In this blog post, we examine the possibilities of designing children in the age of genetic engineering, as well as the ethical and human dignity issues that arise from it.
As genetic engineering rapidly advances, the manipulation of human genes is no longer a matter of science fiction but is becoming a reality. The genetic sequences of several animal species have already been fully decoded, and technologies to create new life forms by combining genes from different species have been successfully developed. The emergence of CRISPR-Cas9, a gene-editing technology, has significantly improved the accuracy and efficiency of gene editing, making the possibility of freely manipulating human genes a reality. If this research continues to advance, it will become possible for parents to introduce desired genetic traits into their children or, conversely, remove harmful ones. It is now time to seriously consider the question: “Is it acceptable to design children through genetic engineering?”
To state my conclusion first, I oppose the idea of designing children through genetic engineering. This issue is not merely a technical one; it involves complex moral and ethical dilemmas, making it difficult to simply decide for or against it. For this reason, rather than addressing this topic directly, I intend to present my argument through an indirect approach.
When seeking answers to difficult problems, it can be useful to examine whether the problem’s premises hold true. The question “Is it acceptable to design children using genetic engineering?” can be rephrased as a combination of two propositions: “Is it acceptable to design humans using genetic engineering?” and “Is it acceptable for parents to design their children according to their own intentions?” If even one of these two propositions is false, the argument that it is permissible to genetically engineer children does not hold. I wish to focus particularly on the question, “Is it permissible to genetically engineer humans?” And my answer to this question is “No.”
The issue of genetically engineering humans has already been discussed among various scholars. For example, in his book *The Case Against Perfection*, Michael Sandel expressed his opposition to human genetic engineering from an ethical perspective. Sandel warned that if human talents or abilities shift from being the product of innate luck to something inevitable, solidarity between the capable and the less capable will be destroyed, and society will ultimately drift toward an excessively meritocratic direction. This concern extends beyond the issue of ability gaps; it raises fears that as human existence itself shifts from being “given” to being “made,” the meaning and value of life will be diminished.
However, my reasons for opposition are somewhat different. My primary reason for opposing human genetic modification is that its consequences are irreversible, and its effects do not remain confined to a single individual but can extend to society as a whole. For example, let us recall cases from the past, before the advancement of neuroscience, when so-called mentally ill patients underwent prefrontal lobotomies. At the time, this procedure was accepted as a method of treating mental illness, but in reality, it resulted in turning people into invalids. Those who underwent prefrontal lobotomies could never return to their original state, yet their children did not inherit this physical impairment.
However, genetic manipulation is different. If we attempt to prevent mental illness by genetically reducing the size of a child’s frontal lobe, the side effects are highly likely to affect not only that individual but also their descendants. This means that flawed genetic manipulation could remain in the human gene pool, causing ongoing harm to future generations. Simply stopping the manipulation will not solve the problem, and completely reversing its effects is practically impossible.
Some argue that we should ignore the side effects of such flawed genetic manipulation, claiming that “as technology advances, these side effects will be resolved.” However, advancing that technology requires countless experiments, and ultimately, humans will be the subjects of those experiments. The very act of arbitrarily selecting subjects for genetic manipulation experiments poses a significant ethical problem. Unlike voluntary participation in clinical trials, genetic manipulation experiments can determine the fate of subjects regardless of their consent.
Furthermore, no matter how great the benefits of genetic manipulation may be, we must not ignore the ethical issues and social costs that arise in the process. Even after genetic manipulation technology is fully developed, the social conflicts and risks it brings will still remain. In particular, as the likelihood of society becoming meritocratic increases, so does the risk that those who do not benefit from the technology will face discrimination and marginalization. Ultimately, in a situation where the benefits of the technology are not distributed evenly across society, the inequality caused by genetic manipulation is bound to deepen.
Of course, many people may support genetic manipulation aimed at preventing genetic diseases in children. This is because there is a clear justification for preventing issues that threaten life or significantly impair quality of life, such as genetic diseases. However, even in such cases, we must fully consider the side effects and long-term impacts of genetic manipulation, and we must not overlook the ethical issues that may arise in the process. Furthermore, even if genetic manipulation technology is developed for purposes such as treating genetic diseases, there is a high likelihood that it will eventually be used for other purposes, such as enhancement. As the boundaries of technology become increasingly blurred, it will become harder for us to determine where the acceptable realm ends and where the line we must not cross begins.
Therefore, I take a clear stance against the question, “Is it acceptable to genetically design humans?” This is because the irreversibility of human genetic modification and the resulting social and ethical issues are simply too great. For the question, “Is it acceptable to genetically engineer our children?” I must also oppose it for the same reasons. No matter how great the potential benefits of genetic engineering may be, I do not believe they are worth the risks and ethical issues that would arise in the process.
In conclusion, the practice of genetically engineering children carries a high risk of undermining human dignity and ethical values, and the dangers it poses are simply too great. Even as technology advances and society evolves, we must approach human genetic engineering with caution, and we must be even more vigilant given the irreversible consequences it could entail.
