In this blog post, we examine how gene design affects human autonomy and ethics, as well as the philosophical debates surrounding it.
Survival and reproduction are instincts shared by all living beings, and living a long and healthy life has long been one of humanity’s most fundamental aspirations. These instincts go beyond simply sustaining an individual’s life; they play a crucial role in ensuring the survival of the species by passing on one’s genes to the next generation. Not only humans but all living organisms have naturally adapted and evolved to pass on their genetic traits to the next generation. For example, some animals have developed camouflage to survive in specific environments or have evolved the ability to adapt to extreme conditions through physiological changes. These biological changes can all be seen as the result of natural selection accumulated over a long period to increase the likelihood of successful survival and reproduction.
So, is it ethically problematic to pass on superior traits that increase the likelihood of survival to one’s offspring? This question has become a major point of debate at the intersection of biological instinct and modern life sciences. It is a fundamental principle of natural selection that individuals with advantageous traits in the struggle for survival will survive and produce offspring, thereby increasing the likelihood that those traits will be passed on to future generations. As this process repeats, species adapt to their environment and evolve. Darwin’s theory of natural selection also explains the change and survival of species through this process.
Gene design is not a concept entirely divorced from this context. Advances in gene-editing technology demonstrate the possibility that humans can, to some extent, regulate the changes that natural selection has brought about over long periods of time. In particular, meaningful achievements are already being accumulated in research aimed at preventing or treating specific genetic diseases. However, current gene-editing technologies are primarily being researched for the purpose of treating diseases and have not yet reached the stage where desired traits can be freely designed. Nevertheless, these technologies demonstrate the potential to be utilized in the future to select genetic traits suited to the environment or to reduce the risk of disease, while simultaneously sparking ethical debates about the extent to which humans can intervene in the realm of nature. The question of whether it is justifiable for humans to control or manipulate the course of nature remains one of the central issues in the debate over gene design.
Michael Sandel explains the issue of gene design in terms of differing perspectives on “enhancement” and links this to the question of autonomy. Consider orthodontic treatment or vision-correcting surgery. Sandel argues that while the boundary between cure and enhancement is somewhat blurred, the distinction itself is important. However, there is a certain discomfort with the idea of establishing fixed criteria and subjecting only actions that exceed those criteria to ethical evaluation. Cure and enhancement differ only in whether genetic engineering methods are used; both aim to improve human physical capabilities or quality of life. In this respect, healing and enhancement share inherent similarities, and it is not easy to draw a clear line between them. Similarly, the enhancement of abilities through gene design does not differ significantly in purpose from the enhancement of abilities through education and training. One could simply view it as the emergence of a new method that did not exist before. In fact, Sandel himself acknowledges that the two approaches are not entirely different from a moral standpoint.
So, how should we think about autonomy? Let’s assume there is a child whose specific abilities have been enhanced through gene design. Based on these enhanced abilities, that child may be more likely to choose a particular career path or profession. In this sense, it might appear that autonomy is restricted. On the other hand, if the enhanced ability is a versatile one—such as intelligence—that can be applied across various fields, the likelihood of a specific life path being imposed would be relatively lower. Furthermore, in cases where serious genetic diseases are prevented or treated through gene-editing technology, this could actually open up more options. Ultimately, it is difficult to conclude that genetic design directly deprives individuals of autonomy, since no one chooses their own genetic traits before birth.
Meanwhile, the concepts of contingency and freedom discussed by Habermas are somewhat different from the concept of autonomy examined earlier. He argues that true freedom is possible only when there is contingency—the fact that the beginning of life is beyond human control. The more humans attempt to control everything, the more contingency disappears; and as contingency disappears, freedom and autonomy are also threatened. Since not only complete control but also partial control is a form of control, he believes that the very act of conferring specific abilities through genetic design can affect autonomy. In other words, Habermas’s position is that human intervention prior to birth—whether the abilities gained through genetic design are intended for a specific purpose or have diverse applications—can in itself undermine autonomy.
However, if we view freedom as a matter of choice, another interpretation is possible. As we saw earlier, no one is born having directly chosen their own genetic traits. In other words, whether or not they have undergone gene editing, no one chooses their pre-birth conditions for themselves. Both children born as a result of their parents’ choices and those born through natural processes are alike in that they did not determine their own conditions of birth. Furthermore, after birth, humans possess a wide range of possibilities to choose and shape their own lives. Whether genetic traits are formed by natural selection or partially modified by human intent, the fact that innate conditions exist does not differ significantly. Therefore, one could argue that autonomy holds greater significance in how one chooses and lives one’s life after birth than in whether one had control over conditions before birth.
However, just as with the debate surrounding reinforcement, Habermas’s argument ultimately leads to the question of what attitude one should adopt toward life. Here as well, Sandel argues that, regardless of a child’s autonomy, parents’ actions aimed at eliminating chance run counter to the norm of unconditional love and represent an attitude that fails to accept life as a gift. An attitude that accepts life as a gift enables gratitude and humility, but on the opposite end of the spectrum lies a perspective that views life as an object to be conquered and dominated. However, accepting life as a gift does not mean that one must deny all human effort and challenge. Ultimately, one’s attitude toward life is also a matter of balance. Genetic design, too, can be viewed as a technology that exists somewhere between active and passive values. And if it is difficult to establish an absolute dividing line between the two, the attitude of accepting life as a gift and genetic design can certainly coexist. If parents’ motivation to design their children stems not from excessive desire or a thirst for control, but from a concern for their children’s health and happiness—and if this is done within a framework that fully considers the children’s future and human dignity—then life can remain a gift, and parental love can also be understood within the bounds of social norms.
Advances in science and technology are transforming many things that were once accepted as fate into matters of choice. While the invention of the light bulb allowed us to be active freely even at night, this does not mean that the value of the sun and nature has disappeared. Furthermore, the invention of technology itself does not necessarily make humans happy or unhappy. Similarly, the ethical debates surrounding gene-editing technology can also be viewed as part of the new social changes emerging in the course of scientific and technological progress. Today, gene-editing research for the treatment of diseases is gradually being applied in the medical field, while gene editing of germ cells and human embryos is subject to strict legal and ethical regulations in most countries. Technology will continue to advance in the future, but in that process, human dignity, safety, and social consensus must be taken into account. Ultimately, the debate surrounding gene design goes beyond simply supporting or opposing technological advancement itself; it is a process of reflecting on the direction humanity should take while ensuring harmony between science and ethics.
