In this blog post, we’ll examine the innovations and ethical dilemmas surrounding genetic engineering, and consider together the changes that life-manipulation technologies will bring to our lives, as well as the choices we must carefully weigh.
Genetic engineering is the field of study in which humans artificially manipulate the genes of living organisms to apply them for practical benefits in daily life. The origins of genetic engineering stem from natural curiosity; humans have long observed the characteristics of living organisms and utilized them. In the latter half of the 20th century, as the fact that DNA is the molecule that carries genetic information—along with its structure and function—was revealed, genetic engineering began to advance rapidly. Since then, with the emergence of various research initiatives such as the Human Genome Project, advancements in genomic analysis technologies, and the recent development of gene-editing technologies, genetic engineering has opened up new possibilities for understanding the essence of life and applying it to meet human needs.
Key technologies in genetic engineering include nuclear transfer, DNA recombination, cell fusion, and, more recently, gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9. These technologies are being widely utilized across various fields, including medicine and agriculture. For example, in agriculture, efforts are ongoing to solve food security issues by developing crops resistant to pests and diseases, as well as varieties that can withstand climate change impacts such as drought and high temperatures. In the field of medicine, gene therapies are being developed to treat genetic diseases that were previously difficult to cure with conventional treatments, and for some conditions, these therapies have already begun to be used in clinical practice. In this way, genetic engineering is playing a crucial role in enriching human lives.
In 1996, Dolly the sheep—the world’s first cloned mammal—was born using somatic cell nuclear transfer technology. This event vividly demonstrated the potential of genetic engineering, and advances in cloning technology sparked ethical debates regarding the possibility of human cloning. Furthermore, the movie ‘Gattaca’ depicted a future society where parents could select superior genetic traits when conceiving a child to produce a nearly perfect offspring. Although current technology has not yet reached the level depicted in the film, active research is underway to prevent or treat specific genetic diseases through advances in gene-editing technology. This underscores the immense potential of genetic engineering; at the same time, it is essential to carefully consider the social and ethical issues that such technology may raise.
However, as with all science and technology, genetic engineering is a field that has both positive and negative aspects. While advances in genetic engineering are bringing the dream of extending human life closer to reality, the potential side effects that could arise if the technology is misused are by no means trivial. For example, even if a treatment for a specific disease is successful, the possibility of unexpected side effects or new risks cannot be completely ruled out. Furthermore, research is ongoing into the possibility of unintended mutations occurring during the gene-editing process. Above all, because genetic engineering is a technology that directly deals with life, it requires a more cautious approach than other scientific and technological fields. Manipulating human genes is not merely a technical issue but also a matter concerning the essence and dignity of human existence. Therefore, genetic engineering must be utilized cautiously, based on scientific safety and social consensus, and the ethical issues surrounding it must also be discussed continuously and broadly.
Regarding the question, “Is it acceptable to design children through genetic engineering?” Michael Sandel presents a negative stance in ‘On the Ethics of Life’. Sandel argues that parents’ attempts to design their children to be exactly as they wish is an act of parental arrogance and an impulse to control the mystery of birth. He maintains that we must respect a child’s unique characteristics and the element of chance, and that “designing” children through genetic engineering distorts the natural process of birth. He also emphasizes that since health is not simply a value to be maximized, the line between treatment and enhancement can become blurred; for this reason, genetic engineering to modify a child’s genes carries the potential to be linked to eugenics, requiring moral caution. Furthermore, he notes that parental love has two aspects: love that accepts a child as they are, and love that seeks to guide them toward a better future, and he states that striking a balance between these two is of utmost importance.
