In this blog post, we explore the impact that genetic engineering will have on humanity’s future, as well as the resulting ethical and social controversies.
Since ancient times, humanity has gradually discovered ways to survive in the environments we’ve been given. Initially, we focused on basic necessities such as farming, animal husbandry, and handicrafts, but as we entered the modern era, we developed objects like cars, airplanes, and ships that allow us to overcome the physical limitations inherent to humans. Now, we are on the verge of a stage where we can alter the very essence of the “human” species by manipulating genes themselves. Since biotechnology deals with living organisms, discussions regarding its ethical implications have begun.
Technological advancements have provided humanity with many benefits. Vaccines for preventing infectious diseases, medical technologies that extend human lifespan, and agricultural technologies that maximize productivity have all improved the quality of human life. In the context of these technological advancements, genetic engineering inevitably emerged. Genetic engineering is emerging not merely as a means to prevent and treat diseases, but as a tool to enhance human capabilities and open up new possibilities. However, these possibilities simultaneously give rise to new ethical and social issues.
On February 18, 2013, an article about a genetically modified fetus—a so-called “designer child”—was published on Livescience, a science news website. Midway through the article, a technique using mitochondrial transfer to prevent the transmission of a fatal gene to the child is introduced. In brief, this involves receiving genetic material from the mitochondria—a cellular organelle—and swapping it with the genetic material in the patient’s mitochondria. This signals that we have entered an era where it is possible to genetically engineer children. Regarding the genetic design of children, Michael Sandel opposes it for two main reasons in his book *The Ethics of Life*. First, he argues that if genetic manipulation of children becomes possible, it could reinforce parents’ desire to conquer the mystery of birth. He contends that this attitude will rob parents of the humility to accept life as it is and of compassion for humanity, which has taken an unpredictable course. The second reason is that the attitude of seeking to enhance even normal human beings is part of a drive toward conformity in pursuit of a perfect nature. He argues that this attitude increases the tendency to complain about and criticize what has been given, ultimately causing us to lose sight of the meaning of life as a gift.
The building blocks of all living things are cells, and it is genes that enable these cells to perform various functions. In that sense, I believe that genetic engineering can grant humans various possibilities, but at the same time, it can cause various problems. However, because I believe the benefits that genetic engineering can bring outweigh the potential threats these problems may pose and the likelihood of them becoming reality, I am in favor of genetically designing children.
Before delving into specific discussions, there are a few points to address regarding the genetic design of children. First, I assume this discussion is taking place in an era where technology has advanced to the point where we can consider using genetic engineering as a means of enhancement. Additionally, I define “designing children” as the period from the fertilized egg up to the age at which an individual is considered an adult in our country.
The greatest potential benefit of genetic modification of children is the treatment and prevention of genetic diseases. According to data compiled in 2010 by Netwellness, a health information website, it was found that many people are affected by genetic defects; Approximately 4 million children are born each year, and about 3–4% of them are born with genetic disorders or congenital defects; about 1% of fetuses suffer from genetic disorders caused by chromosomal abnormalities; deaths due to genetic disorders or congenital defects account for about 20% of fetal mortality; 10% of adults and 30% of children currently hospitalized have genetic-related issues. Even today, tests are conducted before and after birth to determine whether a child has a genetic disorder. Prenatal testing primarily screens for conditions caused by chromosomal abnormalities, such as Down syndrome, while postnatal testing identifies conditions caused by mutations in the genetic sequence, such as phenylketonuria. However, at present, we can only confirm the presence of a disease; there are almost no methods to fundamentally cure it. Therefore, if genetic manipulation of children becomes possible, we will be able to analyze genetic diseases that a child currently has or may develop in the future through testing, and prevent them in advance, much like administering a vaccination. Even if a genetic disorder were to develop later due to a genetic mutation, it would likely be possible to treat it using genetic engineering technology.
