In this blog post, we explore the ethical issues surrounding how advances in genetic engineering might affect human equality and diversity.
Our “right to be different” must be protected. I am different from the person living in the room across the hall, and I am different from the person living next door. Each of the n people possesses n unique characteristics. Some may be short, while others may be tall. Some may have fair skin, while others may have dark or yellow skin. The n people possess n unique characteristics. No one can judge which of these countless characteristics is right or wrong. This is because, in accordance with the fundamental human right to equality, we have the right not to be discriminated against based on something that makes us different from others—that is, the “right to be different.” However, my main argument is that genetic engineering, which has recently garnered significant attention—and specifically, genetic enhancement—could threaten the very existence of this “right to be different.” In the following discussion, I will explain what genetic engineering is and what its prospects are, and, based on the principles of the right to equality, clarify how genetic engineering could threaten the human right to equality—that is, the “right to be different.” I will conclude by discussing the permissible scope of genetic modification.
Genetic engineering is, literally, the science of manipulating genes; fundamentally, it is the science of modifying organisms to produce new byproducts that benefit humans. Genetic engineering has garnered attention as a solution to various intractable problems that humans have been unable to solve. Representative examples include food shortages and genetic diseases. Regarding food shortages, there are GMOs. GMOs are organisms whose genes have been manipulated by humans. By manipulating specific genes—for example, removing the pathogen responsible for Disease A from a crop—the crop is made resistant to that disease. This technology is highly effective in increasing food production and is having a significant impact on resolving food shortages and ensuring economic stability. Although most people are unaware of it, many of the soybeans and corn we consume are actually GMOs. In the case of genetic diseases, genetic engineering can be used to treat problematic genes or prevent them through preimplantation genetic testing, which will be discussed later. Furthermore, advances in animal cloning through genetic engineering have made it possible to create cloned organisms with genetically identical traits, which can greatly contribute to verifying the safety of our experiments. In this way, genetic engineering is having a positive impact on humanity across various fields. However, the impact of genetic engineering on humanity is not entirely positive.
There is a term called “designer babies.” These are defined as babies whose genetic traits have been artificially selected through in vitro fertilization. In this process, parents can use “preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)” to check the child’s gender, eye and skin color, hair color, and genetic diseases, and select these traits through genetic manipulation. Furthermore, if genetic engineering continues to develop in this manner, it could potentially influence intelligence, physical attractiveness, height, and athletic ability. These “designer babies” are used to treat genetic diseases and, at the same time, prevent their onset, thereby offering benefits such as the societal prevention of genetic disorders.
In this regard, “designer babies” are a highly attractive option. However, this is true only when “designer babies” are used solely for therapeutic purposes. This is because if such genetic manipulation were to occur indiscriminately in other areas, such as skin color, there is a risk that it could undermine the right to equality mentioned earlier. To discuss this, we need to examine the basis of the right to equality—and, by extension, human rights.
The right to equality and human rights are grounded in “natural rights.” This means that human rights are inalienable, inherent rights bestowed upon humans by a transcendent being, implying that everyone—whether a person with intellectual disabilities or a newborn baby—possesses these rights equally. The right to equality, which is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution to guarantee human rights, is also based on these “natural rights.” It is the right by which humans can demand that they not be treated unequally by the state or social groups. Of course, a detailed discussion of the right to equality would require distinguishing between theories of absolute equality and relative equality; however, in the context of bioethics, where the focus should be on innate factors rather than acquired factors influencing a person’s development, greater emphasis should be placed on the theory of absolute equality.
