In this blog post, I will examine Michael Sandel’s arguments regarding genetic enhancement and “designer babies,” and consider whether genetic enhancement could be a way to provide children with more choices, rather than a means to create “perfect” humans.

The Debate on Genetic Enhancement and Designer Babies

Since the Human Genome Project was officially completed in 2003, research on the human genome has advanced significantly, and manipulating the genes of human embryos is no longer something that appears only in science fiction movies. In particular, as advancements in gene-editing technology have made the possibility of altering human genetic traits a realistic topic of research, a full-fledged debate over the legitimacy of these technologies has begun to emerge. However, to date, genetic interventions aimed at enhancing a child’s genetic traits in a desired direction—as well as germline and embryo genome editing, where the results could be passed on to the next generation—have not reached the stage of being freely permitted in clinical settings due to safety and ethical concerns, and remain subject to strict international regulation and oversight.
The question, “Is it acceptable to design children?” is part of this debate and asks whether parents should be allowed to manipulate their children’s genes to suit their own purposes. This question encompasses not only the technical feasibility of such actions but also ethical issues regarding the extent to which parents can intervene in their children’s lives and whether parents have the right to determine the course of their children’s lives before they are even born.
Michael Sandel is a leading figure on the opposing side of this debate, criticizing humanity’s desire to achieve genetic perfection. In this article, I will first examine Sandel’s arguments and, along with a rebuttal of them, demonstrate that genetic enhancement can serve not as a means to pursue perfection, but as a way to provide children with greater possibilities.

Sandel’s View of Children and Genetic Enhancement

Sandel argues that viewing a child as a gift means accepting the child as they are, rather than seeing them as an object to be designed by parents, a product of parental will, or a tool to fulfill parental ambitions. Sandel cites two main reasons for this view.
First, Sandel argues that genetic enhancement evokes a deep-seated moral aversion within us. He explains that this moral aversion stems not from the fact that genetic enhancement technologies reveal or encourage specific human traits, but rather from the pursuit of perfection. Furthermore, Sandel argues that the problem with parents “designing” their children lies in the parents’ arrogance and impulse to conquer the mystery of birth. He contends that this arrogance and impulse cause parental love to lean toward a love that seeks to change the child rather than a love that accepts the child as they are, and that this can ruin the relationship between parents and children.
Next, Sandel argues that attempts to manipulate a child’s genes to improve various aptitudes are reminiscent of eugenics. Eugenics committed horrific acts, such as forced sterilization, with the aim of improving the gene pool of the entire human species; today, such coercive eugenics is widely accepted as unjustifiable. According to Sandel, parents’ attempts to “enhance” their children through genetic engineering are closer to eugenics than to education or training. Using genetic engineering to improve a child’s aptitudes further highlights the problems inherent in modern parenting trends that lead to overparenting. The problems associated with overparenting are already manifesting in various ways. Physical injuries among teenagers caused by excessive exercise are rising to alarming levels, and university administrators are expressing dissatisfaction with the growing tendency of parents to exert excessive control over the lives of their college-aged children. Furthermore, the use of medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to enhance the concentration of otherwise healthy children—regardless of medical necessity—has become a significant issue. This use of medication for non-medical purposes on normal children is an effort to conform to the demands of a competitive society that urges us to improve our abilities and perfect our nature; and these demands for ability and perfection trigger an impulse to complain about and criticize what we have been given. This is the root of the moral dilemma caused by enhancement, and Sandel argues that this era’s excessive parenting can, embarrassingly enough, lead us toward a way of thinking that borders on eugenics.

Is “Life as a Gift” an Absolute Value?

