Genetic engineering is the science of altering traits by manipulating the genetic makeup or genotype. Positive and negative genetic engineering exists, and the commercialization of positive genetic engineering can have side effects similar to those of eugenics in the past. Legal and ethical regulations are needed to prevent this.
Genetic engineering, as we often hear it, is a difficult discipline to define exactly where it falls. Genetic engineering is the science of manipulating an individual’s genetic makeup or genotype for the purpose of altering an observable trait or phenotype. The applications of genetic engineering span many areas, including healthcare, agriculture, and biotechnology, and require a multidisciplinary approach. In 2017, genetic engineering continues to evolve, and CRISPR technology in particular has shown remarkable advances, from being used to treat incurable diseases, clone animals, and more, to manipulating human genes to create customized babies for parents, something that was unimaginable just a few decades ago. CRISPR technology is more precise and efficient than traditional genetic modification methods, making it possible to correct disease genes or enhance genetic traits. However, these technological advances are always accompanied by ethical issues and social controversy.
Genetic engineering can be categorized into negative and positive genetic engineering, where negative genetic engineering is the use of genetic engineering to correct a genetic disorder or defect that an individual has, and positive genetic engineering is the use of genetic engineering to enhance an individual’s genetic traits. For example, an example of negative genetic engineering is the use of genetic engineering to treat muscular dystrophy, while an example of positive genetic engineering is the use of genetics to enhance the physical performance of athletes.
While there are many different applications of genetic engineering, and we can divide genetic engineering into positive and negative genetic engineering, even if genetic engineering is more advanced than it is today, the commercialization of genetic engineering should be limited to negative genetic engineering. In this article, we will look at the case of eugenics, which was similar to positive genetic engineering, and analyze the consequences of positive genetic engineering by analogy.
Before we discuss the commercialization of genetic engineering, let’s take a look at eugenics as it was practiced in the past. Eugenics was the study of various conditions and factors with the aim of genetically improving the human race. However, eugenics encouraged reproduction among the genetically fit and discouraged reproduction among the unfit, leading to genocide and unethical birth control practices such as forced sterilization, abortion, and pregnancy. Ultimately, eugenics was relegated to the history books because it discriminated against people based on the traits they exhibited. This was not the only criticism of eugenics: it was argued that eugenics encouraged reproduction only among genetically fit people, which would eventually lead to less genetic diversity, resulting in less genetic variation and less adaptability to environmental changes, similar to the effects of prolonged inbreeding.
If the commercialization of genetic engineering extends beyond negative genetic engineering to cure diseases and into positive genetic engineering to replace healthy genes with more desirable ones, it could have similar or even more serious side effects to eugenics. Both positive genetic engineering and eugenics have in common the goal of making babies have better genes, genes that parents want. Given these commonalities, consider the consequences of positive genetic engineering.
First, the side effect of poor environmental adaptation is likely to be more severe with positive genetic engineering. There are fewer traits that society wants in the modern world. For example, if there are smarter and less intelligent traits, the smarter trait will be more desirable. And the term “Gangnam beauties,” which refers to the similarity in appearance of people who have undergone plastic surgery, shows that there are fewer preferred traits in terms of appearance, such as small faces, large eyes, and high noses. Therefore, if the commercialization of genetic engineering extends to positive genetic engineering, which allows the introduction of any gene at will to improve an individual’s genetic traits, people will try to introduce genes that are similar to each other, and the side effect of reducing genetic diversity will continue in genetic engineering rather than eugenics.
Second, the problems of eugenics in the past, such as the widening gap between the rich and the poor and discrimination based on traits and genes, will be more severe than in eugenics. Eugenics indirectly manipulated genes by encouraging people with desirable traits to have children, or by implementing policies to prevent people with undesirable traits from having children, such as isolation, marriage restrictions, and so on, and it was not possible to know which genes a person had, only the phenotype that was expressed. However, as positive genetic engineering directly modifies genes by cutting and inserting them, the more advanced and commercialized positive genetic engineering becomes, the more direct and large-scale the effect of genes on traits will be, and the more discriminatory it will be because analyzing a person’s genes will reveal whether they have or do not have a particular gene. Furthermore, if people are able to introduce favored genes into themselves or their offspring through positive genetic engineering, the companies that provide such positive genetic engineering will seek to receive some form of payment, and those who can afford to use positive genetic engineering when it begins to be introduced will have a vested interest in the next generation to incorporate the so-called “superior” genes into their own genes, and the gap between rich and poor will widen over generations, and the social structure will become increasingly difficult to change.
Third, the commercialization of positive genetic engineering will lead to a dystopia in which even human traits and genes are graded. Human dignity is something that should be respected just for being human, and it is a serious violation of human dignity to be judged and graded based on the genes that a person is born with and cannot change through effort.
There are still some drugs that are not available for personal use, but are used in laboratories for research purposes or in hospitals for medical purposes. One example is propofol, which is classified as a psychotropic drug and can be punishable if used for anything other than anesthesia, but hospitals use it to provide sleep anesthesia for endoscopies and plastic surgery. In the same way that drugs are allowed to be used for medical purposes while prohibiting other potentially abusive uses, genetic engineering technologies should be prohibited from being used for anything other than research and medical purposes. While banning genetic engineering technology itself does not prevent research and thus stifle human intellectual curiosity, nor does it prevent the treatment of diseases that could be cured with the use of technology, it does prevent the commercialization of positive genetic engineering that allows individuals to manipulate their genes to their liking.
Finally, we must also consider the legal and ethical implications of commercializing genetic engineering technologies. As the development and commercialization of genetically engineered technologies progresses, so does the need for regulation and control. Governments and the international community should establish legal frameworks to ensure the ethical use of genetically engineered technologies and monitor compliance. Scientists and researchers must also fulfill their ethical responsibilities by considering the impact of their work on society. These legal and ethical standards are essential to ensure that genetic engineering is used in a way that promotes human well-being.
The potential of genetic engineering is enormous, but it requires a careful approach and thorough ethical consideration to ensure that it is used for the benefit of humanity. Before positive genetic engineering is commercialized, we must fully consider its ethical, social, and ecological consequences and work to ensure that these technologies do not undermine the dignity and diversity of humanity. We will need to continue to debate and research to ensure that advances in genetic engineering are truly beneficial to humanity.