At this point, there are many attempts to interpret this concept religiously due to the term “Transcendent Being” appearing in the definition of “natural rights.” In particular, some argue that it is a concept overly rooted in Christianity. However, I believe that before interpreting it religiously, we must focus on the reason why the concept of natural rights emerged in the first place. If the reason people established the concept of a “transcendent being” lies in Christianity, then interpreting it religiously would be appropriate. However, from my perspective, the reason this concept of a transcendent being was necessary is that, until then, there were limits to the extent to which humans could intervene in the process of life’s creation. Furthermore, these limits reduced human responsibility for the birth of that life. A child born to a Black man and a Black woman is highly likely to be Black. However, since the child did not choose them, the child does not need to take responsibility for being Black. The same applies to both parents. Furthermore, a child born to a tall man and a tall woman is highly likely to be tall. Therefore, if this child is tall, they do not need to take responsibility for their height. Conversely, even if a child is born short due to a genetic phenomenon such as a mutation, that child does not need to take responsibility for their height. This is because the genetic phenomenon was not the result of anyone’s will. (As a slight exception, there are cases where the presence of genetic diseases in both parents affects the child’s genetic disease. This is because, unlike cases where there is no genetic disease, situations involving genetic diseases entail objective suffering. A more detailed discussion of this will be covered later when addressing the “acceptable scope of genetic modification.”) Since everyone is free from responsibility for their own traits (excluding genetic diseases), it is believed that anyone, regardless of their traits, has the right to equal treatment.
But what if we could arbitrarily decide which traits to possess through genetic manipulation? As mentioned in the first paragraph, all humans are equal, and we cannot distinguish between “right” and “wrong” traits. However, social discrimination does exist in reality. There is a tendency to prefer taller people, and discrimination against people of color occurs all over the world. In this context, if such genetic manipulation were to become widespread without any restrictions, there is a very high probability that genetic manipulation would occur during the process of life’s creation to favor socially advantageous traits. The moment humans begin to intervene in the determination of a living being’s traits, the limitations mentioned in the previous paragraph would be shattered, and humans with socially advantageous traits would be artificially created. It is highly likely that most of the humans born in this way would be of a form that is socially advantageous and preferred by the majority. If this were to happen, we would end up creating not “different humans” but “wrong humans” somewhere in this world. While in previous generations, Black, White, and Asian people stood on equal footing, the emergence of a specific type of human would result in some races being labeled as “failed” and others as “successful.” One might think that if everyone in the world were of a specific type, inequality would disappear. However, the more this happens, the more it creates a template for the “right human,” which in turn leads to labeling those who do not fit that template as “wrong.”
For the reasons outlined above, to ensure that genetic modification does not threaten the right to equality, the practice of manipulating a fetus’s genetic traits according to personal preference must be prohibited. However, there is one exception to this rule: the genetic traits related to the onset of genetic diseases in the fetus, as mentioned earlier. In the case of traits such as height, skin color, or athletic ability, it is impossible to categorize them as “right” or “wrong” based on their differences in the first place. Furthermore, any unfair treatment resulting from these traits is not objectively due to the traits themselves being inferior, but rather due to moral laxity in the surrounding society. However, in the case of genetic diseases, the onset of the disease entails objective discomfort and suffering compared to the absence of the disease, thus creating an objective difference between the two. Therefore, the argument is that genetic modification should be partially permitted to prevent the onset of genetic diseases. If so, further discussion is needed regarding those who have already developed the disease. Assuming that genetic modification can completely prevent genetic diseases and that all parents wish to spare their children from suffering, there are three possible scenarios when a child with a genetic disease is born to parents: First, a mutation occurred; second, the parents were unaware that they carried the genetic disease allele; and third, they were aware but did not take action due to reasons such as financial constraints. In the first case, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, since no one could have predicted the mutation, no individual can be held responsible—including the affected individual themselves—and society must provide support to alleviate their suffering. In the second case, if the onset of the disease was neglected despite the availability of adequate screening for the relevant genetic factor, the parents should be held accountable; however, if the genetic disease is not well-screened for and is not widely recognized by society, the situation is the same as in the first case. If situations like the third case become widespread, the occurrence of a genetic disease would be determined by economic inequality. However, since the right to avoid the suffering of a genetic disease must not be infringed upon due to economic poverty, society must assist these individuals; no one should be held responsible for the onset of a genetic disease. Therefore, we conclude that the onset of a genetic disease itself is neither right nor wrong.
Genetic engineering is proving to be an excellent solution for many of the problems humanity faces. However, we have examined the fact that if genetic modification is not subject to any restrictions on its scope, it could simultaneously give rise to issues that infringe upon our human rights and the right to equality. Nevertheless, since the benefits of genetic modification—such as in the prevention of genetic diseases—cannot be ignored, genetic modification must be conducted within a restricted scope. I conclude by reiterating that raising the moral awareness of society’s members is essential to prevent human rights issues arising from genetic modification.
