In this blog post, we explore the innovations and ethical dilemmas surrounding genetic engineering. We reflect on the impact that technologies for manipulating life will have on our lives and the choices we must make.
Genetic engineering is the field of science in which humans artificially manipulate the genes of living organisms to benefit everyday life. The origins of genetic engineering stem from natural curiosity; humans have long observed and utilized the characteristics of living organisms. In the latter half of the 20th century, the discovery that the double-helix structure of DNA contains all the information regarding our lives sparked rapid advancements in genetic engineering. This discovery went beyond a mere scientific achievement, opening up the possibility of understanding the essence of life and applying it to meet human needs.
Examples of key genetic engineering technologies include nuclear transfer, DNA recombination, and cell fusion, all of which are widely utilized in the fields of medicine and agriculture. For instance, in agriculture, efforts are underway to develop crops resistant to pests and diseases or plants that can withstand drought, aiming to address food security issues. These technological advancements have enriched human life, and in the medical field, they are providing new treatments for diseases that could not be cured with existing therapies.
In 1997, scientists succeeded in cloning a sheep for the first time using genetic engineering technology. This event clearly demonstrated the potential of genetic engineering, and the development of cloning technology sparked ethical debates regarding the possibility of human cloning. Furthermore, the movie *Gattaca* depicts a future where only dominant genetic factors are passed on during childbirth, allowing for the birth of children who are perfect in every way. The potential and possibilities of genetic engineering are so immense that the scenario portrayed in this film may well become a reality in the not-too-distant future. However, it is essential to carefully consider the social and ethical issues that such possibilities may bring.
However, as with all science and technology, genetic engineering also possesses a dual nature, with both positive and negative aspects. While advances in genetic engineering make the dream of extending life a reality, the potential side effects of misusing this technology are severe. For example, even if a specific disease is successfully treated, the possibility of unexpected new diseases emerging cannot be ruled out. Moreover, genetic engineering can be said to carry greater inherent risks than any other science or technology. This is because genetic engineering deals with life itself. Manipulating human genes is not merely a technical issue but also a matter concerning the very foundation of human existence. Consequently, genetic engineering must be handled with great care, and the ethical issues surrounding it must be actively debated.
Regarding the question, “Is it acceptable to design children through genetic engineering?” Michael Sandel takes a negative stance in his book *On the Ethics of Life*. Sandel argues that attempting to design a child is an act of parental arrogance and an impulse to conquer the mystery of birth. He argues that we must respect a child’s unique characteristics, and that “designing” a child through genetic engineering distorts the natural process of birth. Sandel contends that since health is not a type of good that can be maximized, the distinction between treatment and enhancement is unclear; therefore, he links the manipulation of a child’s genes through genetic engineering to eugenics and argues that it is morally wrong. Parental love has two aspects: accepting love and transforming love, and Sandel emphasizes the importance of balancing these two.
I hold a position contrary to Sandel’s. I have a positive view on genetically modifying children through genetic engineering. Moral and ethical standards change with the times. Many of the scientific and technological advancements we enjoy today were initially met with public criticism and opposed on moral grounds.
Just looking at examples such as electricity, automobiles, and organ transplants, there was a great deal of negative sentiment in the early days, but over time, their usefulness has been recognized. Of course, as science and technology advance, new problems arise, but we must also consider the benefits people gain from them. For instance, while genetic engineering technology may be criticized for fostering a culture that devalues life, it also offers the benefit of treating genetic diseases that were previously untreatable by conventional methods. Through this, we can understand how positively genetic engineering can impact human life.
Another reason to support it is that, for people who have long suffered from genetic diseases or congenital disabilities, this technology can offer a definitive solution—one that surpasses any other form of assistance. A person born with a genetic disease did not suffer an accident due to carelessness, nor did they contract the disease because of poor lifestyle habits. They simply have to live with discomfort for their entire lives because their genetic sequence points to that disease. So, what is the difference between ordinary people and those with genetic diseases? Even if there is a difference in DNA sequences, this is a difference determined purely by chance. Does anyone think it is reasonable that someone’s genes are determined by a twist of fate, forcing them to live a life of suffering? I do not think so. I believe that genetic therapy in the field of genetic engineering will eliminate this injustice and serve as a solution for a more equitable society.
Sandel criticizes today’s parents for leaning toward a “transformative love” rather than an “accepting love,” while emphasizing the importance of the latter. However, we cannot say that what is most natural is always best. According to the laws of nature, people with genetic diseases or disabilities would not be able to survive on their own. However, our society does not pursue that path. Our society establishes welfare facilities for people with disabilities, operates programs to assist them in various ways, and, from a technological standpoint, makes great efforts to eliminate the inconveniences caused by disabilities rather than letting them fall by the wayside. The development of artificial arms, legs, prosthetics, and wheelchairs is part of these efforts. Manipulating genes through genetic engineering from the outset to fundamentally eliminate their disabilities and give them healthy bodies can also be seen as an extension of these efforts.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that, in principle, there is no difference between a child’s development through education and training and development through biotechnology. Today, many parents “design” their children to suit their own preferences by sending them to expensive private academies or administering growth hormone injections to develop their abilities and promote their growth. If genetic engineering were used, the results would be incomparably superior to those achieved through postnatal education and training. If genetic manipulation of children were to occur, it would simply be a choice of an efficient, results-oriented method rather than a change in the parents’ intentions or hearts. Furthermore, since most parents act with the goal of enhancing their children’s happiness, even if they “design” their children through genetic engineering, the purpose remains unchanged: it is for the children’s happiness.
In summary, regarding the question, “Is it acceptable to design children through genetic engineering?” I believe there is no issue as long as it is done under certain conditions and regulations. Although I hold a positive stance on the genetic modification of children through genetic engineering, I believe that before utilizing genetic engineering technology to modify a child’s genes, the scope of what is permissible must be clearly defined, parents must be vetted to ensure they are qualified to use this technology, and care must be taken to prevent discrimination in genetic modification based on parents’ income levels or social status.
