Advances in genetic engineering are making it possible to design your child’s genes. However, the manipulation of human genes is irreversible and has the potential to raise social and ethical issues. The benefits and risks of this technology need to be carefully considered.
With the rapid development of genetic engineering, manipulating human genes is no longer a science fiction, but a reality. There are several species of animals whose genetic sequences have already been sequenced, and technologies have been successfully developed to create new life forms by splicing genes from different species. The advent of CRISPR-Cas9, a gene-scissors technology, has greatly improved the accuracy and efficiency of gene editing, and the possibility of manipulating human genes at will is now a reality. If this research advances further, it will be possible for parents to instill desired genotypes in their children or, conversely, remove harmful genotypes. It’s time to take the question of “Should I genetically engineer my children?” seriously.
Let me start with the bottom line: I am against genetically designing children. This is not a simple technical issue, but rather one that involves complex moral and ethical issues that cannot be easily decided in favor or against. That’s why I’m going to argue this issue indirectly, rather than directly.
When we are trying to find an answer to an intractable problem, it can be useful to examine whether the premises of the problem are true. To put it another way, the question “Should we genetically engineer our children?” is a combination of two propositions: “Should we genetically engineer humans?” and “Should parents be able to design their children as they wish?”. If either of these are false, then the argument for genetically designing children fails. I want to focus on one of these in particular, “Can we genetically design humans?” and my answer to this question is “no”.
The question of genetically designing humans has already been discussed by various scholars. For example, in his book ‘ The Case Against Perfection, Michael Sandel argues against the genetic manipulation of humans from an ethical standpoint. Sandel warned that when human talent or ability changes from being the product of good fortune to being inevitable, the solidarity between the able and the unable is destroyed, and society becomes overly meritocratic. This isn’t just a matter of an ability gap, but a concern that human existence itself will become less of a “given” and more of a “made,” diminishing the meaning and value of life.
My reasons for opposition, however, are somewhat different. My main reason for opposing human genetic manipulation is that the effects are irreversible, and the impact can extend beyond the individual to society as a whole. For example, let’s take the case of lobotomies performed on so-called mentally ill people in the past, when neuroscience was not as advanced. At the time, this procedure was accepted as a way to cure the mentally ill, but it actually ended up crippling them. The people who underwent lobotomies were never the same again, but their children did not inherit this physical damage.
Genetic manipulation, however, is different. If we were to genetically shrink a child’s frontal lobes to prevent mental illness, the side effects would likely affect not only that individual, but their descendants as well. This means that misguided genetic manipulation can remain in the human gene pool, causing lasting damage for generations to come. Simply stopping the manipulation won’t solve the problem, and it’s nearly impossible to completely reverse the effects.
Some argue that “as the technology improves, the side effects will be addressed,” ignoring the adverse effects of genetic manipulation. However, it will take a lot of experimentation to improve the technology, and eventually the test subjects will be humans. The very idea of randomly selecting subjects for genetic manipulation experiments is ethically problematic. Unlike voluntary participation in clinical trials, genetic manipulation experiments can be life-or-death for subjects without their consent.
Furthermore, no matter how great the benefits of genetic modification may be, we shouldn’t ignore the ethical issues and social costs of the process. Even after genetic modification technology is perfected, there will still be social conflicts and risks that it brings with it. The more likely it is that we will become a meritocracy, the greater the risk that those who do not benefit from the technology will be discriminated against and marginalized. In the end, the benefits of the technology will not be distributed evenly across society, and the inequalities it creates will only increase.
Of course, many people may be in favor of genetic manipulation to prevent genetic diseases in their children. However, even in these cases, the side effects and long-term effects of genetic manipulation must be fully considered, and the ethical issues that may arise should not be overlooked. Furthermore, even if genetic modification is developed for one purpose, such as curing a genetic disease, it is likely that the technology will eventually be used for other purposes, such as enhancement. The more the boundaries of technology blur, the harder it will be for us to determine where is acceptable and where is a line that should not be crossed.
Therefore, I take a clear no position on the question “Should we genetically design humans?”. The irreversibility of human genetic manipulation and the social and ethical issues it raises are too great. For the same reason, I would say no to the question, “Should we genetically engineer our children?” because I don’t believe that the benefits of genetic engineering, no matter how great, are worth the risks and ethical issues that would arise in the process.
In conclusion, genetically designing children has the potential to undermine human dignity and ethical values, and the risks are far too great. Even as technology advances and society changes, we must approach the manipulation of human genes with caution, and perhaps even more so given the irreversible aftermath.
