In this blog post, we’ll explore whether designing children through genetic engineering can truly guarantee genuine happiness, while examining the ethical and social implications alongside the latest advancements in gene-editing technology.
Genetic engineering has made remarkable strides. Consequently, people have shown mixed reactions—ranging from hope to concern—toward this field. While some harbor the expectation that it could fundamentally cure diseases that are difficult to overcome even with modern medical technology, others raise ethical and moral concerns regarding the fact that humans can directly manipulate genes, which contain all of a person’s genetic information. For these reasons, genetic engineering has emerged as one of the most significant social issues in the fields of science, technology, and bioethics today.
Michael Sandel, author of ‘The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering’, which addresses the social issues surrounding genetic engineering, discusses in depth the issue of “designing” children through genetic engineering. Sandel opposes the genetic engineering of children, arguing that various ethical problems arise the moment people use genetic manipulation—beyond the treatment of disease—to enhance human abilities and characteristics for personal purposes. In particular, he states that parents should accept their children as a “gift” and love them just as they are. In other words, parents should not view their children as objects for realizing their own ideals or ambitions.
In response, William May describes the parental attitude as an “open mind toward a future of chance” and “generosity toward the unchosen,” emphasizing that parental love is not determined by a child’s abilities or attributes. Furthermore, Sandel criticizes the act of genetically engineering a child according to the parents’ will, arguing that it can take on eugenic characteristics. Eugenics refers to the ideology or research aimed at genetically improving the human race based on the influence of genetic traits on future generations. The act of parents manipulating their children’s genes to enhance their abilities—regardless of the children’s wishes—can be viewed as having eugenic characteristics, as it leads to the evaluation of human value based on specific criteria.
On the other hand, those who support “designing” children through genetic engineering argue that gene-editing technology holds great value not only in treating diseases but also in improving quality of life. They argue that if genetic engineering can treat hereditary diseases that modern medical technology cannot cure, this would represent a groundbreaking advancement in human history. Furthermore, they contend that parents have a responsibility to help their children lead healthier and happier lives, and that providing such opportunities through genetic engineering is a choice that parents should be able to make.
For example, they believe that by using genetic modification to address congenital diseases or disabilities—which are difficult to overcome through effort alone—parents can broaden their children’s life choices. Some even include physical characteristics, such as appearance or height, in this discussion. It is argued that if there are people who are unable to pursue their desired career paths or seize life opportunities due to such characteristics, using genetic modification to open up a wider range of possibilities is a way to ensure their children’s happiness.
I do not oppose the use of genetic engineering technology for the purpose of treating genetic diseases or conditions such as cancer, or for overcoming disabilities. Recently, as CRISPR-based gene-editing technology has begun to be used in the treatment of certain rare genetic diseases, the possibility of therapeutic gene editing is gradually becoming a reality. However, to this day, human gene editing targeting germline cells and the creation of so-called “designer babies” remain subject to strict regulations and ethical controversy in most countries.
Nevertheless, from a parent’s perspective, I take a negative stance toward “designing” children through genetic manipulation for the purpose of enhancing specific traits to increase social competitiveness or guarantee happiness. Examples include manipulating genes to maximize physical appearance, height, intellectual ability, musical talent, or athletic ability.
There are two main reasons for opposing the design of children for purposes other than treating disease. First, it is difficult to believe that the happiness parents expect can be achieved through genetic manipulation alone. Second, even if such goals were partially achieved, there is a high likelihood that social inequality—particularly economic disparities—would be further exacerbated. I believe that unless sufficient social consensus and institutional safeguards are established to address these issues, the practice of designing children through genetic manipulation must be approached with the utmost caution.
The primary reason parents would seek to “design” their children through genetic engineering is ultimately their desire for their children’s happiness. In modern society, it is often considered a key condition for a happy life for children to be socially competitive through improvements in physical appearance, intellectual ability, and athletic ability. Therefore, if genetic engineering technology advances sufficiently in the future and its safety is ensured, it is likely that many parents will want to utilize it to enhance their children’s abilities.
However, I have doubts as to whether genetic engineering can truly guarantee a child’s happiness. Even today, many parents invest enormous amounts of money and time in private tutoring to improve their children’s academic performance. Yet, despite these efforts, it is difficult to say that South Korean adolescents’ life satisfaction and happiness levels are particularly high. The social atmosphere centered on academic competition and college entrance exams has long been identified as a problem affecting adolescents’ mental health and quality of life.
If an era arrives in which parents can “design” their children through genetic engineering, a significant number of parents will likely seek to enhance not only their children’s intellectual abilities but also various other abilities, such as athletic skills and musical talent. Ultimately, this could give rise to a new form of competition even more intense than the current competition in private tutoring. Furthermore, since this technology is expected to be extremely costly in its early stages, it is highly likely that only those with sufficient financial means will have access to it initially. In other words, the number of people who can access genetic engineering technology may be far smaller than the number who can currently afford expensive private tutoring.
