haired blued-eyed male of above average height. In addition, Americans were far more concerned with adjusting the athletic ability of their children than Europeans, which may explain why more Americans would prefer to have a male child while Europeans would be happier with a female.

…

Many parents would be willing to pay up, the SuperDrug survey revealed…About a quarter of the parents were willing to pay more than $10,000 to modify their child’s intelligence, although most put the limit between $1,000 and $2,000.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Genetically Modified Babies: Here’s What People Would Change If They Could Modify Children’s Genes

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Supplement Rain Wellness Illustration
Viewpoint: Bedeviled by “toxic inflammation”? How wellness grifters turn this scientific gray zone into a supplement jackpot
Teal Hexagon Technology Icons
4 key ways the Blue Wave will upend science policy
Wave Crest Over Red Cross
Viewpoint: Here are the election-inspired Trump administration healthcare policy reversals expected in the coming months
Aerial Sprayer Over Gradient Fields
Farming, food, and chemicals: Post-midterms, the MAHA alliance between Democrats and MAGA Republicans is bruised but not cowed. What comes next?
Confident Doctor in Clinical Setting
More than 80% of ‘pro-science’ candidates were swept into office. Will they have a policy impact?
Stacked Protest Signs on Concrete Ledge
Voters hate AI data centers, yet they are crucial to establishing a critical technology. So what’s next?
Protect-Womens-Sports-at-the-Capitol
Blue, purple and red states passed or reaffirmed bans on trans females competing in women’s sports
Microscopic IVF Egg Injection
With technical barriers to human embryo editing falling, ethical concerns escalate
Democratic Donkey Plowing at Sunset
Viewpoint: Democratic tsunami: As the red tide recedes, here are the most likely shifts in food and agricultural policy
Screenshot-2026-11-05-at-1.20.54-PM
$7.35 billion PFAS settlement: 3M to pay people who blame health problems on ‘forever chemicals’ phased out of firefighting foam for more than 20 years
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.