In this blog post, we examine—from the perspective of bioethics—how advances in genetic engineering technology might affect human equality and diversity, and to what extent such technology should be permitted.
Our “right to be different” must be protected. I am different from the person living across the street, and I am also different from the person living next door. There are countless people in the world, each living with their own unique characteristics. Some people are short, while others are tall. Some have fair skin, while others have dark or yellow skin. As such, every human being possesses distinct characteristics, and no one can judge these differences as right or wrong.
This is due to the right to equality, a fundamental human right. We have the right not to be discriminated against simply because we are different from others—in other words, the “right to be different.” However, the author’s concern is that the rapid recent advancements in genetic engineering, particularly genetic modification technology, have the potential to threaten this “right to be different.”
In this article, I will first examine what genetic engineering is and its current direction of development. Next, I will explore how genetic manipulation technology could threaten the right to equality—and, by extension, the “right to be different”—focusing on the legal basis for the right to equality. Finally, I will conclude by discussing the limits within which genetic manipulation should be permitted.
Genetic engineering, as the term suggests, refers to the technology of manipulating or editing genes and the academic discipline that studies it. Fundamentally, it refers to the technology of altering an organism’s genetic information to obtain new biological traits, pharmaceuticals, agricultural products, and other benefits for humans. Recently, with advances in gene-editing technology, genetic engineering has garnered attention as a potential solution to various long-standing challenges that humans have been unable to resolve. Representative examples include the problem of food shortages and the treatment of genetic diseases.
Regarding food shortages, GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are a prime example. GMOs refer to organisms whose genetic information has been altered by humans through methods such as inserting or removing specific genes. For example, by modifying the genes of crops vulnerable to specific pests or diseases, it is possible to develop disease-resistant varieties or create varieties that thrive even under drought or high temperatures, thereby increasing productivity. These technologies are contributing to some extent to increasing global food production and ensuring agricultural stability. Today, a significant portion of the agricultural products we consume—such as soybeans, corn, and canola—as well as foods made from these ingredients, utilize GMO raw materials.
Genetic engineering also plays a crucial role in the field of genetic disorders. Recently, with the rapid advancement of gene therapy technologies, treatment for some genetic disorders has become possible in actual clinical settings, and techniques such as preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) are being used to assess the likelihood of specific genetic disorders occurring. However, given the current state of technology, it is difficult to say that we have reached the stage where we can prevent all genetic disorders or freely manipulate genes.
Furthermore, advances in genetic engineering have had a major impact on animal cloning and disease research. By securing laboratory animals with genetically identical characteristics, it contributes to enhancing the reliability and reproducibility of drug development and disease research, and plays a crucial role in the process of developing new drugs.
As such, genetic engineering provides many benefits to humans across various fields. However, the impact of these technologies is not entirely positive.
The term “designer baby” is commonly used. This is a broad term referring to technologies that involve selecting embryos during in vitro fertilization (IVF) or, in the future, selecting or modifying specific genetic traits. Currently, in the medical field, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) can be used to assess the risk of specific genetic disorders, and in some countries, it is used on a limited basis for the purpose of preventing serious genetic disorders.
On the other hand, the selection of non-medical characteristics—such as gender, physical appearance, intelligence, or athletic ability—or the free design of such traits through gene editing is subject to strict regulations in most countries and has not yet been fully realized from a technical standpoint. Nevertheless, if gene-editing technology continues to advance, ethical debates surrounding these issues are likely to intensify in the future.
The concept of “designer babies” as currently used in medicine is primarily aimed at preventing serious genetic disorders, and as such, it can be expected to have certain positive social effects. This is because it can help prevent diseases and reduce suffering for individuals and families.
From this perspective, designer baby technology may appear to be a highly attractive solution. However, this is true only when it is limited to medical purposes such as disease prevention or treatment. This is because if such genetic manipulation technologies are indiscriminately expanded to non-medical areas—such as skin color or physical appearance—there is a risk that they could infringe upon the right to equality mentioned earlier.
To understand this issue, we must first examine the basis of the right to equality and, by extension, human rights. Generally, human rights are based on the concept of natural rights, which holds that humans possess fundamental rights from the moment of birth. In other words, simply by virtue of being born, humans possess inherent rights that cannot be transferred to anyone else; this means that even individuals with varying intellectual abilities or newborn infants possess equal human rights.
The right to equality, one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, is also based on this concept of natural rights. Therefore, human beings have the right not to be subjected to unjust discrimination by the state or society. Of course, from an academic perspective, the right to equality can be discussed from various angles, such as absolute equality and relative equality. However, in the context of genetic modification and bioethics, innate conditions take precedence over individual effort or environment; thus, in this discussion, I will place greater emphasis on the perspective that all human beings possess equal value from the moment of birth.
Because the term “Transcendent Being”—which frequently appears in the concept of natural rights—is often used, some view this as a religious concept. In particular, there is criticism that it stems from a Christian worldview. However, I believe it is necessary to consider why such a concept was needed, rather than viewing it solely as a religious issue.
In the past, the scope within which humans could directly intervene in the process of life’s creation was very limited. Due to these limitations, people accepted innate human characteristics as a realm beyond human choice, and as a result, the perception emerged that no one is responsible for their innate traits.
For example, a child born to Black parents is highly likely to be Black. However, since the child did not choose their parents, there is no reason for them to be held responsible for their skin color. The same applies to the parents; they, too, did not choose their own skin color.
