Advances in genetic engineering technology have made “personalized babies” a reality, but this raises important questions about human moral values and ethics. While some people are concerned about excessive parental agency and undermining social values, others believe that legal regulation can help establish bioethics, prevent diseases, and reduce social costs.
A “designer baby” is a baby born by selecting or creating a normal embryo with a specific genetic trait after creating an artificially fertilized embryo. Recent advances in biotechnology have made genetic manipulation possible, allowing parents to select or enhance certain genetic traits in their children. While the possibilities of this technology are endless, there are still important bioethical questions that need to be answered. It’s important to recognize that genetic modification is not just a biological advance, but an important issue that calls into question the meaning and value of human existence. It’s time to move beyond a vague rejection of genetic modification as a challenge to the realm of the divine and redefine our moral values by reflecting on how it might affect society and individuals.
In his book The Case Against Perfection, philosopher Michael Sandel argues that the moral meaning of life begins with accepting the nature of life as a given. He argues that when humans attempt to artificially re-engineer life through genetic manipulation, they undermine the inherent value of life, which he calls “human excessive agency. Sandel criticizes the practice of parents designing their children’s genetic traits as excessive parenting, arguing that it overlooks the essential mystery and contingency of human existence. In his view, human life should not be viewed as a planned outcome, but rather as a gift with unpredictable possibilities.
Theologian William May divides parental love into “accepting love” and “transforming love”. Accepting love is an attitude that accepts your child for who they are, while transforming love is an attitude that helps them live a better life. May argues that only by balancing both types of love can parents provide true affection for their children. However, in the modern world, many parents tend to focus on transformative love, which leads to problems such as excessive competition for admission, early education, and the private education craze. Sandel characterizes this “transformative love” as excessive parental agency, and emphasizes that genetic manipulation to create customized babies is no different in nature.
If there is a movement to regulate genetically engineered technologies, it is to maintain social stability and moral values. In the past, advances in science and technology have put human moral values to the test, and sometimes these changes have led to major social conflicts. However, humans have adapted to social change by developing moral values. For example, in 2008, the UK’s medical ethics regulator, the HFEA, allowed the birth of a genetically-matched baby to treat a terminally ill sibling. This shows that when genetic manipulation is unavoidable, it can be limited through legal regulation. Thus, while there may be conflicts between the autonomy of the child, the value of respect for life, and the desires of parents, legal regulation can provide social legitimacy and harmonization.
It is also important to note that Sandel’s concern about “excessive parental agency” can be addressed through legal regulation. He predicts that parents’ use of genetic manipulation to manipulate their children’s genetic traits will take the same form as tutoring and drug abuse. But genetic manipulation is different from tutoring and drugs. The technology is done under the supervision of highly skilled doctors and scientists, so there are safeguards in place to control parental agency and prevent excessive interference. Thus, Sandel’s problem of excessive parental agency can be adequately controlled by legal mechanisms, which opens up the possibility of evaluating genetic modification as a scientific advance rather than simply as an ethical issue.
Some oppose genetic modification because it could undermine societal values, especially those of hard work and achievement. If genetic manipulation creates children with superior abilities, it could lead to a society that relies on genetics rather than valuing hard work and passion. However, genetics does not determine all human abilities, and acquired factors still play an important role. For example, even if you’re the child of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan, who have exceptional athletic abilities, you’re not going to be able to perform at the same level as your parents if you don’t put in the effort. Even if genetic manipulation can give you some traits, you can’t ignore your child’s individuality and potential for development.
The issue of genetic diversity from an evolutionary perspective is also often raised as an argument against genetic modification. The idea is that if everyone doesn’t want a certain gene, the human gene pool could eventually become homogenized. However, there are two types of gene editing techniques: somatic and germline gene editing, and somatic gene editing avoids this problem because it cannot be passed on to future generations. By only allowing somatic gene modification and banning germline gene modification, we can ensure that future generations will not be affected by genetic modification. In fact, the United States and the United Kingdom allow somatic cell genetic modification and ban germline genetic modification.
Another benefit of genetic modification is disease prevention and reduced societal costs. If we can prevent certain genetic diseases through genetic modification, we can save money and time on treatment, which translates into long-term societal benefits. By preventing the onset of genetic diseases in the first place, the burden on the healthcare system can be reduced, which in turn benefits society as a whole. For example, personalized medicine can use a technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to selectively eliminate embryos with genetic defects. This is useful for reducing the cost of unnecessary treatments, and the economic benefits to individuals and society from personalized medicine are significant.
In conclusion, the ethical dilemmas surrounding genetic modification can be resolved through a balance of legal regulations and moral values. This will allow us to explore the possibility of reaping the benefits of scientific advances while maintaining the intrinsic value of being human. To maximize the social benefits of genetic modification and minimize the moral issues, we need the right legal framework and social consensus.
