In this blog post, we’ll examine the changes and expected benefits that genetic engineering will bring to humanity’s future, as well as the resulting ethical and social issues, from a contemporary perspective.
Since ancient times, humanity has gradually learned how to survive in its given environment. Initially, the focus was on developing technologies to meet basic needs—such as agriculture, animal husbandry, and handicrafts—but in the modern era, we have developed various technologies—including automobiles, airplanes, and ships—that enable us to overcome our physical limitations. Today, we are entering an era where it is becoming a reality to fundamentally transform the human organism by genetically engineering genes themselves. As biotechnology advances rapidly and the potential to drastically change human life grows, discussions surrounding the resulting ethical issues are also intensifying.
Technological progress has brought countless benefits to humanity. Vaccines for preventing infectious diseases, medical technologies that have extended human life expectancy, and agricultural technologies that have dramatically improved productivity have all contributed significantly to enhancing the quality of life. Amid this trend of technological advancement, genetic engineering has naturally emerged. Genetic engineering is gaining attention not merely as a means to prevent or treat diseases, but as a technology capable of enhancing human capabilities and opening up new possibilities. However, these possibilities simultaneously raise new ethical and social issues.
In 2013, an article about a genetically engineered child at the fetal stage—a so-called “designer baby”—was published in a science magazine, attracting widespread attention. At that time, a technique using mitochondrial donation (also known as mitochondrial replacement therapy) to prevent mitochondrial diseases was introduced. This technique utilizes mitochondria from a healthy donor to prevent the transmission of fatal mitochondrial genetic diseases to a child. Since then, related technologies have been applied clinically on a limited basis in several countries, and in some nations, they are permitted for medical purposes under strict regulations.
As genetic technologies at the gamete and embryo stages to prevent genetic diseases become a reality, an era is gradually approaching in which humans can, to some extent, select or modify the genetic characteristics of their children. In response, Michael Sandel opposes such attempts in ‘The Case Against Perfection’, citing two main reasons.
First, he argues that if genetic manipulation of children becomes possible, there is a risk that parents will adopt an attitude of seeking to control or conquer the mystery of life. He contends that such an attitude could undermine the humility required to accept human beings as they are, and could erode our capacity to embrace the unpredictability of life and our ability to empathize with others.
Second, attempts to artificially enhance even normal human abilities could ultimately lead to a society that pursues nothing but perfection. He expressed concern that the very meaning of life could be distorted if humans come to view their lives not as a gift to be accepted, but as something that must constantly be improved to address perceived shortcomings.
All living organisms are composed of cells, and genes are the core information that enables cells to perform various functions. In this regard, genetic engineering technology can offer humans a wide range of possibilities, but it may also give rise to new problems. Nevertheless, I believe that the positive effects genetic engineering technology can bring far outweigh these risks. Therefore, provided that appropriate ethical standards and social management systems are in place, I support the use of genetic engineering technology to prevent genetic diseases in children or to improve their quality of life.
Before delving into the specifics of this discussion, I would like to clarify a few premises. First, this article assumes a future society in which genetic engineering technology has advanced sufficiently to be used not only for treating diseases but also for enhancing human capabilities. Second, the term “genetically designing children” is defined to include cases where medical and genetic interventions are carried out from the zygote stage throughout the entire growth process.
The greatest benefit that genetic modification of children could bring is, above all, the prevention and treatment of genetic diseases. Although the 2010 data cited in the original text is based on statistics from that time, congenital and genetic diseases remain significant medical issues worldwide to this day. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and various medical studies, congenital malformations and genetic disorders are among the leading causes of infant mortality and disability, and it is known that various genetic abnormalities contribute to the onset of these diseases.
Current medical technology has advanced to the point where various genetic disorders can be screened for both prenatally and postnatally. During the prenatal period, non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), chorionic villus sampling, and amniocentesis can be used to detect various genetic abnormalities, including chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome. Postnatally, newborn screening allows for the early detection and treatment of various congenital metabolic disorders, such as phenylketonuria. Furthermore, with the rapid advancement of gene therapy technologies in recent years, it has become possible to treat certain genetic disorders in actual clinical practice. However, we have not yet reached the stage where all genetic disorders can be fundamentally cured, and the range of treatable conditions remains limited.
If genetic engineering technologies continue to advance in the future, we may enter an era where genetic testing can identify genetic disorders that a child currently carries or is highly likely to develop in the future, allowing for prevention or treatment before the disease manifests. It is also expected that more effective gene therapies will become available for certain genetic mutations that occur during the growth process.
Some opponents of genetic design for children worry that genetic manipulation could reduce human genetic diversity, thereby diminishing our ability to adapt to unforeseen environmental changes. Even today, various medical technologies are being used to achieve socially preferred phenotypes. A prime example is growth hormone therapy. Although growth hormone is used to treat growth hormone deficiency or specific medical conditions, there are cases where it is administered to children who are growing somewhat slowly or are shorter than average. The argument is that if this trend continues to expand, many parents will eventually come to prefer similar traits, leading to a long-term reduction in human genetic diversity.
However, this argument fails to fully account for the fact that people’s values and life goals vary greatly from person to person. Some parents may hope their children will excel in academia or professional fields, while others may hope they will develop their talents in diverse fields such as sports, the arts, business, engineering, or agriculture. As assumed earlier, in a future where genetic engineering technology has advanced sufficiently and safety is ensured, parents are likely to seek to enhance the necessary abilities in their children, taking into account their aptitudes and desired career paths. Since the abilities required vary depending on one’s occupation and lifestyle, the genes selected will also diversify; consequently, it is unlikely that genetic diversity will disappear entirely.
