Humanity’s advances in biotechnology have made genetic modification possible, allowing for the prevention and treatment of genetic diseases, as well as the enhancement of physical and mental abilities. However, these technologies can raise ethical and social issues, which require the establishment of fair social systems and safety nets to address.
Since the distant past, humans have gradually discovered how to survive in their environment. In the beginning, we were limited to basic subsistence farming, animal husbandry, and handicrafts, but in the modern era, we developed cars, airplanes, ships, and other objects that could overcome our physical limitations. Now, we are on the verge of being able to biologically manipulate our genes to change the very nature of what it means to be human. Because biotechnology involves living things, it has begun to raise ethical questions.
Technological advances have provided many benefits to humanity. Vaccines to prevent infectious diseases, medical technologies to extend human life, and agricultural technologies to maximize productivity have all improved the quality of human life. In the context of these technological advances, genetic modification has inevitably emerged. More than just preventing and treating disease, genetic modification is emerging as a tool to enhance human capabilities and open up new possibilities. However, these possibilities also raise new ethical and social issues.
On February 18, 2013, an article was published on the science news site Livescience about a so-called designer child, a child genetically engineered in the womb. In the middle of the article, a technique is described that uses mitochondrial transfer to prevent a lethal gene from being passed on to the child. In a nutshell, the genetic material in the organelles called mitochondria is donated and swapped with the genetic material in the patient’s mitochondria. This suggests that it is already possible to genetically engineer children. In his book The Ethics of Life, Michael Sandel argues against genetically designing children for two main reasons. The first is that if genetic manipulation of children becomes possible, it could reinforce in parents an attitude of conquering the mystery of birth. This attitude, he argues, will rob parents of humility and compassion for human beings who have taken unpredictable turns. The second reason is that the attitude that even normal humans try to reinforce is part of their conformity to attain a perfect nature. Such an attitude, he argues, increases the tendency to complain and criticize what is given, and eventually leads to the loss of the meaning of life as a gift.
The building blocks of all living things are cells, and it is genes that allow them to perform various functions. In this sense, he believes that genetic manipulation can give humans a wide range of possibilities, but at the same time, it can also create various problems. However, I am in favor of genetically designing our children because I believe that the benefits of genetic engineering outweigh the threat of these problems and the possibility that they could become a reality.
Before we get into the specifics, there are a few things to point out about genetically designing children. First, I am assuming that we are having this discussion in an era where technology is advanced enough to consider using genetic manipulation as a means of enrichment. I am also assuming that designing a child means that the time frame is from fertilized egg to the age of adulthood or younger in Korea.
The biggest benefit of genetic manipulation of children is the treatment and prevention of genetic diseases. According to data from a health information site called Netwellness in 2010, many people are related to genetic defects: about 4 million children are born each year, and about 3-4% of them are born with a genetic disease or birth defect; about 1% of fetuses have a genetic disease caused by an abnormality in the number of chromosomes; deaths from genetic diseases or birth defects account for about 20% of fetal mortality; 10% of adults and 30% of children in the hospital have genetic problems. Even today, prenatal and postnatal testing is done to determine if a child has a genetic condition. Prenatal tests are mainly for conditions caused by abnormalities in the number of chromosomes, such as Down syndrome, and postnatal tests are for conditions caused by mutations in the sequence, such as phenylketonuria. However, currently, we can only identify the presence of a disease, but there are few ways to treat it fundamentally. Therefore, if it becomes possible to genetically manipulate a child, it will be possible to analyze the genetic diseases that the child has or will have in the future through testing and block them in advance, like vaccination. Even if a genetic disorder is caused by a gene mutation later in life, it will be possible to treat it with genetic engineering.
