Advances in genetic engineering have made it possible to manipulate the appearance and abilities of our children, not only to cure diseases, but also to create ethical problems and social inequalities.
Genetic engineering has come a long way, and as a result, people have mixed reactions to it: hopeful and worried. While some people are hopeful that modern medical technology will be able to fundamentally solve diseases that are difficult to overcome, others have a negative reaction from a moral point of view because of the possibility of manipulating the genes that contain all of our information. As a result, genetic engineering has become an important issue in today’s society.
Michael Sandel, author of ‘ The Ethics of Bioethics,’ discusses the issue of genetically designing children. Sandel opposes the idea of genetically designing children, arguing that ethical issues arise when people use genetic manipulation to enhance genes for personal purposes beyond simply treating disease. In particular, he argues that it is important for parents to view their children as a gift, that is, to accept them as they are, not to design them or see them as tools to fulfill their own ambitions. In response, William May defines parental attitudes as “openness to the future of chance” and “generosity toward the unchosen,” and emphasizes that parental love does not depend on the child’s abilities or attributes. Sandel also criticizes the practice of manipulating a child’s genes at will as eugenic. Eugenics seeks to genetically improve the human race by studying how genetic factors affect the traits of future generations. When parents manipulate their children’s genes to improve their abilities, it can be characterized as eugenics because it is done against their will and for the purpose of genetic enhancement.
Those in favor of designing children with genetic engineering view it positively because of its added value in treating diseases. They argue that due to the limitations of modern medicine, genetically engineered treatments for diseases such as genetic disorders could be a breakthrough and a revolutionary advance for humanity. They also argue that parents have a responsibility and vocation for their children’s well-being, and it is their right to give their children the opportunity to live a happier life through genetic engineering. For example, they argue that genetic manipulation can be used to correct birth defects that cannot be overcome through acquired efforts, thus expanding the child’s options. Birth defects include not only genetic diseases, but also traits such as appearance and height. For people who are unable to choose the path they want because of these issues, the argument goes, genetic manipulation could be a way to give them more options for their children’s well-being.
I am not opposed to genetically designing children for the purpose of curing diseases and overcoming disabilities, such as curing genetic diseases or cancer. However, I am not in favor of genetically designing children to enhance certain traits from a parent’s perspective, in the hope that the child will be more socially competitive and happy. For example, manipulating genes to maximize features such as appearance, height, intellect, musical talent, or athletic ability. Designing children for purposes other than curing diseases is negative for two reasons. First, it is thought that the parent’s intention, the happiness of the child, may be difficult to achieve through genetic manipulation. Second, they believe that even if this intention is achieved, it is likely to exacerbate social problems, especially wealth distribution. Unless there are adequate compensations and solutions to these two problems, I believe that genetic engineering to design children is dangerous.
The reason parents want to design their children through genetic engineering is for their own well-being. Enhancing a child’s appearance, intellect, athleticism, etc. to make them socially competitive is universally recognized in modern society as a way to make them happy. Therefore, if genetic engineering becomes available, most parents will use it to enhance their child’s functioning. However, I question whether genetic engineering can guarantee the happiness of children. Today, many parents try to improve their children’s intellectual abilities by investing in private education, but the happiness rate of Korea’s youth is still low. If it becomes possible to design children through genetic manipulation, it is likely that most parents will seek to enhance their children’s intelligence, athleticism, and musical talent, which will create competition like the current private education craze. In the end, only the wealthy who can afford it will benefit, and those who can afford genetic manipulation will be even fewer than those who can afford private education. As the impact on human life grows, the gap between those who benefit from genetic modification and those who do not will widen.
Are children happy in Korea’s competitive education environment? Currently, the happiness of Korean youth ranks among the lowest in many countries. If the benefits of genetic modification are monopolized by certain groups, the resulting differences and conflicts will be much greater than the conflicts over education in Korean society. If the question of whether children can be happy in such a society is not resolved, the design of children through genetic engineering will become an act that promotes conflict without the original intention.
If some groups, nations, or ethnicities are able to acquire superior traits before others and monopolize social, cultural, and economic dominance, this has the potential to become a global problem. Even now, the world’s wealth and influence is controlled by a small number of countries. If genetically designing children became a reality, everyone would want it, but only a few would actually benefit. This is because the technology would be extremely expensive and would take a long time to realize. For example, developing a new drug for a global pharmaceutical company typically costs more than $100 million and takes 1015 years, with an exclusive patent for 1520 years to recoup the cost of development. Genetically engineered technologies will be even more costly, and the exclusivity period will be even longer. Given that the initial cost of genetic analysis was around $100 million, the initial cost of genetically engineered technologies is likely to be unimaginable. Even if the cost of the technology subsequently decreases, it will take at least 30 years for universal benefits to be realized. During this time, the beneficiaries are likely to maintain a monopolized position in society, economy, politics, culture, etc.
It can be argued that laws and policies are needed to regulate the acquisition of superior traits through genetic modification, limiting it to treating diseases. In the case of an acquired disease, if it can be reversed through genetic manipulation, the child will have a happier life, and as long as the germline genes are not manipulated, there is less risk that the dominant trait acquired in the process of treating the disease will be passed on to future generations, and therefore less chance of causing social problems. However, allowing genetic manipulation to prevent diseases rather than simply treating acquired diseases could cause social problems, although to a lesser extent than directly selecting and manipulating superior traits. For example, if a person has a high risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, genetic modification could be allowed as a preventative measure, but the decision to do so should be based on the probability of developing the disease. If these criteria are not clear, it also raises the question of how to limit the scope or level of genetic modification when it is done to eliminate the possibility of genetic disease.
Genes are an important part of human life because they contain information about us. Today, advances in science and technology are unlocking the secrets of genes one by one, increasing the possibility of artificially altering human life. As a result, there are many different opinions about “should we genetically engineer our children”. I am in favor of genetic engineering to cure diseases, but I am not in favor of genetically engineering children for desirable traits such as physical appearance, intellectual ability, athleticism, and artistic ability. If genetic engineering is allowed to be used to design children, it will increase attempts to express certain traits outside of disease treatment, and it will increase social inequality due to the dominance of certain groups. Limiting the scope of genetic engineering through legislation and national policy, and limiting its use to treating diseases, would solve these problems and pave the way for children with genetic diseases to have a better life.
