In this blog post, we’ll examine the pros and cons of genetic design for children and consider whether genetic engineering can expand a child’s range of choices and freedom.
In this era of advanced life sciences, where we can analyze the human genome and determine its nucleotide sequence, the debate over genetically engineering children has become particularly heated. Julian Sabulescu supports the genetic design of children. According to him, since health has no intrinsic value but only instrumental value, there is no need to draw a fundamental distinction between cure and enhancement. In other words, he argues that parents have a responsibility to consider genetic intervention if it can improve their children’s lives. On the other hand, Michael Sandel opposes the genetic design of children. He argues that a clear line must be drawn between therapy and enhancement. He also states that it is normal to be unable to predict children’s qualities in advance and that it is important to maintain an “open mind toward a future shaped by chance.” Pointing out that genetic enhancement technologies reflect humanity’s innate pursuit of perfection, he warns that parents’ arrogance and impulse to create perfect children will ultimately invite disaster. I support genetic design because it can broaden a child’s range of choices and, by extension, provide freedom in a broader sense. However, while current genetic technologies have reached the stage where somatic cell gene therapy for disease treatment is actually being utilized, heritable human genome editing—which involves editing the genes of an embryo that could be passed on to a child—has not yet reached the stage of widespread clinical application due to safety and ethical concerns. The World Health Organization (WHO) is also approaching the clinical application of human germline genome editing with caution.
One could argue that true freedom lies in recognizing the meaning of life as a gift and maintaining an “open mind toward a future shaped by chance.” Of course, it is good to do one’s best to live the life one has been given. However, let’s imagine a future where genetic engineering technologies advance to the point where we can determine a child’s DNA sequence, the risk of future diseases, and information regarding height and weight with far greater accuracy than we can today. In that case, can the very concept of “chance” even hold true? The term “chance” applies only to facts that were previously unknown. In a situation where we could know but choose not to, the concept of chance cannot hold the same meaning as before. While “chance” may have its benefits, it can also have drawbacks that are just as significant. What if a child had a very high risk of developing a specific type of cancer, or a high likelihood of having a congenital disorder or deformity? What consequences would arise if, despite the ability to prevent or reduce these risks in advance, parents chose to rely on the “power of chance” and did nothing? Parents would likely blame themselves, believing that their child’s condition is the result of their own beliefs. Their child, too, might resent them, viewing their parents’ neglect as the factor that put them in this situation. Of course, current genetic engineering technology has not yet reached a level where it can perfectly predict a child’s future or freely design desired traits. In particular, it is not possible to accurately determine complex characteristics—such as diseases, height, or weight—based solely on genetic traits. However, if relevant technologies advance sufficiently in the future and genetic design reaches a stage where it can be applied to actual childbirth—enabling parents to access far more information about their child’s future—the meaning of “chance” may change from what it is today. In a highly technologically advanced society where “chance” is greatly reduced, the question of what “an open mind toward a future of chance” could possibly mean remains a significant one.
Allowing a child to live as they are, without parents tampering with their genes, is not neglect but rather a guarantee of the child’s right to freedom. In other words, the argument is that the essence of freedom lies in constantly compromising with what is given, and that ensuring this is the duty of parents. But since when has freedom come to carry such a passive meaning? Freedom is an active, proactive, and vibrant quality. It is not merely settling for what is given, sitting back, and making half-hearted compromises. We need to break free from this mindset. Once genetically enhanced humans—stronger and smarter—begin to emerge and become commonplace around us, this mindset will inevitably be shattered. Is it truly justifiable to tell a child with poor eyesight, “Since it’s natural not to wear glasses, try to live well without them”? Failing to provide a child with better traits—and thereby the potential for a better life—through genetic engineering is akin to withholding glasses from a child who cannot see well. Since genetic engineering opens up new possibilities, it can guarantee greater freedom for future generations. For example, suppose there is a family with a genetic trait that causes a fear of water. A child born into this family may have a low probability of becoming a swimmer. However, if the family decides—after consultation and careful consideration—to use genetic engineering to modify the genetic factors associated with this fear of water, a new possibility for that child to become a swimmer could open up. Of course, genetic intervention does not necessarily increase possibilities unconditionally. Just as reducing the likelihood of developing a disease can narrow a child’s future into a more predictable direction, it can also limit it. However, my argument is that if parents can adjust genetic traits to increase positive possibilities and reduce negative ones, this can actually expand their child’s freedom. That said, this judgment has not yet been definitively established, either technically or ethically, and sufficient review of safety and long-term effects is necessary for actual application.
