Personalized baby technology could contribute to the prevention and treatment of genetic diseases, but it also has the potential to create ethical controversy and social inequality. A careful discussion is needed on how far this technology should be allowed.

Introduction

Thanks to the ongoing advancements in life sciences and technology, we have better healthcare and better well-being today than in the past. Accelerating advances in genetic research, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence are raising expectations for extending human life and preventing disease. With the advent of gene editing technology, we are now facing new questions about the nature of life. With the development of these life science technologies, a new type of baby called a “customized baby” has emerged. Through genetic testing and genetic manipulation of embryos through artificial insemination, it is possible to determine the characteristics of the baby to be born in advance, and it is currently possible to determine traits such as the baby’s gender and eye color, and it is expected that further research on human genes will determine not only physical appearance but also personality and intelligence. Personalized baby technology is also being used not only to determine the traits of these children in the embryo, but also to treat children with medical conditions. The advancements in this technology are not just medical, but also raise social and ethical issues, and raise philosophical questions about the extent to which humans can manipulate the laws of nature. There are many arguments for and against personalized baby technology, and these arguments for and against personalized babies could form the basis for important decisions about where and how far personalized baby technology should be applied when it is perfected. In this article, we’ll take a look at both the pro and con arguments, and discuss how far we should go with personalized babies.

Arguments in favor of personalized babies

First, personalized baby technology could prevent a child from having a genetic disease or disorder. In the process of creating a personalized baby, the genes of the embryo are tested before implantation, and the genes that are likely to cause disease or disability can be manipulated to eliminate the inherited disease causing factor, thereby solving the child’s congenital problems. This technology allows parents to prevent health problems that their children may face before they are born, which can have a positive impact not only on families but also on society as a whole. The birth of healthy children can contribute significantly to lowering healthcare costs, preventing disease, and improving the quality of life for individuals. In addition, this preimplantation genetic diagnosis technology is more economical than genetic disease treatment, which can reduce the burden on families. In particular, for families with genetic diseases, this technology can be a ray of hope, and on a societal level, it can contribute to reducing the incidence of severe diseases.
Secondly, it can be utilized for therapeutic purposes for children with diseases. If a family has a child with a rare or incurable disease, they can select and deliver an embryo with matching bone marrow or blood tissue to treat the child’s condition. In these cases, personalized babies can be a major breakthrough in disease treatment and contribute to solving problems that are difficult to overcome with conventional treatment methods. Third, it is possible to create children with superior innate abilities through genetic modification. By modifying genes that are involved in a child’s appearance or intelligence in the embryonic state, it is possible to enhance these genetic predispositions and create a child with a high level of innate ability. This opens up new possibilities for maximizing an individual’s potential and allows parents to shape their child’s future in a more positive way.

The arguments against personalized babies

First, it creates a culture of disrespect for life. When humans create life through artificial processes, it can undermine human dignity and human rights. Life is a product of nature, and human attempts to control it excessively risk undermining its mystery and nobility. Second, it can exacerbate conflicts between social classes. Wealthier families are more likely to use personalized baby technology to give birth to genetically superior children, which can lead to increased class conflict. This could lead to a new hierarchy in society based on genetics, which could further maximize existing social inequalities. Third, there are concerns about the misuse and abuse of genetically engineered technologies. There are concerns that the technology could be misused and abused, such as the production of combatants for military purposes or the cloning of humans for the illegal organ trade. Such misuse is not just an individual issue, but can pose serious ethical and legal issues for society as a whole, and could result in the technology spiraling out of control.

How far should personalized baby technology go?