Some argue that there is a certain trend in the traits people prefer in each era. In other words, even if people choose diverse occupations, the abilities demanded by society may ultimately concentrate in certain areas, which could lead to a reduction in genetic diversity. For example, it is argued that since many professional careers require high cognitive and learning abilities, many parents will ultimately choose similar genetic traits.
However, there is never just one way to acquire a single trait. Most human traits are polygenic, meaning they are influenced by multiple genes acting together. A prime example is height. Current research indicates that human height is influenced by more than several thousand genetic variants, and environmental factors also play a significant role. Therefore, even if people desire the same level of height, similar results can be achieved through various combinations of genes and biological pathways.
The same applies to muscle strength. Various biological approaches are possible, such as increasing muscle mass, improving energy metabolism efficiency, or enhancing neuromuscular coordination. Since multiple genes and various physiological mechanisms are involved in the expression of a single trait, the likelihood of creating a uniform genetic makeup—even if genetic engineering technologies were widely used—may not be as high as one might think.
Those who ethically oppose the genetic design of children also cite other reasons. The most prominent argument is that it could violate the dignity of human life. They believe human dignity could be compromised in two main ways.
First, they argue that the dignity of the fetus is violated during the process of genetic modification. While scholars hold diverse views on human dignity, it is generally understood as a concept that encompasses the inherent value and rights of human beings themselves, as well as the right to lead a life befitting a human being. From this perspective, critics argue that when parents arbitrarily modify a fetus’s genes, they are determining crucial aspects of a future individual’s life against that individual’s will.
On the other hand, some argue that genetic intervention aimed at disease prevention and health promotion can be viewed as a medical procedure intended to improve the future child’s quality of life. In other words, if the purpose is to prevent or treat serious genetic diseases, such intervention can be understood not as an act that undermines human dignity, but rather as one that expands the opportunity to live a healthy life. Ultimately, this issue cannot be resolved simply by taking a “for” or “against” stance; it remains an ethical challenge that requires a comprehensive consideration of the technology’s purpose, scope, safety, and social consensus.
Another criticism regarding the dignity of the fetus is that genetic manipulation leads to viewing the fetus as the parents’ property or as an object that can be designed at will. Because the parents are the ones making the decision regarding genetic manipulation, there is a risk that the child will be perceived not as an independent person but as a being created according to the parents’ will.
However, it is necessary to distinguish between human dignity and the role of parents when considering this argument. Although a fetus is not the property of its parents, parents bear the responsibility to provide an environment in which their child can grow up healthy. Parents strive to provide education, a suitable living environment, nutrition, and medical care after birth, and all these actions are intended to guide their child’s life in a better direction. In the same vein, genetic modification to prevent or treat genetic diseases can be understood as a medical intervention designed to help children lead healthier lives.
Of course, if parents attempt to excessively design their child’s appearance or abilities to satisfy their own desires, this could raise additional ethical issues. Therefore, genetic engineering technology should be used primarily for the prevention and treatment of diseases, and clear social standards and legal regulations that respect human diversity and autonomy must be established alongside it.
The second issue raised is the possibility that, as genetic engineering technology advances, the dignity of people who have not undergone genetic modification could be compromised. Although the concept of “designer babies” originally stemmed from medical technology intended to prevent serious genetic disorders, there is a possibility that, as the technology advances further, it could expand to include efforts to enhance physical or intellectual abilities. If this were to happen, concerns have been raised that only those with sufficient financial means would be able to access such technologies, thereby further widening social disparities.
In fact, cutting-edge medical technologies are often accessible only to certain segments of the population in their early stages due to high costs. Genetic engineering technology is likely to follow a similar trajectory. While families with sufficient financial resources may be able to apply various gene therapies or enhancement technologies to their children, those without such resources may be unable to access these benefits. In this scenario, it cannot be ruled out that a new form of social inequality will emerge as differences in individual capabilities extend not only to education and environment but also to the biological level.
However, it is more appropriate to view these issues not as a matter of the violation of human dignity itself, but rather as social problems stemming from inequality in access to technology. Human dignity is not a value determined by an individual’s genetic characteristics or the relative superiority or inferiority of their abilities. Therefore, society must establish institutional mechanisms to ensure that genetic engineering technologies do not become the exclusive privilege of a specific social class, and must strive to provide fair access to gene therapy for medical purposes.
Furthermore, most countries currently impose very strict regulations on the gene editing of human embryos, and research on germline gene editing is conducted only on a limited basis due to ethical and safety concerns. In particular, germline gene editing—which affects future generations—is the subject of ongoing discussion within the international community, and the prevailing view is that it should be approached with caution until sufficient safety and social consensus are secured.
In conclusion, technologies for genetically designing children have the potential to significantly transform human life in future societies. They can prevent and treat genetic diseases and, ultimately, have the potential to greatly contribute to improving the quality of human life. Recently, with the rapid advancement of gene-editing and gene therapy technologies, their practical application in clinical settings is gradually increasing.
Of course, the ethical and social issues these technologies will raise must not be taken lightly. Human dignity, the value of life, social equity, access to technology, and responsibility toward future generations are critical issues that must continue to be discussed. Therefore, rather than unconditionally blocking technological advancement itself, it is preferable to develop these technologies in a responsible manner—by thoroughly verifying safety, establishing clear ethical standards and legal regulations, and ensuring their use is grounded in social consensus.
Genetic engineering is a powerful tool that can open up new possibilities for humanity. The direction in which this technology develops in the future depends not only on science and technology itself but also on the choices made by the people and society that use it. When we can maximize the benefits of this technology while simultaneously safeguarding human dignity and social fairness, genetic engineering will become a vital foundation for making humanity’s future healthier and more prosperous.