Since genetic design is carried out by parents before birth and is independent of the child’s will, it can be considered an act that infringes upon the child’s right to choose. For example, if a child dreams of becoming a jockey, but the parents design the child to have the trait of being tall, this could infringe upon the child’s right to choose. In other words, while genetic design is intended to pass on desirable traits to a child, the concept of “desirable traits” is highly subjective; traits considered desirable now may not be so in the future. Therefore, genetic design is seen as infringing upon the child’s freedom. However, returning to the example mentioned earlier, it can be argued that being tall opens up more opportunities than being short. In professions such as basketball players, volleyball players, pilots, and models, being tall can be an advantage based on physical requirements. On the other hand, professions that require short stature are relatively few. Furthermore, there is a social perception that many women prefer tall men over short ones. Being tall may also be more advantageous when it comes to finding a spouse later in life. In other words, while the examples given earlier may seem too extreme, generally speaking, taller children have a wider range of choices and, consequently, greater freedom than shorter children. Furthermore, there are traits that are truly necessary and important for a person’s life. Traits such as good eyesight or strong bones can be considered universally beneficial. The advantages gained from having poor eyesight or weak bones are generally minimal. However, good eyesight reduces the need for glasses or vision correction surgery. There are traits that offer advantages both financially and in terms of daily convenience. It is my belief that enhancing “universally recognized positive traits” through genetic design can broaden a child’s range of choices and guarantee their freedom. Of course, determining which traits qualify as “universally recognized positive traits” is no easy task in itself, and we must also consider the fact that this can vary depending on individual values and social standards.
There may be concerns that, as parents increasingly shift from “loving acceptance” toward “transformative love”—viewing their children as their own creations in the pursuit of perfection—unconditional love will disappear. Some argue that genetically engineering children will lead us closer to eugenics at an ever-faster pace. However, the key difference between genetic engineering and the state-led eugenics policies implemented in Germany under Hitler lies in the presence or absence of coercion and the scope of application. State-led eugenics, combined with fascism, became problematic because the state imposed specific racial and biological criteria and carried out repressive actions—such as forced sterilization, persecution, and murder—that suppressed individual freedom. In contrast, genetic engineering is viewed—at least from a liberal perspective—as an act based on individual choice, free from coercion. No one is forced to “design” their children, nor does the state uniformly pressure individuals to have specific traits. Genetic design is likely to take place within an extremely personal and autonomous context. Therefore, concerns that genetic design will repeat the mistakes of past eugenics cannot be unconditionally accepted, as there are many differences between the two. However, even if genetic design begins as a matter of individual choice, the possibility that it could lead to new forms of discrimination or eugenic thinking when combined with social pressures or economic disparities cannot be ruled out. For this reason, while we should not simply equate genetic design with the eugenics of the past, we also should not dismiss all ethical concerns based solely on the differences between the two. For genetic design to become a bright future that offers new possibilities and freedom to humanity—rather than a repetition of past eugenics—we must consider not only individual choice but also social fairness, safety, and the prevention of discrimination.
We have discussed whether genetically designing children is ethically right. I argued in favor of genetic design because it can broaden a child’s range of choices and, furthermore, grant them freedom in a broader sense. One criticism of this view was that genetic design infringes upon a child’s right to choose because it is carried out regardless of the child’s will. In defense of this view, it was argued that choosing not to design a child’s genes—even when capable of doing so—could amount to a form of neglect, and that enhancing universally recognized desirable traits could broaden a child’s future possibilities. Of course, current genetic engineering technology has not yet reached the level where one can freely select and design a child’s various traits as these arguments suggest. In particular, genome editing—which can be passed on to children—raises many issues that need to be addressed, such as safety, long-term effects, social inequality, and the child’s consent and right to choose. Nevertheless, the concept of genetic design prompts us to consider the extent to which humans can intervene in and design future lives, and whether such intervention actually expands freedom or, conversely, restricts it.
