This blog post takes an in-depth look at the ethical implications of how human nature and social values could change if genetic engineering becomes a reality.
In the movie “Gattaca,” most children are born with artificially engineered genes. The parents’ sperm and egg are each collected to create an artificially fertilized egg, and the genes are edited. Only fertilized eggs that have a low incidence of rare diseases and a low probability of disability are implanted into the womb. Children born this way have no physical abnormalities. They are born with bodies that can easily withstand a life expectancy of 100 years. In addition, it is possible to change the child’s innate talents, personality, and appearance through additional manipulation.
In the novel “Brave New World,” children are born in artificial wombs rather than in their mothers’ wombs, and people live a lifetime in a young and healthy body and die comfortably. Isn’t that amazing? This story may sound like something from the distant future, but the day when our society changes into a society like the one in “Gattaca” or “Brave New World” may not be far off. Rapidly advancing genetic engineering technology has made this prediction possible. In fact, in today’s in vitro fertilization process, there is a process called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, which screens and implants genes in advance, similar to the babies in “Gattaca.” Fertilized eggs are created by fertilizing eggs with sperm taken from the parents, and genetic diseases are diagnosed in the embryo cells four to five days later. Through preimplantation genetic diagnosis, the presence of gene defects or other genetic diseases is determined, and only embryos with the best genes are implanted.
Modern genetic engineering technology has reached the level of diagnosing the genes of embryos and determining implantation. In particular, the CRISPR gene scissors, which were a hot topic in the life sciences community in 2015, are further spurring the development of this technology. CRISPR is an enzyme that cuts out DNA with specific genes in human, animal, or plant cells. This technology can shorten the time required for conventional gene editing, which can take several years, to a few days, and it can also edit multiple genes at the same time. A Chinese research team has succeeded in replacing the mutant hemoglobin beta (HBB) gene that causes anemia in human fertilized eggs (embryos) with a normal gene using CRISPR gene scissors. If this fertilized egg is implanted in the womb, the child will not be born with anemia. This is almost like the realization of “Gattaca.”
However, there are various concerns about the application of human genetic engineering to our society, which has reached this level. Should we accept human genetic engineering into our society? If so, how should we accept it? We need to think about this issue.
Human genetic engineering is clearly there for the benefit of humans. A healthy body that does not age, does not develop hereditary diseases, and is not easily penetrated by external viruses or bacteria has long been a dream of mankind. Genetic engineering technology can satisfy the desire for human health and longevity. However, on the other hand, this technology can threaten the nature and values of mankind.
In today’s competitive society, various technologies are used to enhance one’s appearance and abilities in order to increase one’s competitiveness. There are various methods used, including academies, certifications, diets, and plastic surgery. If human genetic engineering is introduced into our society, the list will be expanded to include genetic enhancement. How many people would refuse to have their child born with enhanced appearance, personality, intelligence, and health? The problem is that the process may undermine the dignity of human beings and the intrinsic value of democracy.
Genetic enhancement shows an eugenic aspect in that genetically unsuitable individuals are selected and removed to improve genetic traits. Increasing the population with superior genes and decreasing the population with inferior genes seems to be a good idea on the surface. However, we already know the harmful effects of eugenics combined with totalitarianism in Nazi Germany. To increase the number of good genes, people with bad genes were forcibly sterilized or massacred, resulting in serious human rights violations. The dignity of each individual was ignored in the name of improving the overall genetic makeup.
Even if future eugenics does not combine with totalitarianism, the results are not promising. In a competitive, capital-driven modern society, genetic manipulation is likely to be combined with issues of inequality. This is because access to genetic engineering technology will be unequally divided according to capital. Money is needed to satisfy the desire to have a child with better genes. The financial status of one’s ancestors determines whether future generations will have better genes or mediocre or inferior genes. In a competitive society, the one with a gene that has been enhanced through genetic engineering will naturally have a higher chance of winning. The unequal genetic strengthening that has been carried out over several generations may lead to a class-based logic that distinguishes between genetic aristocrats and genetic commoners. This is contrary to the principle of democracy, which holds that all citizens are free and equal.
Also, the inferior genes advocated by eugenics cannot be considered inferior. One example is sickle cell anemia. Normal red blood cells have round hemoglobin that supplies oxygen smoothly, but due to a genetic mutation, the modified red blood cells with sickle-shaped hemoglobin do not supply oxygen smoothly, causing chronic anemia. At first glance, it seems that the fully dominant (SS) red blood cells with round red blood cells are advantageous for survival. However, when the round red blood cell gene and the sickle-shaped red blood cell gene are heterozygous (Ss), they maintain the round red blood cell shape while being resistant to malaria. The sickle-shaped red blood cell gene, which appears to be inferior, has existed for so long because it was advantageous for survival in places like Africa, where malaria is prevalent. This is the result of natural selection. As shown in the case of sickle cell anemia, even the same gene is advantageous or disadvantageous for survival depending on the environment in which the individual lives, and each of them undergoes natural selection. Then, can we say that the traits that have been artificially selected and evolved by humans, rather than by nature, are the same as those that are selected by natural selection among various mutants? We should consider whether genetic engineering that works to suppress mutations is actually an obstacle to human evolution.
With the rapid development of science and technology, it has theoretically reached a level where human limitations can be overcome through genetic manipulation. However, while the development of technology is very fast, ethical considerations on the application of that technology are not keeping up with the pace. The application of human genetic engineering has ethical issues such as eugenics and equality. Therefore, human genetic engineering technology should be applied only to the extent that is beneficial to humans and minimizes social problems. For example, the sex of an embryo should only be selected if a genetic disease that is inherited from the parents is detected through preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Sex selection based on parental preference should be prohibited. This is to prevent the imbalance of the sex ratio in the population. In addition, genetic manipulation should only be allowed when the symptoms of genetic diseases are fatal to the human body. Guidelines for each genetic disease and genetic manipulation should be presented at the government and social levels.
On the other hand, these sanctions may be seen as restricting human development. However, in order to minimize social disruption, I think it is preferable to apply ethical discussions on technology after the technology is applied, rather than when the technology is abused without any awareness.
