In this blog post, we will consider whether designing children through genetic manipulation can really guarantee true happiness from an ethical and social perspective.
Genetic engineering has made a lot of progress. As a result, people have conflicting reactions to genetic engineering, both hopeful and worried. While some people have hope that it will fundamentally solve diseases that are difficult to overcome with modern medical technology, others have negative reactions from a moral standpoint, given that humans can directly manipulate genes that contain all of human information. As a result, genetic engineering has emerged as an important issue in today’s society.
Michael Sandel, author of “The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering,” discusses the issue of genetically engineering children. Sandel is against the idea of genetically engineering children, arguing that there are ethical issues as people use genetic engineering to enhance genes for personal purposes beyond simply treating diseases. In particular, he argues that parents should not view their children as gifts, that is, accept their children as they are, rather than as tools to design their children or achieve their own ambitions. In response, William May defines the attitude of a parent as “an open mind towards the future of chance” and “tolerance for the things that are not chosen,” and emphasizes that parental love does not depend on the abilities or attributes of the child. In addition, Sandel criticizes the act of manipulating a child’s genes at the will of the parents as being eugenic in nature. Eugenics is a discipline that aims to genetically improve humanity by studying the impact of genetic factors on the traits of future generations. Parents’ manipulation of their children’s genes to improve their abilities can be considered eugenic because it is done for the purpose of genetic enhancement, regardless of the child’s will.
Those who are in favor of designing children through genetic engineering see genetic engineering design as having high added value in the treatment of diseases. They argue that due to the limitations of modern medical technology, treating diseases such as genetic diseases through genetic manipulation is a revolutionary invention and could be a revolutionary development for humanity. They also argue that parents have a responsibility and a calling to make their children happy, and that it is their right to provide their children with the opportunity to live a happier life through genetic engineering. For example, they argue that it is possible to expand a child’s options by using genetic engineering to solve congenital defects that cannot be overcome through acquired efforts. Congenital defects include not only genetic diseases but also characteristics such as appearance and height. For those who cannot choose the path they want because of this problem, it is argued that providing them with a variety of choices through genetic manipulation may be a way to ensure their children’s happiness.
I am not opposed to designing children through genetic manipulation for the purpose of treating diseases such as genetic diseases or cancer and overcoming disabilities. However, I think it is negative to design children through genetic manipulation with the aim of enhancing certain traits from the perspective of parents who want their children to be more competitive and happy in society. For example, it is possible to manipulate genes in a way that maximizes features such as appearance, height, intellectual ability, musical talent, and athletic ability. There are two reasons why I am negative about designing children for purposes other than treating diseases. First, I believe that the happiness of children, which is the intention of parents, may be difficult to achieve through genetic manipulation. Second, even if this intention is achieved, I believe that there is a high possibility that social problems, especially the concentration of wealth, will worsen. Unless appropriate countermeasures and solutions are provided for these two problems, I believe that designing children through genetic manipulation is dangerous.
It can be seen that the reason parents want to design their children through genetic engineering is for their children’s happiness. In modern society, it is universally recognized that improving one’s appearance, intellectual ability, athletic ability, etc. to make one socially competitive is a way to ensure one’s children’s happiness. Therefore, it is thought that most parents will use genetic engineering to improve their children’s abilities if genetic manipulation becomes possible. However, I have doubts about whether genetic engineering can guarantee the happiness of children. Today, many parents invest in private education to improve their children’s intellectual abilities, but the happiness levels of Korean teenagers remain low. If it becomes possible to design children through genetic engineering, most parents will try to enhance their children’s intelligence, athletic ability, and musical talent, which is likely to lead to competition similar to the current private education craze. Ultimately, only the wealthy who can afford the cost will be able to benefit, and fewer people will be able to afford genetic engineering than those who can afford private education. This will have a greater impact on human life, widening the gap between those who benefit from genetic engineering and those who do not.
Are children happy in Korea’s fierce educational environment? Currently, the happiness index of Korean teenagers is among the lowest in many countries. If genetic manipulation monopolizes the benefits of a specific group, the resulting differences and conflicts will be much greater than the conflicts arising from educational issues in Korean society. If the question of whether children can be happy in such a society cannot be resolved, designing children through genetic manipulation will become an act that promotes conflict without losing its original intention.
If some specific groups, countries, and ethnic groups acquire superior traits before others and monopolize social, cultural, and economic advantages, this could spread to a global problem. Even now, the world’s wealth and influence are dominated by a few countries. If the genetic design of children becomes a reality, everyone will want this technology, but it is likely that only a few people will actually benefit from it. This is because it will take a huge amount of money and a long time to realize this technology. For example, it usually costs more than $100 million and takes 10 to 15 years for a global pharmaceutical company to develop a new drug, and a monopoly patent is granted for 15 to 20 years to recoup the development costs. Genetic engineering will require more money and will have a longer monopoly period. Considering that the initial cost of genetic analysis was about $100 million, the initial cost of genetic engineering is likely to be unimaginable. Even if the cost of the technology decreases later, it will take at least 30 years for the technology to enjoy universal benefits. During this period, the group that has benefited is likely to maintain its monopoly position in society, economy, politics, and culture, which can lead to eugenic inequality.
It can be argued that laws and policies are needed to regulate the acquisition of superior traits through genetic manipulation and limit it to the treatment of diseases. If acquired diseases can be cured through genetic manipulation, children will be able to enjoy a happier life. In addition, as long as the genes of germ cells are not manipulated, there is little risk of the dominant genes acquired during the treatment of diseases being passed on to future generations, and therefore there is little chance of causing social problems. However, if genetic manipulation is allowed for the prevention of diseases rather than simply acquired diseases, it may cause social problems, although to a lesser extent than if superior traits are directly selected and manipulated. For example, if there is a high possibility of developing Parkinson’s disease, genetic manipulation may be allowed as a preventive measure, but there are also issues that need to be decided based on the probability of developing the disease. If such criteria are not clear, the question may arise as to how to limit the scope or level of manipulation when genetic manipulation is performed to eliminate the possibility of genetic diseases.
Genes are an important part of the information about human life. Today, with the development of science and technology, the secrets of genes are being revealed one by one, and the possibility of artificially changing human life is growing. As a result, various opinions have been presented on the question of “whether it is okay to design a child through genetic manipulation.” I am positive about genetic manipulation for the purpose of treating diseases, but negative about designing a child through genetic manipulation for superior traits such as appearance, intellectual ability, athletic ability, and artistic ability. If the design of children through genetic engineering is allowed, there will be an increase in attempts to express certain traits in addition to the treatment of diseases, and social inequality will be exacerbated by the groups that preempt this. If the scope of genetic manipulation is limited by laws and national policies and used only for the treatment of diseases, these problems can be solved and a way can be paved for children with genetic diseases to live better lives.
