This article criticizes Michael Sandel’s interpretation of genetic engineering as an ethical issue related to parental greed, and argues that it is necessary to define the boundaries between treatment and enhancement. It emphasizes the need for a balanced discussion of the benefits and ethical issues of genetic modification.
With biotechnology advancing at an exponential rate, humans are now turning their attention to genetic modification not only to cure diseases but also to prevent them. But as with any biotechnology, genetic modification is at the center of many controversies. In this book, Michael Sandel approaches the debate from a different perspective. Instead of looking at it through the lens of ethics, he looks at it through the lens of parent-child relationships.
In his book Bioethics, Michael Sandel argues that parenting can be divided into two types of love: accepting love, where we accept our children as they are, and transforming love, where we want to change them for the better. Ideal parenting, he argues, is a balance between the two. However, he criticizes modern parenting for being overly controlling and skewed toward transformative love, which is the love that seeks to perfect the child. Michael Sandel interprets genetic manipulation as a reflection of this excessive parental greed and opposes it as a form of eugenics. While the arguments against genetic manipulation are usually based on ethical considerations related to the dignity of life, Michael Sandel’s interpretation of genetic manipulation as an act of parental enrichment provides a different perspective on the issue.
While Sandel has a point, his approach is problematic. He underestimates the role of therapy in genetic modification, and he separates therapy from reinforcement. If we only talk about enhancement without mentioning one of the core goals of genetic modification, we cannot properly test the legitimacy of genetic modification. As Michael Sandel himself has said, the line between treatment and enhancement is blurred, and it is impossible to have an accurate discussion if we only discuss one aspect of the two. If we look at genetic modification from a therapeutic perspective, we can not only eliminate many genetic diseases, but we can also potentially prevent them from occurring in the first place. If we look at genetic modification from an enhancement perspective, there are many potential problems, but there are also many positives from a therapeutic perspective.
Given the blurred lines between therapeutic and enhancement, a reasonable step is to define the boundaries between therapeutic and enhancement to maximize the therapeutic benefits of genetic modification and minimize the side effects of enhancement. However, establishing this line is extremely difficult. As Michael Sandel points out, the blurred line between enrichment and treatment is a problem, but the bigger problem is that the technology of human genetic modification itself has not yet been realized. It is possible that the boundaries between enrichment and treatment could change dramatically depending on how genetic modification is implemented. Therefore, the discussion of the boundaries between treatment and enrichment is something that should be addressed more specifically when genetic modification is more established. At this point, we can’t say whether genetic modification is good or bad.
Even if there comes a point in time when we can distinguish between enrichment and therapy, it is not right to unilaterally treat the enrichment aspect of genetic modification as unjustified. The fact that modern society is biased in favor of reinforcement does not make genetic modification unjust. The problem is our society’s overemphasis on parental reinforcement and our desire for it, not the technology itself. Just because over-sending children to tutoring is a problem doesn’t mean that sending them to tutoring to improve their grades is unjustified. Similarly, over-enhancement through genetic modification is a problem, but genetic modification itself is not.
Some people object to genetically engineered enrichment because of its specificity. Because genetic enhancement is achieved by directly manipulating genes, the trait is passed on to future generations, gradually accumulating the differences between those who can and cannot be genetically enhanced. In other words, they argue that genetic enhancement can be abused as a means of reinforcing the haves and have-nots. But it’s not the technology itself that’s the problem. It is the social structures that allow the poor to remain poor, and we cannot sanction actions that seek to empower individuals on the grounds that they increase the gap between rich and poor. The solution to the growing social divide caused by genetic engineering is not to ban it, but to reduce the divide through social welfare programs. Therefore, banning genetic engineering out of concern for the rich and poor is like trying to fix a barn after losing a cow.
Alongside the issue of genetic modification and its impact on the poor and the rich is the ethical issue that arises from manipulating genes. There has always been a lot of pushback against biotechnology, but most of these arguments have tended to diminish over time. When IVF was first implemented more than 60 years ago, there were similar issues to those raised by opponents of genetic manipulation. However, more than 5 million new lives have been created through IVF to date, and the initial ethical concerns have diminished. This is because the benefits of IVF are clear, and many institutional and technological safeguards have been put in place to minimize side effects. If we follow the same path with genetic engineering, we can minimize the ethical issues as well.
In his book, Michael Sandel condemns genetic modification as the greed of parents who want to enhance their children, but what he overlooks is that there is no clear distinction between therapy and enhancement, so the two cannot be explained in isolation. Given the obvious therapeutic benefits of genetic engineering, it’s not fair to discuss genetic engineering only in terms of the negative effects of enhancement. And even if we could separate enhancement from therapy, the problem would be excessive enhancement through genetic engineering, not the parent’s attempt to enhance the trait itself. Just as the end does not justify the means, the opposite is also true: the end does not prohibit or justify the means. For this reason, genetic manipulation is fully justified.