Some opponents of genetic design for children worry that manipulating genes will reduce the human gene pool, thereby diminishing our ability to adapt to sudden environmental changes. Even now, there are many instances in society where people strive to achieve so-called “desirable” phenotypes. Growth hormone is a case in point. While growth hormone is administered to help people with conditions like dwarfism—who are very short—grow taller, it is also sometimes given to children who are slightly shorter than average or who are slow to grow. The argument is that if such practices to acquire desirable traits become widespread, children’s genes will eventually end up being largely identical, like mass-produced goods from a factory. However, this argument overlooks the fact that individuals have diverse perspectives. What each person values differs. While some parents want to educate their children to pursue so-called “good” white-collar jobs in society, there are also parents who encourage their children to pursue other careers—such as athletes, entrepreneurs, or farmers—and support them in that direction. As assumed earlier, if genetic engineering technology were fully established, parents would genetically design their children in a way that supports the career paths their children wish to pursue. Since the abilities required for each profession differ, the genes that are modified would also vary, and ultimately, genetic diversity would still be maintained.
Some might argue that there is a tendency for certain “desirable” traits to become fashionable in specific eras. In other words, while people’s aspirations may vary, they will ultimately be skewed toward specific areas. In the case of white-collar jobs mentioned earlier, since most involve intellectual work, the required qualities are limited. Therefore, even if the desired professions differ, the required abilities will be largely the same, leading to a decrease in genetic diversity. However, there are various methods available to acquire a single trait. Some traits in humans are governed by a single gene, while others are governed by multiple genes. A prime example is height. To quote the Livescience article mentioned in the introduction, there are at least 50 genes currently identified that determine height. Therefore, if one wishes to be tall, they can modify any of those 50 or more genes, allowing for a wide variety of genetic combinations. In some cases, there may be multiple approaches to enhancing a single trait. For example, if one wishes to increase muscle strength through genetic modification, one could not only increase the number of muscle cells but also improve the efficiency with which those cells utilize energy. Since there are various approaches to altering a single trait and the genes involved in expressing that trait are diverse, genetic design could still yield a wide range of genetic combinations, meaning genetic diversity would not be significantly reduced.
Those who ethically oppose the genetic design of children may express their objections for other reasons as well. The most common example would be the violation of the dignity of human life. They may consider two scenarios in which the value of human dignity is violated. The first is that the human dignity of the fetus undergoing genetic modification is violated. This is easily understood when one considers that scholars currently offer two definitions of human dignity. One definition holds that dignity is a right inherent in being human, while the other maintains that it stems from leading a life befitting a human being. In the latter case, dignity means living a healthy life without suffering or deprivation. Genetic manipulation of a fetus is argued to infringe upon the minimum rights of a human being—namely, the right to live according to one’s own free will after birth. However, strictly speaking, a fetus is not a fully-fledged “human” before birth and lacks even a sense of self. Therefore, since such genetic manipulation is merely a process of improving an immature human being, it is difficult to view it as contrary to human dignity.
Another perspective on the dignity of the fetus is that it treats the fetus as if it were the parents’ property, since it is the parents who carry out the genetic manipulation. This stems from a misunderstanding of the very meaning of human dignity. While the fetus is not the property of the parents, the parents play a role in creating the environment in which the fetus grows. Genetic modification of a child is merely a form of investment that parents make to provide a better environment for their child. Parents have a responsibility to create that environment until the fetus is born and grows up. This responsibility includes not only the material environment but also the mental environment—in other words, the responsibility to provide the opportunity to live a happy life with a healthy body. Therefore, ensuring a fetus is born healthy through genetic modification is simply a fulfillment of parental responsibility.
The second concern is that, following the implementation of genetic modification, there is a possibility that the dignity of those who have not undergone genetic modification could be infringed upon. While the concept of “designer babies” originally emerged for the purpose of disease prevention, as technology advances, it could degenerate into a desire to endow individuals with superior physical and mental abilities. This carries the potential to widen the gap between the upper class and those with limited financial resources. Since people with limited financial resources cannot access genetic engineering technology, they may possess traits considered inferior compared to those who have undergone genetic engineering, making them more susceptible to social discrimination. This implies not merely a difference in traits but discrimination in social status or opportunities based on those traits. However, such issues are far removed from the essence of human dignity. This is because human dignity is not determined solely by the superiority or inferiority of traits. What is important is for society to establish a system that prevents such discrimination and provides fair opportunities. To address the social inequality that genetic modification may bring, a social safety net and the provision of fair opportunities are essential.
In conclusion, genetically designing children is one way to help them lead healthier and happier lives. Preventing genetic diseases and enhancing individual capabilities are key factors in improving the quality of human life. Of course, the ethical and social issues that these technologies may raise must be fully considered, but they should not be a reason to halt technological progress. It is important to utilize genetic engineering technology appropriately and strive to build a fair social system so that everyone can benefit.
