This essay examines the arguments for and against whether designing a child’s appearance, intelligence, and health through genetic engineering can improve the child’s quality of life and guarantee freedom of choice.
Before presenting the arguments in favor of designing children through genetic engineering, it is necessary to consider what aspects of a child can be designed and what level of influence such design would have on the child’s life. Using genetic engineering technology, parents could design not only their child’s height and facial features but also their intellectual ability, susceptibility to genetic diseases (or disabilities), and life expectancy. Such technology offers parents significant responsibility and opportunities for choice, while also sparking ethical, social, and scientific debates in modern society.
First, the ability to design a child’s appearance through genetic engineering implies the possibility of ensuring they possess a look that conforms to social standards. This could help reduce social prejudice and discrimination. While standards of beauty vary by era and culture, ensuring a child has a universally accepted appearance can minimize the disadvantages they might face in society due to their looks. Furthermore, by enhancing intelligence or strengthening immunity against genetic diseases, parents can improve their children’s overall quality of life. This could be the greatest gift parents can offer their children.
However, in a society where the phrase “designing children through genetic engineering” is used, it implies that when genetic engineering technology is employed, the traits desired by parents are 100% imprinted on the child’s DNA, and that this technology is already well-established in society. However, as Professor Manolis Kellis wrote in a February 2015 article in Nature, the expression of human traits is influenced not only by genes but also by the environment. Therefore, “designing a child through genetic engineering” can be defined as an act in which parents impart traits to their child but merely increase the likelihood that those traits will be expressed.
Regarding the use of this technology, there may be objections arguing that designing a child through genetic engineering amounts to designing their life, meaning the child will ultimately be unable to escape the constraints of a trajectory determined by their parents. However, this stems from a misunderstanding of genetic engineering. As stated in the previous paragraph, what parents can design is limited to their child’s DNA, and since its expression is influenced by the environment, the claim that parents are “designing” their child’s life is a logical leap. “Designing” a child means preventing their dreams from being thwarted by their own genetic traits, regardless of what aspirations they may have in the future. This entails enhancing the quality of a child’s potential and pursuing diversity.
There may be a counterargument that genetic engineering actually narrows the range of possibilities. For example, suppose parents have imparted a trait for tall stature to their child. However, if the child aspires to become an acrobatic gymnast—a field where shorter stature is advantageous—and dreams of becoming a gymnast, wouldn’t genetic engineering have infringed upon their freedom of choice? While such cases are rare, they are certainly possible. Nevertheless, there are universally recognized desirable traits, such as strong bones, healthy internal organs, and high intelligence. Given these benefits, it is unreasonable to completely oppose genetic engineering-based design. Furthermore, regarding traits like those mentioned above, one could simply choose not to design them at all.
Some might oppose this on the grounds of bioethics. Human beings possess dignity. Therefore, a fetus must be recognized as having dignity from the moment it is in the mother’s womb, and genetic engineering represents a challenge to human dignity. However, we need to consider how the fetus would actually feel once it grows up. In other words, we must consider whether someone who could have manipulated part of their DNA through genetic engineering but ultimately chose not to would be satisfied that their dignity was respected throughout their life, or whether they would be dissatisfied with a life that could have been improved through genetic engineering.
In response to this, critics may argue that children might be dissatisfied with the traits instilled by their parents. This argument overlooks the fact that genes are influenced by the environment. By activating the epigenome through environmental influences to deactivate DNA codes carrying information for unwanted traits, we can prevent the expression of those unwanted traits. Furthermore, the expression of traits can also be prevented through acquired efforts.
Genetic engineering technology allows us to design children. It can also provide children with a high quality of life and prevent them from being frustrated before even attempting to pursue their dreams due to innate factors, regardless of what aspirations they may have. Therefore, rather than opposing it outright, I believe it is more desirable to carefully consider the matter, go through the process of refining laws and systems, and then accept it within society. It is important to thoroughly examine both the positive impacts that genetic engineering technology can bring and the ethical issues that accompany it, and to reach a social consensus on these matters. Ultimately, genetic engineering technology can become a tool that broadens the options for a child’s future and provides a better life.
