In this blog post, we explore the ethical issues surrounding how the development of genetic engineering may affect the right to equality and diversity of humanity.
Our “right to be different” must be protected. I am different from the person who lives in the room in front of me, and I am different from the person who lives in the room next to me. All n people have n unique characteristics. Some people may be short, and some may be tall. Some people may have fair skin, and some may have dark or yellow skin. n people have n unique characteristics. Of these numerous characteristics, no one can judge right or wrong. In accordance with the fundamental human right to equality, we have the right not to be discriminated against because of something different from others, that is, the right to be different. However, my main idea is that genetic engineering, which has recently been in the spotlight, and in particular genetic modification, may threaten the existence of this “right to be different.” In the following article, I will explain what genetic engineering is, what its prospects are, and how it may threaten the right to equality, or the “right to be different,” of humans based on the grounds for the right to equality, and conclude by discussing the scope of permissible genetic manipulation.
Genetic engineering is, as the name suggests, the study of manipulating genes, and it is basically the study of modifying living organisms to produce new byproducts that benefit humans. Genetic engineering has been gaining attention as a solution to various problems that humans have been unable to solve. Typical examples include food shortages and genetic diseases. One solution to food shortages is genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs are organic substances whose genes have been manipulated by humans. For example, by manipulating a specific gene, the disease-causing factor of disease A in a crop can be removed so that the crop does not develop disease A. This technology is very effective in increasing food production and has had a certain impact on solving food shortages and securing economic feasibility. Most people are not aware of this, but many of the foods we eat, such as beans and corn, are already GMO foods. In the case of genetic diseases, the problem gene can be treated through genetic engineering or prevented through preimplantation genetic testing, which will be discussed later. In addition, the development of animal cloning through genetic engineering has made it possible to create cloned organisms that exhibit the same genetically identical traits, which can greatly contribute to the verification of the safety of our experiments themselves. In this way, genetic engineering is having a positive impact on humans in various fields. However, the impact of genetic engineering on humanity is not always positive.
There is a term called “custom baby.” It is defined as a baby whose genetic traits have been artificially selected through in vitro fertilization. At this time, through “preimplantation genetic testing (PGD),” parents can check the gender of the child, eye, skin and hair color, and genetic diseases, and select them through manipulation. In addition, if genetic engineering continues to develop as it is, it may affect intelligence, beauty, height, athletic ability, and so on. This “customized baby” is used to treat genetic diseases and prevent the onset of the disease itself, thereby having the effect of preventing genetic diseases in society.
In this respect, “customized babies” are a very attractive option. However, this is only the case when “customized babies” are used for therapeutic purposes only. If such genetic manipulation were to occur indiscriminately in other areas, such as skin color, there would be a risk of violating the right to equality that I mentioned earlier. To talk about this, it is necessary to find out what the right to equality, and even more so, human rights, are based on. Equality and human rights are based on the “inalienable rights of all people.” This means that human rights are inalienable rights that humans receive from a transcendent being, meaning that people with intellectual disabilities and even newborn babies can have equal human rights. The right to equality, which is a fundamental right established in the Constitution to guarantee human rights, is also a right that allows a person to demand that they not be treated unequally by the state or social groups on the basis of this “natural human right.” Of course, if we are to talk in detail about the right to equality, we should divide it into absolute equality and relative equality, but in this area of bioethics, we should focus on innate factors rather than acquired factors in a person’s growth, so we should think more about absolute equality.