Sandel emphasizes the need to preserve “the meaning of life as a gift” and opposes the “designing” of children, arguing that genetic enhancement is closer to eugenics than to parental education or training. Sandel’s argument is very plausible. However, I do not fully agree with his position.
First, Sandel emphasizes “the meaning of life as a gift,” and we need to examine this point first. The idea that a child should be accepted as a “gift” is a view put forward by theologian William May, meaning that since a child is not something parents can choose, they must humbly accept it as a gift. The word “gift” itself implies something received from another person, and from the perspective of the theologian May, it likely refers to “God.” Here, this term can be interpreted in two ways: one is that the very fact of having a child is something given by someone else, and the other is that a “specific” child is given as a gift. However, in reality, a child is not something received from someone else but rather something that parents actively “create.” In today’s world, where contraception and assisted reproductive technologies have advanced to the point where parents can largely decide whether or not to have a child, the concept of a “gift” in the first sense has taken on a different meaning than it did in the past. Furthermore, the view that a child must be accepted as a gift—since parents cannot choose the child to be born—is a perspective that was more persuasive in times when there was no way to select the child. When there was no way to choose a child, there may have been little disagreement that a child should be accepted as a gift. However, the situation is different today. In fact, for parents undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) due to infertility, the process often involves fertilizing multiple eggs rather than creating just one embryo at a time, followed by testing and evaluation to select the embryo to be implanted. Currently, preimplantation genetic testing is also used in this process to check for chromosomal abnormalities or specific genetic disorders in the embryos. Even though parents’ judgment plays a certain role in deciding which embryo to implant during the IVF process, it is rare to find anyone who opposes IVF itself simply on the grounds that the child was not accepted as a gift. Furthermore, if amniocentesis or other tests during pregnancy indicate that the child has a fatal disability or a serious genetic abnormality, termination of pregnancy may be discussed or permitted in accordance with legal, medical, and ethical standards. Looking at these cases, it can be argued that the “meaning of life as a gift” was a value that held greater persuasive power in the past, when people had no choice regarding the child they would have. It is worth further considering whether “the meaning of life as a gift” will continue to be the sole emphasis even when a situation arises where everyone has some degree of choice regarding children.

Is Genetic Enhancement Necessarily Eugenics?

Next, let’s examine the argument that genetic enhancement actually highlights the problems associated with the trend toward excessive parenting and that this evokes associations with eugenics.
In this argument, Sandel primarily considers cases where genetic enhancement is used as part of overparenting. I agree with Sandel’s view regarding the problems associated with overparenting. However, not all parents engage in overparenting. If one opposes genetic enhancement on the grounds of overparenting, one must consider whether the same logic applies to parents who do not exhibit such overparenting behaviors. There are certainly cases where genetic enhancement is used not to raise a child in a specific direction, but to give the child a broader range of choices in designing their own life. Rather than enhancing abilities in a specific field to ensure the child pursues a particular career, it could be used to “supplement” abilities in areas where the child is judged to be lacking.
For example, let’s assume both parents are exceptionally talented in mathematics but have below-average talent in music. In that case, we can expect their child to also excel in mathematics while having relatively weaker musical talent. Rather than further enhancing the child’s mathematical abilities—which are expected to be relatively strong—to raise the child as a mathematician, the parents might choose to supplement the child’s musical talent, which may be relatively lacking, in case the child wishes to pursue music later in life. Thus, there is a clear distinction between genetic enhancement aimed at broadening a child’s “range of choices” and genetic enhancement carried out as a means of over-parenting. Genetic enhancement that evokes eugenics—the belief that “only children with good genetic traits should be born”—and genetic enhancement performed “to give my child a wider range of choices” differ fundamentally in their underlying purposes. Therefore, it is a stretch to conclude that all genetic enhancement is linked to eugenics.

Is Genetic Enhancement for Greater Possibilities Feasible?

In ‘On the Ethics of Life’, Sandel takes a stance against parents who “design” their children. However, his argument is based on the traditional value of “the meaning of life as a gift,” and he views genetic enhancement solely from the perspective of overparenting. “The meaning of life as a gift” is not an absolute truth but a value that can change significantly as times change. Furthermore, genetic enhancement can be used for therapeutic purposes, or to compensate for deficiencies rather than simply enhancing normal abilities. Of course, measures must be put in place to appropriately regulate indiscriminate use, but if genetic enhancement technologies are used appropriately, there are many ways they could benefit our lives. In particular, gene editing for the treatment or prevention of diseases and genetic enhancement to improve a child’s abilities have different purposes and risks; therefore, they should not be treated as a single issue. While human genome editing is currently advancing with a focus on therapeutic applications, genetic enhancement to improve children’s abilities remains an area fraught with scientific uncertainty and ethical controversy. Therefore, even though genetic enhancement has the potential to be highly beneficial to our lives, we need to reconsider whether we are opposing it simply because it feels more unsettling or harmful compared to other methods.