This article discusses the implications of using genetic engineering to manipulate your child’s genes for the future of the human race. It warns of the potential dangers of genetic engineering, arguing that a reduction in genetic diversity could be detrimental to human survival in the long term.
Since Gregor Mendel’s discovery of the laws of heredity in the 19th century, genetics has advanced at a rapid pace. In the 1950s, Watson and Crick unravelled the double helix structure of DNA, our genetic material, and in the 2000s, the Human Genome Project was completed, decoding all the genetic information that makes up a human being. Humans have since gone so far as to clone the genetic information of animals and commercialise genetically identical cloned animals. Nowadays, there is a lot of research going on to genetically test fetuses before they are born to predict future diseases and to eliminate genes that are critical to their development.
Michael Sandel makes a fascinating argument in his book, Should We Genetically Engineer Our Children? He argues in favour of accepting life as a ‘given gift’ and against it. His first argument is that parents can live with the uncertainty of their children’s futures if they do not genetically engineer them. In other words, the uncontrollable fate of their children teaches parents to be open-minded, to accept the uncertainty of the future, and to temper their desire to control everything. Second, he worries that genetic engineering will expand the scope of parental responsibility. For example, for diseases that can be known in advance through genetic testing, such as Down syndrome, parents should be held accountable for their decisions. Finally, Sandel points out that when an individual’s fate is determined not by luck but by their own and their parents’ decisions, the sense of community among members of society can be undermined. People who are successful because of genetic design may attribute their success to their own hard work rather than luck, and therefore feel less responsible for sharing their gains with those who are less fortunate and less gifted.
On the other hand, what arguments do proponents of genetic engineering use? One of the main arguments they use is that genetic engineering can improve the life expectancy and health of humans, and improve their intelligence and physical abilities, thus levelling up the overall quality of society. They predict that this will lead to accelerated social development, which in turn will lead to prosperity for humanity as a whole. There are also those who are in favour of genetic engineering because it can achieve equality of opportunity rather than equality of circumstance.
So, if you were to ask me the question, ‘Should parents be allowed to genetically design their children?’ what arguments would I make? In conclusion, like Michael Sandel, I would oppose the genetic design of children. This is because genetically designing children could have a negative impact on human survival in the long run.
Parents use genetic engineering to limit the phenotype of their children. In other words, genetic manipulation reduces phenotypic diversity within the human gene pool, which is detrimental to human survival. This argument also works well as a rebuttal to criticisms of the loss of diversity in the gene pool. Some argue that genetic engineering interventions reflect the different upbringings and values of each individual, so genetic diversity will remain intact. However, this argument is also weak. Genetic diversity should not be viewed from an individual perspective, but rather from the collective perspective of the gene pool. If genetic modification is done according to the values of the group to which an individual belongs, the diversity of the gene pool will inevitably decrease.
Even if genetic modification is not done uniformly, the reduction of genetic diversity can still occur. This is because even if different genotypes are removed by different members of society, the result is the same: a shrinking gene pool.
Some critics argue that it is important for the gene pool to consist of traits that are favourable for human survival, rather than just a large number of genotypes, so that even if the ‘quantity’ of genetic diversity is reduced, the ‘quality’ may improve. The idea is that incurable diseases such as cancer and diabetes can be prevented. However, can humans accurately determine whether a particular genotype is favourable or unfavourable for survival? I would argue in the negative. How humans assess the qualitative value of a genotype relies on empirical facts and scientific knowledge at the time. However, genetic engineering is an incomplete science. It is difficult to expect that judgements based on such an incomplete body of knowledge will lead to positive results.
Take sickle cell, for example: sickle cells are known to cause anaemia, which reduces survival rates, but they are also resistant to malaria. If the genotype associated with sickle cell were eliminated to treat anaemia, malaria deaths would likely increase. The value of genotypes is relative to the environment and is very difficult for humans to determine.
So, even if a society selects a genotype to suit its environment, there is no certainty that the trait is advantageous for survival. Parents select genes according to the social norms of the time, and these may be socially favoured traits, but not necessarily survival-advantageous traits. For example, the ‘beauty weight’ favoured by women in modern society is lower than the standard weight, which may be detrimental to their health. In this way, social preferences and survival-advantageous traits do not coincide.
In conclusion, the problems associated with the loss of genetic diversity remain serious. Genetic diversity must be maintained if humanity is to survive in the uncertainty of the future. The desire of parents to genetically design their children can be seen as a foolish arrogance that threatens the survival of the human race.
