In this blog post, we will examine human dignity and bioethics, focusing on how genetic design and postnatal enhancement affect children’s lives and fundamental rights.
Even in today’s world of advanced science, the term “android” still strongly evokes the image of a fantastical being that appears primarily in science fiction movies. In the past, the “androids” symbolized by the robot Mazinger Z were beings clearly distinguishable from humans, starting with their appearance. However, as seen in movies like ‘The Island’ or the ‘Terminator’ series, recent androids are portrayed as beings that not only look almost identical to humans but also possess human-like intelligence—in other words, they are depicted as beings that are, in effect, close to human clones.
These androids are each created with a specific purpose in mind. They may be used to perform dangerous tasks, deployed in war, or—as in the movie ‘The Island’—created as a form of insurance to treat the illnesses of the individuals they are cloned from (referred to in the film as “sponsors”). Regardless of their form, no android is created without a purpose.
So, how should we view the practice of genetically engineering a child to possess the traits desired by its parents? The common thread among the androids discussed earlier is that they are “human-like beings created for a specific purpose.” When parents select and give birth to a child with superior genes, and derive satisfaction from observing the “engineered talents” that manifest as the child grows, it is highly likely that it is the parents—not the child—who are ultimately satisfied. Of course, the child may also take pride in their talents and live with confidence. However, it cannot be said that the child’s wishes were taken into account during the process of selecting genes. In other words, a child born in this way is, in a different sense, another kind of “artificial human”—born from a combination of genes selected for the parents’ happiness. If we consider that the term “artificial human” itself evokes the meaning of “a person made by humans,” a child born through genetic selection does not deviate significantly from that original meaning.
What becomes clear here is that the most fundamental and crucial issue with genetic design is that no one—not even the parents—bears the responsibility for determining the life of a new being. This is based on the most basic principle of bioethics: that no one can arbitrarily decide the course of another person’s life. Therefore, in the following discussion, based on this “self-evident ethical principle,” I will examine how genetic manipulation and excessive postnatal education infringe upon a child’s fundamental rights, drawing on Michael Sandel’s arguments and real-world examples.
Let us consider the fetal stage, the first phase of a human life. Who has the right to determine the life of a fetus? At a stage when life itself has not yet taken shape, it is difficult to say that the right belongs to the child. Does it, then, belong to the parents? If parents possess such a right, designing their child to be exactly as they wish could be viewed as a legitimate right. However, the role of parents is to assist their child in areas where they are still immature as the child grows and to exercise the child’s basic rights on their behalf. Here, “exercising basic rights on the child’s behalf” means helping the child make decisions and providing support for the essentials of life. From this perspective, it is inappropriate for parents to “design” the child’s very birth, as this constitutes an abuse of authority over the most fundamental sphere of existence.
A third party cannot hold a right that belongs neither to the child nor to the parents. Thus, it appears that this right belongs to no one. For this reason, many thinkers throughout history have explained the birth of life as a “gift from God,” and even today, some religions maintain this perspective. Sandel also views a child’s birth from a similar perspective. He criticizes the act of attempting to design a child as an impulse on the part of parents to control the mystery of life. However, he explains that this does not mean we should refrain from providing any treatment when a child is ill. To summarize, the authority over a child’s birth itself lies beyond the realm of human control, and intervening in that process through genetic manipulation can be viewed as an act that infringes upon the child’s fundamental right to live their own life.
Next, let’s consider the process of a child’s growth. At this stage, we can apply the concepts of “healing” and “enhancement” proposed by Sandel.
Sandel views “healing” as ethically justified, but sees “enhancement” as an act that crosses certain boundaries. The two concepts differ clearly in their very purpose. For example, the term “enhancement” is frequently used in video games. Enhancement refers to improving the performance of existing items to create stronger weapons or armor. Weapons can be enhanced, but they cannot be healed. In other words, enhancement involves artificially creating a better state because the current state is unsatisfactory.
Healing, on the other hand, is different. The purpose of visiting a doctor for a cold is to treat the cold and return to one’s original healthy state—not to create a perfect body that will never catch a cold again. The former is healing; the latter is enhancement. Therefore, healing is the process of restoring one’s original state, while enhancement is the process of going beyond that state to confer new abilities. From this perspective, attempting to enhance a child to meet parental expectations can be viewed as an act that, in and of itself, already exceeds one’s authority.
Sandel goes further, linking the excessive educational zeal prevalent in American society with eugenic thinking, and argues that there is little moral distinction between such excessive education and genetic engineering—and that the latter, in particular, undermines the attitude of accepting life as a gift. Therefore, the fact that excessive educational ambition and genetic engineering share similar moral issues does not justify genetic engineering. Ultimately, the act of excessively enhancing a child through environmental factors can also be seen as depriving the child of the right to design and choose their own life.
If a child experiences such distress while growing up, they are likely to suffer severe stress later in life. This can ultimately result in a violation of the child’s right to receive fair and equal love from their parents.
Those who advocate for such genetic manipulation argue that identifying talents early and providing appropriate education will contribute to the happiness of not only the individual but also humanity as a whole. At first glance, this sounds persuasive, as it suggests that society can cultivate the necessary talent in the desired quantity and at the desired time and deploy it as needed. However, talents are as diverse as the number of professions that exist in the world. Throughout their lives, people discover their talents, develop them, and sometimes leave a meaningful mark on the world. Isn’t this process itself a significant meaning of life?
Of course, just because a talent has been engineered through genetic design does not necessarily mean that a person will spend their entire life developing only that talent. However, considering the purpose of genetic design, parents are likely to expect their child to develop their engineered talent and become an expert in that field. But how monotonous and predictable would such a life be? People sometimes gain a sense of accomplishment through the process of experiencing failure, facing setbacks, and struggling to overcome insurmountable obstacles. Moreover, it is often through such experiences that they discover what talents they truly possess. I do not believe a life devoid of these small joys and the process of growth can ever be considered a happy one.
Thus, I have examined how genetic manipulation and environmental reinforcement infringe upon a child’s fundamental rights throughout the entire process—from conception and birth to growth—from three main perspectives. First, parents arbitrarily decide the genetic design of an unborn child. This is no different from exercising authority that has not been granted to anyone. Second, excessive environmental conditioning during the child’s development actually robs the child of the opportunity to design their own life. Finally, by comparing children born through genetic design with those who were not, we have examined the potential for this practice to infringe upon parents’ right to love their children equally.
American inventor Thomas Edison emphasized the importance of effort by saying, “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.” Furthermore, in ancient China, there is a saying: “Do one’s utmost and await heaven’s will” (盡人事待天命), meaning that one should do everything within one’s power and then wait for heaven’s will. Regardless of time or place, human effort and challenge have been regarded as noble values. In particular, I believe that genius achieved through effort is more beautiful than innate genius. The reason people are moved to tears and applaud the stories of those who have overcome difficult circumstances to succeed is likely because the value of such effort resonates deeply within our hearts. For this reason, I oppose a society that posits that “genius is made up of 99% genetics and 1% effort.”
Finally, I reflect once more on the question, “Whose Life Is It?”—which is both the title of a song by the hip-hop group Leessang and the title of this essay. Although the song’s content differs from the theme of this essay, the title itself symbolically illustrates the confusion a child born through genetic design might feel upon learning about their background, especially during a sensitive period such as adolescence. For whom am I living? Is this life for me, or for my parents? Whose happiness is genetic design truly meant to serve? Until someone provides a sufficiently persuasive answer to this question and clearly demonstrates the necessity and legitimacy of genetic design, I believe it remains a cutting-edge technology that must be approached with the utmost caution from the perspectives of human dignity and bioethics.