As such, the impact of genetic engineering on human life could be far more fundamental than that of education or private tutoring. Consequently, the gap between those who benefit from genetic engineering and those who do not is likely to widen even further than it is now. Given that differences in ability may stem not from educational attainment but from biological characteristics, social inequality could develop into an even more serious problem.
Amid South Korea’s fiercely competitive educational environment, we need to reconsider whether children are truly living happy lives. International comparative studies have frequently shown that while Korean adolescents tend to have high academic achievement, their life satisfaction and happiness levels are relatively low. If genetic engineering technology allows only certain social classes to select superior traits, the resulting conflicts and feelings of social deprivation could become far more severe than the current educational competition. Unless doubts about whether children can truly be happy in such a society are resolved, “designer babies” created through genetic engineering may, contrary to their original intent, end up generating new social conflicts.
If certain countries or social classes were to secure superior traits by utilizing gene-editing technology before others, this could further solidify their socio-economic and cultural dominance. Even now, the world’s wealth and technology tend to be concentrated in the hands of a few countries and corporations. While everyone would likely desire the technology to genetically design their children if it were available, it is highly probable that only a very small minority would actually be able to reap the initial benefits. This is because developing new biotechnology requires massive research and development costs, as well as lengthy clinical trials, safety verification, and regulatory procedures.
In fact, developing a single new drug often requires billions of dollars in R&D costs and takes more than 10 years. Gene therapies also require significant time and expense for development and approval, and it is not uncommon for treatment costs to be set very high in the early stages. Even if gene-editing technology is commercialized after ensuring safety and efficacy, it is highly likely that only certain segments of the population will have access to it for a considerable period due to high costs. While costs may decrease as the technology gradually becomes more widespread, it is expected to take a long time before everyone can enjoy these benefits equally. In the meantime, those who adopt the technology first are likely to secure a greater competitive advantage in various fields—including social, economic, political, and cultural spheres—which could lead to a new form of genetic inequality.
Some argue that laws and policies are needed to regulate the practice of acquiring superior traits through genetic manipulation and to limit its use strictly to the treatment of diseases. In fact, many countries currently permit gene therapy research on somatic cells under certain criteria, while strictly restricting or prohibiting gene editing of fertilized eggs or germ cells, taking into account ethical concerns and the potential impact on future generations. These regulations can be viewed as mechanisms designed to balance human dignity and social equity.
In the case of acquired or treatable genetic diseases, if genetic manipulation can alleviate symptoms or cure the disease, children are more likely to lead healthier and happier lives. Furthermore, since most gene therapies currently used in clinical practice target somatic cells, the likelihood that the therapeutic effects will be passed on to the next generation is very low. Therefore, gene editing for the purpose of treating diseases can play a positive role in terms of advancing medical technology, rather than exacerbating social inequality.
However, if gene editing is permitted not only for treating diseases but also for preventive purposes—such as reducing the likelihood of future disease onset—it could give rise to further controversy. For example, there is still insufficient social consensus on whether to permit preventive gene editing in cases where a specific genetic mutation increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease or certain hereditary cancers. If gene editing is permitted solely on the basis of a high likelihood of disease onset, this raises the need to establish new criteria—such as what level of risk should be accepted and where the line between prevention and enhancement lies.
Furthermore, even if the goal is to reduce the likelihood of genetic diseases, it is difficult to avoid controversy over how to limit the scope and extent of genetic modification. If the process of preventing a specific disease results in the incidental enhancement of physical or cognitive abilities, it becomes difficult to clearly distinguish whether this should be viewed as disease treatment or as ability enhancement. Therefore, as technology advances, not only scientific validation but also ethical standards and social consensus must evolve alongside it.
Genes are key elements that contain vital information regarding human life, development, and health. Thanks to recent advances in science and technology, the functions of genes are being elucidated one by one, and gene-editing technology is also advancing rapidly. Consequently, the potential to artificially alter human life is gradually increasing, and the question of “Is it acceptable to design children through genetic modification?” will continue to be a major social debate.
I take a positive stance toward genetic modification for the purpose of treating diseases. This is because if gene-editing technology is used to treat genetic disorders or overcome incurable diseases, it can greatly contribute to improving the quality of life for many people. However, I oppose the genetic design of children to obtain specific desirable traits, such as appearance, height, intellectual ability, athletic ability, or artistic talent.
If the genetic engineering of children is permitted, it is highly likely that attempts to select desired traits—beyond the treatment of disease—will gradually increase. In the process, the social class that has early access to the technology will gain a greater competitive advantage across society, posing the risk of leading not only to economic inequality but also to genetic inequality. Therefore, genetic engineering technology must be used cautiously within the scope of protecting human health and life, and relevant laws and national policies must establish clear standards centered on therapeutic purposes.
Gene-editing technology is likely to continue advancing steadily. What matters is not the technology itself, but the purposes and criteria by which it is applied. Only when institutional frameworks and ethical standards are established that uphold the original objectives of treating diseases and promoting human health while also considering human dignity and social equity will genetic engineering be able to establish itself as a technology that brings greater benefits to humanity.
