In this blog post, we’ll explore the potential for human evolution brought about by gene design, the resulting ethical debates, and the current reality and limitations of gene-editing technology.
With the rapid advancement of genetic engineering technology, discussions about “gene design” are intensifying. Gene design refers to technologies that go beyond simple biological modification to intentionally manipulate human genes or confer specific traits, and its potential and impact are considered to be beyond imagination. In particular, with the advancement of gene-editing technology, research to treat or prevent certain genetic diseases is actively underway, and it is gaining attention as a crucial technology that could redefine the future of humanity. However, current technology is focused primarily on treating diseases and has not yet reached the stage where traits such as appearance, personality, intelligence, or physical abilities can be freely designed. Nevertheless, these possibilities are becoming a crucial topic that prompts us to rethink the relationship between science, technology, and humanity.
First, let’s assume that gene design has absolutely no side effects and is so inexpensive that anyone can use this technology. Of course, this assumption is somewhat far from reality. Current gene-editing technology faces various barriers, including high costs, technical limitations, and ethical regulations, and is not yet at a stage where anyone can freely use it. However, for the sake of this discussion, let’s temporarily set aside these practical constraints and assume that everyone has equal access to gene-design technology. Philosopher Michael Sandel has raised concerns about the application of such technology in the field of sports. If an athlete were to gain exceptional athletic ability through gene design and, as a result, win an international competition, how should we view this? Has the athlete who relied on gene design to win truly triumphed through unjust means? I do not believe so. This is because I consider the enhancement of physical abilities through gene design to be a form of human evolution.
Humans have continuously evolved and developed from prehistoric times to the present. Human physical capabilities have improved significantly compared to the past, and our brains have also developed, enabling us to engage in more complex and profound thinking. However, there are still far more unknown areas than what humans have discovered, and the human desire to explore the truth continues to generate new technologies and knowledge. Throughout this process of development, human effort and will have always played a crucial role. But now, science and technology can serve as new means to complement or expand human capabilities. If humanity has evolved through natural selection, gene design can be viewed as a technology that offers a new form of evolution—one that helps humans overcome their own limitations. In particular, the fact that humans can control biological evolution to a certain extent opens up new possibilities for humanity’s future. If gene design technology continues to advance, humans may acquire superior abilities in various fields compared to today, and there is also the potential to build a society that is even more advanced than the one we have now.
Opponents of gene design will counter these arguments by claiming that gene design will further exacerbate social inequality. Indeed, given the current level of technology, such concerns are already being raised due to disparities in cost and accessibility. However, assuming that everyone has equal access to the technology, it could actually help mitigate existing inequalities. Those who enjoy greater social advantages already have opportunities for physical and mental development through better education and environments. On the other hand, if gene editing were provided equitably to everyone, it could help narrow some of these disparities at the starting line.
For example, let’s assume that students’ 100-meter sprint abilities currently range from 5 to 10. There is roughly a twofold difference in ability between the student who runs the slowest and the one who runs the fastest. However, if we assume that all students improve their running ability by the same amount—5—through gene design, the distribution of ability would range from 10 to 15. In this case, the ratio between the lowest and highest abilities would decrease to about 1.5 times.
Of course, in reality, human abilities cannot be expressed as simple numerical values, and actual genetic traits do not improve in such a straightforward manner. However, this example can be seen as illustrating the possibility that relative ability gaps could narrow if the same technology were provided equitably to everyone. In other words, genetic design can be considered one potential means of mitigating differences in innate ability.Of course, genetic design does not offer only the advantage of improving ability. As Sandel pointed out, it is entirely possible that parents might genetically design their children, only for the children themselves to be dissatisfied with the results. Especially in modern society, which places great importance on individual autonomy and freedom of choice, people may feel aversion to the very fact that they have been given traits they did not want. For example, if parents choose gene editing with a specific intention, but the results have a negative impact on their child’s life, the child may harbor resentment toward this outcome. However, in most countries today, gene editing for reproductive purposes on human embryos is strictly restricted or prohibited, and genetic manipulation intended to intentionally cause a disability is not permitted either ethically or legally.Nevertheless, using common sense, if parents were to attempt to genetically design their children, most would likely try to make the best choice out of a desire for their child’s happiness, health, and success. Since parents fundamentally want the best for their children, cases where parents intentionally seek to give their children a disability—as Sandel illustrated—would be extremely rare in reality. Suppose we enter an era when figure skating becomes wildly popular, and many parents begin to favor genetic traits that enhance figure skating ability. However, if some parents chose traits that would enhance their child’s academic ability over figure skating ability, and their child subsequently expressed dissatisfaction with this choice, could we immediately conclude that this constitutes a serious ethical problem? The child may not excel at figure skating, but could still achieve success in academics or other fields. Ultimately, parents’ choices cannot always satisfy every possible outcome, and there will always be situations where making one choice means giving up another possibility. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute all such problems solely to gene design itself.Gene design clearly has many advantages, but it also comes with various problems and limitations. Furthermore, even if there are points that can refute various opposing arguments, the ethical debate surrounding gene design has not been completely resolved. This is because, while some of the counterarguments examined earlier may lack persuasiveness in general situations, they do not apply uniformly to every scenario. As such, the discussion on gene editing extends beyond merely addressing scientific and technological advancements; it leads to philosophical and ethical questions that require us to reflect on the nature of humanity, the meaning of life, free will, fairness, and the future of society. New technologies are always a double-edged sword, possessing both advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, rather than unconditionally accepting or rejecting the technology itself, we must weigh its potential benefits and risks in a balanced manner and seek ways to utilize it based on social consensus. Ultimately, the challenge ahead will lie in constantly deliberating on how to strike a balance between the potential for human progress offered by gene editing and the preservation of human dignity and ethical values.