Some opponents of genetic design of children worry that manipulating genes will reduce the human gene pool, making us less adaptable to rapid environmental changes. Even now, there are many examples of society striving to have a “good” phenotype. Growth hormone is an example. People with very short stature, such as dwarfism, are given growth hormone to help them grow taller, but growth hormone is also given to children who are a little smaller than average or have slow growth. The idea is that if this practice of selecting for desirable traits becomes widespread, at some point children’s genes will be mostly similar, like mass-produced items in a factory. However, this argument ignores the fact that individuals have different ideas. Different people value different things. While some parents want to educate their children and send them to white collar jobs that are considered “good” by society, others want to encourage or support them in pursuing other careers, such as athletes, businessmen, farmers, etc. As we hypothesized earlier, if genetic manipulation is a fully established technology, parents will genetically design their children to be complementary to their intended career path. Because different jobs require different skills, the genes that are manipulated will vary, and genetic diversity will still be maintained.
Some might say that there are tendencies for “good” traits to be in vogue in certain eras. In other words, people may be diverse in what they seek, but they will be biased towards certain areas. In the case of the white collar jobs mentioned above, there are a limited number of qualities that are needed because they are mostly mental, so even though the jobs pursued may be different, the skills needed will be the same, reducing genetic diversity. However, there are many ways to acquire a trait. In some cases, there is only one gene responsible for a trait, but in other cases, there are many. A good example is height. To quote the article from livescience that we mentioned in the introduction, there are at least 50 genes that have been discovered that determine height. So, if you want to be taller, you can manipulate more than 50 genes, and there are many different combinations of genes. In some cases, there are multiple approaches to enhancing a trait. If you want to increase muscle strength through genetic manipulation, in addition to increasing the amount of muscle cells, you can also increase the efficiency with which they use energy. Because there are so many different directions that can be taken to change a trait, and so many different genes involved in expressing that trait, genetic design is unlikely to reduce genetic diversity because there are so many different combinations of genes that can be produced.
People who have ethical objections to genetically designing children may also object for other reasons. Perhaps the most common example is the violation of the dignity of human life. They might be able to think of two cases where the value of human dignity is violated. The first is that when genetic modification is performed, the human dignity of the targeted fetus is violated. This can be easily understood by realizing that there are two current scholarly definitions of human dignity. One is that dignity is a right that comes from being human, and the other is that it comes from living a human life. In the latter case, dignity is being human, not suffering, lacking nothing, and living in good health. Genetic manipulation of a fetus violates its most basic right as a human being: the right to be born and to live according to its own free will. However, a fetus is not a fully-fledged “human being” in the strict sense of the word until it is born, and it does not even have a sense of self, so it is hard to argue that genetic modification is against human dignity because it is merely a process of changing an immature human being for the better.
Another view of the dignity of the fetus is that it is treated as if it were the property of the parents. This is because it is the parents who are performing the genetic manipulation. This is a misunderstanding of the meaning of human dignity itself. The fetus is not owned by the parents, but the parents are responsible for creating the environment in which the fetus grows. Genetic manipulation of a child is just an investment that parents make to provide a better environment for their child. Parents are responsible for creating that environment from the time the fetus enters the world until it grows up. This responsibility includes not only the material environment, but also the mental environment, which is to say, the opportunity to live a happy life with a healthy body. Therefore, using genetic modification to create a healthy fetus is only fulfilling the parental responsibility.
In the second case, there is the possibility that the dignity of non-genetically modified people may be violated after the genetic modification is carried out. The idea of designer babies was originally conceived to prevent disease, but as technology advances, it can morph into a desire to create children with superior physical and mental abilities. This has the potential to widen the gap between the underclass and the upper class. People with less capital may not have access to genetically engineered technologies and therefore may be socially discriminated against by having inferior traits compared to those who are genetically engineered. This means that people are not just different in their traits, but that their traits lead to different social positions and opportunities. However, this is not the essence of human dignity. Human dignity is not simply determined by the dominance of traits. What is important is that society builds systems that prevent such discrimination and provide fair opportunities. Social safety nets and fair opportunities are essential to address the social inequalities that genetic engineering can bring.
In conclusion, genetically designing our children is one way to help them live healthier and happier lives. Preventing genetic diseases and enhancing individual abilities are important factors in improving the quality of human life. Of course, the ethical and social issues that these technologies can bring should be taken into account, but they shouldn’t be a reason to stop them from advancing. It is important to utilize genetically engineered technologies appropriately and strive to build a fair social system so that all people can benefit from them.
