Genetic engineering offers revolutionary possibilities for life extension and disease treatment, but it also raises ethical questions. It is important to consider the positive and negative impacts of this technology on human life, and to discuss its appropriate use and the decisions it will require from future societies.
Genetic engineering is the artificial manipulation of the genes of living organisms to benefit them in real life. Genetic engineering has its origins in natural curiosity, and humans have long observed and exploited the characteristics of living things. In the late 20th century, genetic engineering began to develop at a rapid pace when it was realized that a double-helix-shaped molecule called DNA contained all the information about our lives. More than just a scientific achievement, this discovery opened up the possibility of understanding the nature of life and harnessing it for human needs.
Examples of key technologies in genetic engineering include nuclear replacement, DNA recombination, and cell fusion, which have a wide range of applications in medicine and agriculture. In agriculture, for example, attempts are being made to solve the food problem by developing crops that are resistant to pests or plants that are drought tolerant. These advances in technology have enriched human life, and in medicine, they are providing new treatments for diseases that were previously incurable.
In 1997, the first sheep was successfully cloned using genetic engineering techniques. This event demonstrated the promise of genetic engineering, and advances in cloning technology have sparked ethical debates about the possibility of human cloning. Furthermore, the movie Kataka envisioned a future in which only dominant genes could be inherited during childbirth, resulting in a perfect child in every way. The potential and possibilities of genetic engineering are enormous, and it’s possible that this movie could become a reality in the near future. However, it is also essential to think about the social and ethical issues that these possibilities bring.
But as with all science and technology, genetic engineering is a double-edged sword, with both bright and dark sides. While advances in genetic engineering are making the dream of life extension a reality, there are also serious side effects that can occur if the technology is misused. For example, even if we succeed in curing a particular disease, there is still the possibility that new, unexpected diseases could arise. Furthermore, genetic engineering has more inherent risks than any other science and technology. This is because we are dealing with life. Manipulating human genes is not just a technical issue, it’s about the fundamentals of human existence. Because of this, genetic engineering must be handled with care, and the ethical issues surrounding it must be vigorously debated.
“Michael Sandel takes a negative stance on the question of “Should we genetically design our children?” in his book The Ethics of Life. Sandel argues that trying to design a child is parental arrogance, a parental urge to conquer the mystery of birth. He argues that a child’s unique characteristics should be honored, and that “designing” a child through genetic engineering distorts this natural process of birth. Sandel argues that because health is not a maximizable good, the distinction between cure and enhancement is unclear, and therefore using genetic engineering to manipulate a child’s genes is morally wrong and associated with eugenics. Parental love has two aspects: accepting and transforming, and Sandel emphasizes the importance of balancing the two.
I disagree with Sandel’s position. I have a positive opinion about the genetic modification of children through genetic engineering. Moral and ethical standards change with the times. Many of the technologies we enjoy today were initially criticized by the public and opposed on moral grounds. Electricity, the automobile, and artificial organ transplants are just a few examples of technologies that were initially viewed negatively, but over time, their usefulness has been recognized. Of course, as technology advances, new problems arise, but we should also consider the benefits it brings to people. For example, genetic engineering can be criticized for creating a culture of disrespect for life, but the benefits of this technology include the ability to treat genetic diseases that were previously untreatable. This allows us to understand how genetic engineering can have a positive impact on human life.
Another reason to be in favor of it is that for people who have been suffering from genetic diseases or congenital disorders, this technology could be the ultimate solution, more than any other consideration. People who are born with a genetic disease are not the victims of an accident, nor did they acquire it through carelessness or poor lifestyle choices. They simply have to live with discomfort for the rest of their lives because their gene sequence points to the disease. So what’s the difference between a normal person and a person with a genetic disease? Even if there is a difference in DNA sequence, it’s a difference that’s simply a matter of chance. Does anyone think it’s reasonable that someone should have to live the rest of their life in pain because their genes have been fixed by a game of chance? I don’t think so. I think genetic engineering and gene therapy will eliminate this absurdity and be the solution to a more equitable society.
Sandel emphasizes the importance of accepting love, criticizing today’s parents for being biased toward transforming love rather than accepting love. However, the most natural is not always the best. According to the laws of nature, a person with a genetic disease or disability would not be able to survive on their own. But that’s not how our society works. We have established welfare facilities for people with disabilities, run programs to help them in various ways, and made great efforts in terms of technology to eliminate the inconvenience of disabilities rather than letting them die out. The development of artificial arms, legs, prosthetic limbs, wheelchairs, etc. is part of this effort. The use of genetic engineering to manipulate genes to essentially eliminate their disabilities and give them healthy bodies in the first place is an extension of this effort.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that there is no difference in principle between the development of a child through education and training and the development of a child through biotechnology. Today, many parents “design” their children to their liking by sending them to expensive schools or injecting them with growth hormones to develop their abilities and promote their growth. With genetic engineering, the results will be incomparably better than acquired education and training. If a child is genetically engineered, it is not a change of heart or intent, but rather a choice of an efficient and results-oriented method. Furthermore, most parents will act in ways that increase the happiness of their children, so designing a child with genetic engineering will not change the fact that the purpose is for the child’s happiness.
To summarize, I don’t think there is a problem with the question “should we genetically engineer our children?” as long as there are conditions or regulations. Although I am in favor of genetic engineering, I believe that before using genetic engineering technology to manipulate a child’s genes, the scope of genetic engineering should be clearly defined, the parents should be verified to be qualified to use the technology, and care should be taken to ensure that there is no discrimination based on the income level or social status of the parents.