At this time, there are many attempts to interpret this concept religiously because of the word “transcendent” that appears in the definition of “natural rights.” In particular, there are some who say that the concept is based too much on Christianity. However, I think that before interpreting this concept religiously, we should pay attention to the reason why this concept of natural rights appeared. If the reason why people set the concept of the transcendent is in Christianity, it would be right to interpret it religiously. However, from my point of view, the reason why the concept of this transcendent being was needed was because there was a limit to the extent to which humans could intervene in the process of life being born. And this limit made humans less responsible for the birth of that life. Children born to an African-American man and an African-American woman are likely to be African-American. However, their children are not responsible for being African-American because they did not choose to be. This is true for both parents. Also, children born to a tall man and a tall woman are likely to be tall. Therefore, if this child is tall, he or she is not responsible for being tall. Conversely, even if a child is short because of a genetic phenomenon such as a mutation, the child is not responsible for his or her height. This is because the genetic phenomenon was not the result of anyone’s will. (In a few exceptional cases, the genetic diseases of both parents can affect the genetic diseases of their children. In this case, the situation is different from the case where there is no hereditary disease, as there is objective suffering in the case of a hereditary disease. A detailed discussion of this will be covered in more detail later when we discuss “areas where genetic manipulation can be allowed.” In this way, everyone is free from the need to take responsibility for any trait (other than genetic diseases), and therefore any person with any trait has the right to equal treatment.
But what if we could arbitrarily decide what traits to have through genetic manipulation? As I said in the first paragraph, all humans are equal, and there is no such thing as a right or wrong trait. However, social discrimination does exist. There is a tendency to prefer tall people, and discrimination against people of color is taking place all over the world. In this situation, if such genetic manipulation becomes widespread without any restrictions, there is a high probability that genetic manipulation will occur in a socially beneficial direction during the birth of living organisms. The moment humans properly intervene in the determination of the traits of living organisms, the limitations in the previous paragraph will be broken and humans with more socially beneficial traits will be artificially created. At this point, most of the humans born will likely be of the type that is socially beneficial and preferred by most humans. If this happens, we will create “wrong humans” somewhere in this world, not “different humans.” In the previous generation, black, white, and yellow people were in equal positions, but the emergence of a certain type of human being makes some races become the races of failure and some races become the races of success. One might think that if everyone in the world becomes a certain type, inequality will disappear. But the more we do that, the more we create a framework for the “right kind of person,” which results in the labeling of those who do not fit that framework as wrong.
For the reasons above, in order to prevent genetic manipulation from threatening the right to equality, the act of manipulating the genetic traits of a fetus according to an individual’s preferences must be prohibited. However, there are exceptions to this rule. Among the genetic traits of the fetus, the part concerning the development of genetic diseases in the fetus mentioned earlier is an exception. In the case of height, skin color, and athletic ability, there is no right or wrong based on the difference in the traits in the first place, and the reason for the unfair treatment due to the traits is not because the traits are objectively inferior, but because of the moral laxity of the surrounding society. However, in the case of genetic diseases, there is an objective difference between the two because the onset of the disease is accompanied by objective discomfort and pain compared to the case of not having the disease. Therefore, the argument is that genetic engineering should be partially allowed in the direction of preventing the onset of genetic diseases. If so, then there should be a little more discussion about people who have already developed the disease. Assuming that genetic engineering can completely prevent genetic diseases and that no parent would want to avoid the suffering of their child, there are three cases in which a child with a genetic disease is born to a couple. This is when a mutation has occurred, the parents did not know that they had the genetic disease factor, or for some reason, such as economic reasons, even though they knew, they were unable to do so. In the first case, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, no one could have anticipated the mutation, so no one can be held responsible for it, and the same goes for the sufferers themselves, so society must help them to reduce their suffering. In the second case, if the onset of the disease is neglected even though the relevant causative agents are well-equipped for testing in society, the parents should be held responsible. However, if the disease is a genetic disease that is not well-equipped and not well-recognized in society, it is the same as the first case. If the third case becomes prevalent, the onset of genetic diseases will be determined by economic inequality, but since the right to avoid suffering from genetic diseases due to economic poverty should not be violated, we should help them at the social level, and no one should be held responsible for the onset of genetic diseases. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the onset of genetic diseases is neither right nor wrong.
Genetic engineering is becoming a very good solution to many problems facing humans. However, we have seen that genetic manipulation can also cause problems that infringe on our human rights and equal rights if the scope of manipulation is not restricted. However, the usefulness of genetic manipulation in cases such as the prevention of genetic diseases cannot be ignored, so genetic manipulation needs to be carried out within a restrictive scope. To prevent human rights issues caused by genetic manipulation, it is necessary to raise the moral awareness of members of society. This concludes the article.
