In this blog post, I will examine the pros and cons surrounding the genetic design of children, explore various perspectives on the issue, and discuss its implications, focusing on my own views.
Perspectives on Genetic Design
Parents have always strived to make their children more exceptional. Not only are tutoring centers for academic subjects like math, science, and English thriving, but an increasing number of parents are also enrolling their children in arts and sports programs—such as sports, art, and music—from a young age. Recently, with the rise in social media use, more parents are meticulously styling their young children’s hair and clothing and sharing photos of them. Alongside these various efforts, a slightly different approach is also being attempted. Specifically, this involves genetically engineering children to endow them with exceptional abilities from birth. In short, a movement to “design” children is emerging.
Let’s examine Michael Sandel’s book on this topic. Sandel argues that genetically engineering children is not significantly different from “eugenics”—a practice that was implemented in the past but abolished due to various problems—and therefore, genetic engineering should not be permitted. Eugenics refers to policies implemented with the aim of improving the gene pool of the human species, which even resorted to inhumane methods such as forced sterilization. Furthermore, Sandel compares genetic enhancement with improving a child’s abilities through education and training, explaining that while advocates of enhancement see little difference between the two approaches, critics view them as entirely distinct issues. Given the overly high-pressure reality of education today, the two approaches may appear somewhat similar. However, he argues that the existence of such similarities does not justify genetic enhancement; rather, we should criticize the excessive educational methods themselves. While it is true that these problems exist, I believe Sandel criticized genetic design by focusing solely on examples of overly extreme parents, without sufficiently considering the potential benefits of designing one’s children. I hold a slightly different position from Sandel’s. I believe that if we could manipulate a child’s genes, the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks.
The Benefits of Genetic Design
First, there is the positive aspect of being able to treat people with genetic diseases or congenital disorders at the genetic level, thereby reducing the hardships of their lives. Furthermore, there is the advantage of being able to help people in advance who might face significant difficulties later in life. Sandel also acknowledges that the line between therapy and enhancement is blurred, while arguing that therapy can be encouraged. However, it remains unclear how exactly we would draw that blurred line, or whether the technology, once advanced, can truly be used solely for therapeutic purposes. In his book, Sandel argues that even if the line between therapy and enhancement is blurred, the two must be distinguished; yet he does not provide a clear answer on how to establish that criterion. I believe it is virtually impossible to clearly distinguish between the two. In reality, there are many people who face significant difficulties in life even if their conditions are not medically classified as “diseases.” It is not desirable to turn a blind eye to the possibility of helping them.
Another advantage is that it can open up new possibilities for children who are frustrated because they cannot achieve their dreams due to differences in innate talent. In the past, the belief that success could be achieved through effort alone was widespread; however, various studies have consistently reported that innate talent also plays a significant role in achievement. In other words, while effort is extremely important, an individual’s innate characteristics are also a factor that cannot be easily ignored. Through genetic engineering, when a child discovers what they want to do, we can provide them with a better foundation to pursue their dreams.
There is also criticism that if genetic engineering is used to enhance a child’s innate talents in this way, competition will become even more intense. However, I believe the fundamental reason for unnecessary competition is not that everyone is exceptional, but rather that exceptional individuals are overly concentrated in specific fields. Today, rather than reflecting on what they truly want to do or in which field they wish to be recognized, many people choose their career paths by prioritizing external factors such as social status or economic rewards.
As a result, talent is not evenly distributed across various fields, and people tend to flock to only a few specific areas. This phenomenon will not be easily resolved unless the social climate that excessively favors certain fields changes. On the contrary, I believe this phenomenon could be mitigated if people who were previously unable to venture into other fields due to the limitations of their innate talents were able to enter new fields.
A few years ago, when KAIST’s high suicide rate was raised as a social issue, there was controversy over whether students at prestigious universities—where outstanding students gather—are actually living happy lives. There are also concerns that “designing” children could expand this issue beyond just a few elite universities to society as a whole. Consequently, critics argue that the aforementioned benefit of “giving wings to a child’s dreams” might actually end up crushing those very dreams. However, the high suicide rate was not unique to KAIST but a problem common to several prestigious universities, and efforts are ongoing to gradually improve the situation through measures such as raising student awareness and expanding mental health support. Ultimately, I believe that even in an environment where everyone is exceptionally talented, individuals can lead happy lives as long as they are supported by their personal values and social support systems.
How Should Genetic Engineering Be Utilized?
Science and technology themselves are always value-neutral. The issue lies in how people utilize that technology. Sandel’s book primarily criticizes overly high-pressure parenting styles, such as cases where parents deliberately seek a diagnosis of a learning disability or administer medication for non-medical purposes—even when their child does not have ADHD—to enhance concentration. I believe these examples are skewed toward overly extreme cases. Most parents can relate to the desire for their children to have slightly better talents and lead slightly more comfortable lives. Of course, I acknowledge that there is a problem with parents who excessively control their children in the process. However, I do not believe we should unconditionally view the technology itself—which can be used for other good purposes—in a negative light simply because there is a possibility that some people with misguided ideas might use genetic engineering technology in a negative way. Even looking at the current state of education, the fact that some parents insist on high-pressure educational methods does not mean that such methods are socially accepted as correct. On the contrary, various systems and regulations are being put in place to continuously address and resolve these issues. Genetic engineering design, too, can begin based on fundamental principles and social norms and evolve in a direction that resolves problems and makes improvements. The occurrence of extreme cases is not so much a problem with the technology itself as it is an issue that is virtually impossible to avoid in human society, and all members of society must work together to find solutions.
There is certainly a possibility that the genetic design of children could lead to negative outcomes when carried out by some overzealous parents. However, I expect that the positive impact—helping children realize their dreams—will outweigh any negative consequences. In a society where many people live together, it is impossible to completely avoid competition. What matters is the choice—made by both individuals and society—as to whether we will embrace that competition in a healthy way and make appropriate use of genetic enhancement, or whether we will become overly obsessed with competition and use it in a negative manner. Education, too, is sometimes used as a means to satisfy unnecessary ambitions, but on the other hand, it plays a positive role in enhancing students’ abilities. The practice of parents genetically engineering their children is not much different from this. While appropriate regulation may be necessary for some negative cases, I believe we need to evaluate the positive possibilities alongside the technology rather than viewing it solely in a negative light.