Above, we’ve discussed what a personalized baby is and the arguments for and against it. In the next section, we will discuss the extent to which the proponents of personalized babies should limit their use to curing genetic diseases, treating patients, and modifying genetic traits, and accept or criticize the arguments and rebuttals that might be expected based on the arguments of the opponents above. While the potential benefits of personalized baby technology are undeniable, the potential for abuse and misuse of this technology cannot be ignored. Therefore, the discussion of where this technology should be permitted must be cautious and requires ethical and legal considerations on a case-by-case basis.
First, the use of personalized baby technology to treat genetic diseases could be applied for medical purposes. Opponents of personalized baby technology point to ethical conflicts such as the disregard for life, but it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that mere genetic manipulation in the embryonic state would lead to disregard for life. Humans have been manipulating nature for thousands of years, and medical advances have been made to improve human life. Even in 1978, when IVF was first introduced, there were many bioethical criticisms of the technology, but more than 30 years later, there are more than 4 million babies born through IVF worldwide, and it hasn’t raised any ethical issues such as disregard for life. Rather, it has been recognized as a technology for infertile couples, and in 2010, Dr. Robert Edwards was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his role in the creation of the first test-tube baby. This example shows that personalized baby technology can be used appropriately for medical needs and can be accepted with a change in social perception. We believe that personalized baby technology for the treatment of genetic diseases is an extension of this in vitro baby technology, and it can be seen as a beneficial and affordable technology for parents who carry genetic disease factors to ease their worries about their child’s illness and the cost of genetic disease treatment.
Next, I think that personalized baby technology for the treatment of children with diseases should be partially adopted without putting too much strain on the newborn’s body. In cases of incurable or terminal diseases, such as leukemia, bone marrow transplantation is necessary, and in such cases, personalized baby technology can be a life-saving and beneficial technology for children with diseases. This technology offers new treatment options that go beyond current medical limitations and can offer great hope to patients and their families. However, it should not be used in cases where it would put a strain on the customized baby’s body, such as organ transplantation. Opponents of this technology will argue that it harms the human rights of the new baby and disrespects human dignity. However, if the application of the technology is not too taxing on the body of the customized baby, it can be rephrased as a technology that preserves human dignity by saving human life. When it comes to saving lives, personalized baby technology is not just a tool, but a realization of humanity, as long as proper procedures and ethical considerations are followed. In fact, on April 8, 2003, the UK High Court ruled in a case brought by a couple with a sick child that “the creation of a personalized baby is a legitimate use of new technology if it can save the child’s life,” and on May 20, 2008, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the UK’s medical ethics regulator, officially allowed the creation of a personalized baby with the same genetic traits to treat a terminally ill sibling. However, there is a possibility that these customized babies may grow up without the proper love from their parents or be used as expendable goods, which raises major ethical concerns. Therefore, legal and social mechanisms should be put in place to protect the human rights and welfare of customized babies. This is the responsibility of both parents and society, so parents seeking treatment for their sick children will need to be educated through counseling prior to the customized baby procedure, and social systems will need to be in place for their children through observation and visits over the next few years.
As mentioned above, personalized baby technology should be applied in limited areas, especially for human life for medical purposes. However, personalized babies for human trait modification should be avoided. Nicholas Agar argues that genetic modification should be treated on the same lines as environmental modification, and that just as it is ethically permissible for parents to actively intervene in the improvement of their environment, it should be morally permissible for parents to intervene in the enhancement of their children’s innate abilities through genetic modification. However, as opponents argue, these technologies can open the door to inequality and misuse of technology. If the technology starts to be used for commercial purposes, it could become a major threat to equality and fairness in society. If personalized baby technology is used not only for medical purposes, but also to determine human traits, it will deepen the gap between the rich and the poor, and could be abused to create personalized babies for illegal purposes. Lee silver, a molecular biologist at Princeton University in the United States, has also pointed out in his book that genetic manipulation due to the desire to improve the genes of children will lead to extreme polarization of society, creating a hierarchical society divided into a lower class of “Naturals” born through natural fertilization and an upper class of “GienRich” born through artificial genes. This is an important warning that the dangers of genetic engineering are real, not just imagined. Proponents will argue that abuse can be controlled with enough regulation. However, as with the misuse of narcotic painkillers, it is impossible to fully regulate this technology by law, and there is no denying that misuse of this technology could lead to major social problems, such as the creation of humans for war or for illegal purposes.
From the above argument, it could be argued that if personalized babies for genetic modification should be avoided because of the lack of sufficient regulation of misuse, then the use of personalized baby technology for the treatment of sick children would also be difficult to prevent. Of course, in the case of treating children with disabilities, the law can impose some level of regulation, but as we have seen in other cases, there is no such thing as perfect regulation. However, the purpose of eugenics is somewhat different from that of genetic modification. The medical purpose of treating a child with a disorder is to cure an incurable disease, whereas genetic modification is a technology that is adopted simply because of parental preference. This difference makes a big difference in the ethical justification of the technology. It can be likened to the legal prohibition of narcotics, but the availability of narcotic painkillers and narcotic anesthetics for medical purposes. The issue of discriminatory adoption of personalized baby technology is no different than the issue of discriminatory adoption of narcotic painkillers and narcotic anesthetics, which have the same abuse problem but are available for medical purposes.

Conclusion

We’ve covered the arguments for and against personalized baby technology, and we’ve given our opinions. In conclusion, personalized baby technology is a complex tool with both promise and risk. In summary, we believe that personalized medicine for medical purposes that benefit human life, such as treating genetic diseases and treating children with disabilities, should be properly regulated, while personalized medicine for trait modification, which can lead to inequality and misuse, should be avoided. These are important criteria for balancing technological advancement with ethical responsibility.
Whether we like it or not, we will soon be faced with the question of personalized baby technology, and the extent to which it should be applied is certainly an important issue. However, personalized baby technology is a double-edged sword, depending on how it’s used, and it shouldn’t be something we’re either for or against. We have a responsibility to embrace the new possibilities offered by science and technology, but also to scrutinize and prepare for the social and ethical issues it may raise. Therefore, we need to think in advance about the scope of the application of personalized baby technology to improve the quality of human life without compromising human dignity and without causing problems such as misuse, and we believe that this article can serve as an indicator of the scope. I hope that such discussions will continue to be active in the future, and that technology can contribute to human welfare and development.