In this blog post, we explore whether designing children through genetic engineering can truly guarantee genuine happiness, considering the ethical and social implications.
Genetic engineering has made significant advancements. Consequently, people have shown conflicting reactions—both hope and concern—toward it. While some harbor hope that it can fundamentally cure diseases that are difficult to overcome with modern medical technology, others express negative reactions from a moral standpoint, given that humans can directly manipulate genes, which contain all human genetic information. As a result, genetic engineering has emerged as a major issue in today’s society.
In addressing the social issues surrounding genetic engineering, Michael Sandel, author of *The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering*, discusses the issue of designing children through genetic engineering. Sandel opposes the design of children through genetic engineering, arguing that ethical problems arise when people use genetic manipulation not merely for disease treatment but to enhance genes for personal purposes. In particular, he argues that viewing children as a gift—that is, accepting them as they are—means parents do not see their children as tools to be designed or used to fulfill their own ambitions. In response, William May defines the parental attitude as an “open mind toward a future of chance” and “generosity toward the unchosen,” emphasizing that parental love does not depend on a child’s abilities or attributes. Furthermore, Sandel criticizes the act of manipulating a child’s genes according to parental will as having eugenic characteristics. Eugenics is the study of how genetic factors influence the traits of future generations, aiming to genetically improve humanity. When parents manipulate their children’s genes to enhance their abilities, this is done under the goal of genetic enhancement regardless of the child’s will, and thus can be viewed as having eugenic characteristics.
Those who support designing children through genetic engineering view it positively because of its high added value in treating diseases. They argue that, given the limitations of modern medical technology, treating genetic diseases through genetic manipulation is a groundbreaking invention and could represent a revolutionary advancement for humanity. Furthermore, they contend that parents have a responsibility and a calling to ensure their children’s happiness, and that providing their children with the opportunity to lead happier lives through genetic manipulation is a natural right. For example, they argue that it is possible to broaden a child’s options by using genetic engineering to address congenital defects that cannot be overcome through personal effort. Congenital defects include not only genetic diseases but also traits such as appearance and height. They contend that for individuals who cannot choose their desired path due to such issues, providing diverse opportunities through genetic engineering could be a way to ensure their child’s happiness.
I do not oppose the design of children through genetic engineering if the purpose is to treat diseases—such as genetic disorders or cancer—or to overcome disabilities. However, I view negatively the practice of designing children through genetic engineering with the aim of enhancing specific traits from a parental perspective, driven by the desire for their children to be more socially competitive and happier. Examples include manipulating genes to maximize physical appearance, height, intellectual ability, musical talent, or athletic ability. There are two reasons why I am opposed to designing children for purposes other than treating disease. First, I believe that the parents’ intention—their child’s happiness—may be difficult to achieve through genetic engineering. Second, I believe that even if this intention is achieved, there is a high likelihood that social problems, particularly the concentration of wealth, will worsen. Unless appropriate safeguards and solutions are put in place to address these two issues, I believe that designing children through genetic manipulation is risky.
It can be argued that parents seek to design their children through genetic engineering for the sake of their children’s happiness. This is because enhancing a child’s appearance, intellectual ability, and athletic ability—thereby making them socially competitive—is universally recognized in modern society as a means to ensure a child’s happiness. Therefore, if genetic engineering becomes possible, it is likely that most parents will utilize it to enhance their children’s capabilities. However, I question whether genetic engineering can truly guarantee a child’s happiness. Today, many parents invest in private tutoring to improve their children’s intellectual abilities, yet the happiness index among Korean adolescents remains low. If genetic engineering allows parents to “design” their children, most parents will likely seek to enhance their children’s intelligence, athletic ability, and musical talent, which is highly likely to trigger competition similar to the current craze for private tutoring. Ultimately, only the wealthy who can afford the costs will reap the benefits, and the number of people who can afford genetic engineering will be even smaller than those who can afford private tutoring. As the impact on human life grows, the gap between those who benefit from genetic engineering and those who do not will widen even further.
Are children truly happy in Korea’s fiercely competitive educational environment? Currently, the happiness index of Korean adolescents ranks among the lowest compared to other nations. If a specific group were to monopolize the benefits of genetic engineering, the resulting disparities and conflicts would be far greater than those arising from educational issues in Korean society. If doubts about whether children can be happy in such a society remain unresolved, designing children through genetic engineering will become an act that fuels conflict, having lost its original intent.
If certain groups, nations, or ethnicities acquire superior traits before others and monopolize social, cultural, and economic advantages, this could escalate into a global issue. Even now, the world’s wealth and influence are controlled by a handful of nations. If the genetic design of children becomes a reality, everyone would want this technology, but in practice, only a minority would likely benefit from it. This is because it will require enormous costs and a long period of time to bring this technology to fruition. For example, the development of new drugs by global pharmaceutical companies typically costs over $100 million and takes 10–15 years, and exclusive patents are granted for 15–20 years to recoup development costs. Genetic engineering technology will likely require even greater costs, and the period of exclusivity will be even longer. Considering that the initial cost of genetic analysis was approximately $100 million, the initial cost of genetic engineering technology is likely to reach unimaginable levels. Even if technology costs decrease later, it will take at least 30 years before the general public can enjoy these benefits. During this period, the class that benefits is likely to maintain a monopolistic position in social, economic, political, and cultural spheres, which could lead to eugenic inequality.
One could argue that laws and policies are needed to regulate the practice of acquiring superior traits through genetic modification, limiting it solely to disease treatment. In the case of acquired diseases, if recovery is possible through genetic modification, children could enjoy a happier life. Furthermore, as long as the genes of germ cells are not modified, the risk of dominant genes acquired during disease treatment being passed on to future generations is low, so the likelihood of causing social problems is also low. However, if genetic modification is permitted for disease prevention—rather than merely for treating acquired diseases—it could still trigger social issues, albeit to a lesser extent than directly selecting and modifying superior traits. For example, while genetic modification might be permitted for preventive purposes in cases where there is a high likelihood of developing Parkinson’s disease, there is also the issue of determining whether to apply it based on the probability of disease onset. If such criteria are not clear, questions may arise regarding how to limit the scope or extent of genetic modification when it is performed to eliminate the possibility of genetic diseases.
Genes are a crucial component that contains information about human life. With the advancement of science and technology today, the secrets of genes are being revealed one by one, and the possibility of artificially altering human life is growing. Consequently, various opinions are being put forward regarding the question, “Is it acceptable to design children through genetic manipulation?” While I am in favor of genetic manipulation for the purpose of treating diseases, I am opposed to designing children through genetic manipulation to select for superior traits such as physical appearance, intellectual ability, athletic ability, or artistic ability. If the design of children through genetic engineering is permitted, attempts to express specific traits—beyond disease treatment—will increase, and social inequality will deepen as certain groups gain an early advantage. If laws and national policies restrict the scope of genetic engineering and limit its use to disease treatment, we can resolve these issues and pave the way for children with genetic diseases to lead better lives.