I hold a position different from Sandel’s. I hold a fundamentally positive view on the genetic modification of children through genetic engineering. Moral and ethical standards change with the times, and many scientific and technological advancements we take for granted today were initially the subject of public criticism and ethical concerns. Technologies such as electricity, automobiles, organ transplants, in vitro fertilization, and artificial intelligence also faced significant opposition when they first emerged, but over time, through social consensus, they have established themselves as technologies that provide great benefits to humanity. Of course, new scientific and technological advancements can also bring new problems. However, we must consider not only the risks posed by these technologies but also the benefits they provide to humanity. For example, while genetic engineering may be criticized for manipulating life in an overly artificial way, it offers new treatment possibilities for genetic diseases that were previously difficult to treat, and gene therapy is already being used in clinical practice for certain genetic disorders. Considering these points, I believe genetic engineering is a technology that can greatly contribute to making human lives healthier and more fulfilling.
Another reason I support it is that, for people who have suffered their entire lives from genetic or congenital disorders, genetic engineering has the potential to provide a more fundamental solution than any other form of welfare or care. People born with genetic disorders did not acquire their illnesses through their own choices or fault. They simply have to live with disease and discomfort throughout their lives due to mutations in their genes. So, what is the difference between a healthy person and someone with a genetic disorder? Ultimately, it is merely a difference in DNA base sequences, and that is determined by chance, independent of an individual’s will. Should we simply accept as inevitable the reality that some people must endure a lifetime of illness and suffering merely because of a difference in probability? I do not believe so. Gene therapy through genetic engineering has the potential to reduce this injustice and help more people enjoy healthy lives. In that sense, I believe genetic engineering holds the potential to be a key solution in building a more equitable society.
Sandel criticizes today’s parents for being overly focused on a love that seeks to change their children rather than a love that accepts them as they are, and he emphasizes the importance of accepting love. However, we cannot assume that what is most natural is always the most desirable. If we were to follow nature alone, people with congenital diseases or disabilities might have found it difficult to survive at all. Yet modern society does not follow that path. We have established welfare systems for people with disabilities, operate various support programs, and are constantly striving to reduce the hardships caused by disabilities through medicine and engineering. Technologies such as artificial limbs, advanced prosthetic arms and legs, electric wheelchairs, and brain-computer interfaces are also the result of these efforts. Therefore, attempts to fundamentally treat or prevent the causes of diseases or disabilities using genetic engineering can also be viewed as an extension of these efforts to improve human life.
Finally, I believe there is, in principle, no significant difference between fostering a child’s development through education and training and fostering it through biotechnology. Today, many parents provide various educational opportunities to nurture their children’s abilities and create a better future for them; they support sports or artistic activities; and, when necessary, they may opt for medical assistance such as growth hormone therapy. These actions can also be viewed as choices made by parents who wish for their children to lead better lives. Genetic engineering can also be understood as an extension of these goals. Of course, there are counterarguments pointing out that education alters the acquired environment, whereas genetic engineering alters biological characteristics themselves. However, they share a common purpose in that parents actively intervene to enhance their children’s happiness and quality of life. Furthermore, most parents are likely to make such choices out of a desire for their children to live healthy and happy lives, rather than to make them socially superior. Therefore, even if a child’s genes are modified through genetic engineering, I believe the fundamental purpose lies in promoting the child’s happiness and health.
In summary, regarding the question, “Is it acceptable to ‘design’ children using genetic engineering?” I believe it could be permitted provided that strict conditions and social regulations are put in place. However, the genetic manipulation referred to here must prioritize the protection of human health and life—such as the prevention and treatment of diseases or the elimination of serious genetic disorders. Genetic manipulation aimed at enhancing non-medical traits—such as appearance, intelligence, or athletic ability—requires an even more cautious approach, as it has the potential to lead to social inequality and new forms of discrimination. Furthermore, the scope of permissible gene editing must be clearly defined by law and institutional frameworks, and its safety must be continuously verified to ensure it is sufficiently secure. At the same time, social equity must be taken into account to prevent specific social classes from monopolizing the benefits of this technology. Since genetic engineering is a powerful technology capable of radically transforming human life, it will only become a technology that truly benefits humanity when ethical standards and social consensus evolve in tandem with the pace of technological advancement.