The same applies to height. A child born to tall parents is likely to be tall, but that does not mean the child is responsible for their height. Conversely, even if a person is born short due to various genetic factors or natural genetic mutations, they are not responsible for their height either. This is because it is not a result that anyone intended or chose.
Of course, there are exceptions. If parents have a specific genetic disorder, there is a possibility that it will be passed on to their children. However, this issue differs from simple physical characteristics. Since genetic disorders can actually entail illness and suffering, they require a separate ethical discussion. We will examine this in more detail later when discussing the scope within which genetic modification might be permitted.
As such, most innate traits are not something an individual can choose or be held responsible for. Therefore, people are free and equal beings regardless of their innate characteristics, and they have the right to be treated equally regardless of the traits they possess.
But what if genetic engineering technology made it possible for humans to intentionally select specific traits?
As we have seen, all human beings are equal, and no trait can be deemed absolutely superior or inferior. However, various forms of discrimination still exist in society today. There are cultures that favor tall people, and discrimination based on skin color or race continues to occur in many parts of the world.
In this context, if genetic engineering were permitted without any social or ethical regulations, parents would be highly likely to select traits considered socially advantageous. The moment humans actively intervene in the process of life’s creation, the natural limits that have existed until now would disappear, and the number of people possessing traits preferred by society would artificially increase.
As a result, in future society, many people may end up having similar appearances and abilities. The problem is that this process could give rise to a new distinction—between the “ideal human” as defined by society and those who do not meet that standard—rather than a society where diverse individuals coexist.
Whereas in the past, Black, White, and Asian people were equal human beings with different characteristics, the moment specific genetic traits become the social standard, there is a risk that certain traits will be evaluated as “successful” while others are deemed “failed.”
One might think that if everyone possessed the same traits, discrimination would disappear. However, in reality, it is highly likely that a new standard—that of the “normal human” or “ideal human”—would be created. And those who deviate from that standard could once again become targets of discrimination and exclusion.
For these reasons, to ensure that genetic manipulation does not infringe upon the right to equality, the selection or manipulation of a fetus’s genetic traits based on personal taste or social preference must, in principle, be restricted. However, there is one area where exceptions to this principle may be considered: the prevention and treatment of genetic disorders in the fetus.
Traits such as height, skin color, and athletic ability simply vary from person to person, and these differences alone cannot be used to determine superiority or inferiority. If someone is treated unfairly because of such traits, it is not because those traits are objectively inferior, but rather due to prejudice and discrimination that exist in society.
Genetic disorders, on the other hand, are of a different nature. When a genetic disorder manifests, it can result in objective physical and mental suffering or functional limitations compared to cases where it does not. Therefore, it can be argued that there is not merely a simple difference between the two cases, but a medically significant one. From this perspective, the author argues that genetic modification aimed at preventing or treating genetic disorders can be permitted within certain limits.
How, then, should we view people who have already been born with genetic disorders? This issue also needs to be discussed.
Assuming that genetic engineering technology will advance further in the future to the point where a significant number of genetic disorders can be prevented or treated, and that most parents wish to reduce their children’s suffering, the cases in which a child is born with a genetic disorder can be broadly categorized into three types.
First is the case where a new genetic mutation occurs naturally. In such cases, since no one could have predicted or prevented the mutation, neither the parents nor the child can be held responsible. Therefore, society needs to actively provide medical and welfare support to help them alleviate the hardships caused by the disease.
Second is the case where the parents were unaware that they carried the gene responsible for a specific genetic disorder. If they intentionally ignored the issue despite the fact that relevant tests and medical services were sufficiently available to the public, there may be grounds to discuss a certain degree of responsibility. However, if the testing system was not sufficiently established or the disease itself was not widely known, this also falls under a category where it is difficult to hold anyone accountable.
Third, there are cases where necessary tests or treatments were not received due to financial circumstances or a lack of access to medical care. If such situations recur, economic inequality could directly lead to an increased likelihood of developing genetic disorders. However, no one should lose the opportunity to prevent or treat a disease due to their personal financial circumstances. Therefore, in such cases, rather than placing the blame on the individual, the state and society must improve access to healthcare and provide the necessary support.
Ultimately, the mere fact that a genetic disorder has occurred cannot be judged as right or wrong. Society’s role is not to blame those with diseases, but to establish the necessary institutional support so that they can live with their human dignity and rights guaranteed.
Genetic engineering is a critically important technology capable of solving various problems that humanity has long been unable to resolve. It is already providing significant benefits to humanity in diverse fields—such as improving food productivity, developing new drugs, treating rare diseases, and preventing genetic disorders—and has great potential for further advancement.
However, if genetic engineering is indiscriminately permitted without any ethical standards or social consensus, the risk of undermining human dignity, the right to equality, and diversity could also increase. The fact that humans are unique individuals is a value that society must respect, and technological advancements must not be used in ways that undermine these values.
On the other hand, genetic engineering can be fully utilized within certain limits when aimed at protecting human life and health, such as in the prevention and treatment of genetic diseases. What is important is not to unconditionally permit or prohibit the technology itself, but to continuously build social consensus on where the line is drawn between what constitutes the realm of medical treatment and what constitutes an infringement on human diversity and equality.
Ultimately, the advancement of genetic engineering is not merely a matter of science and technology but also an issue that requires careful consideration of human dignity and ethics. For genetic engineering technology to be utilized in a positive way for humanity in the future, all members of society must respect the values of human diversity and equality and share an ethical commitment to using the technology responsibly.
