Should we genetically engineer our children?

I have written a personal opinion on whether it is okay to genetically engineer your child.

 

Genetic engineering has come a long way, and as a result, people have mixed reactions to it: hopeful and worried. While some people are hopeful that modern medical technology can fundamentally solve the treatment of intractable diseases, others are worried that humans can directly manipulate the genes that contain all of our information and have a negative reaction from a moral point of view. As a result, genetic engineering has become a major issue in today’s society.
Michael Sandle, author of The Ethics of Bioethics, addresses the issue of whether or not we should genetically engineer our children. He argues that ethical issues arise when people use genetic manipulation (genetic engineering) to enhance genes for personal purposes beyond curing diseases. In particular, he argues that in the relationship between parents and children, treating children as a gift from their parents means accepting them as they are, not as objects that parents can design, products of their will, or tools to fulfill their ambitions. In contrast, William May argues that parenthood is “openness to the future of chance” and “generosity to the unchosen,” meaning that parental love is not contingent on the abilities or attributes a child possesses. Furthermore, Sandel argues that manipulating a child’s genes at will is a form of eugenics. Eugenics is the study of how genetic factors affect the traits of future generations, with the goal of genetically improving the human race. He opposes genetic engineering design, saying that when parents manipulate their children’s genes to improve their abilities, it is eugenic because it is done for the purpose of genetic enhancement and is done against the child’s will.
Those who are in favor of designing children with genetic engineering view it very positively because of its added value in treating diseases. They argue that modern medicine has limitations when it comes to treating diseases, so genetically modifying diseases such as hereditary diseases is a breakthrough and could be a revolution for humanity. They also argue that parents have a responsibility and vocation for the well-being of their children, and genetic modification can help them live happier lives. For example, they argue that birth defects that cannot be overcome through acquired efforts can be fixed through genetic manipulation, increasing the number of paths a child can choose. Birth defects can include diseases such as genetic disorders, as well as appearance, height, etc. that make you different from other people. If a person’s birth defect prevents them from choosing the path they want to take, they have been deprived of the opportunity to do so. Therefore, they argue, increasing the number of paths a child can choose through genetic manipulation may be one way to ensure that the child is happy.
I am not opposed to genetically engineering children for the purpose of curing diseases and overcoming disabilities, such as curing genetic diseases or cancer. I am, however, opposed to genetically designing children to maximize the functioning of traits that are needed from a parent’s perspective in order to make their children more socially competitive and happy. Examples of this include manipulating genes to maximize features such as appearance, height, intellectual ability, musical talent, athleticism, etc. There are two reasons why I am negative about designing children through genetic engineering for purposes other than curing diseases. The first is that I believe it is unlikely that the intention of parents who design their children through genetic engineering, which is the happiness of their children, will be achieved through this practice. The second is that even if this intention is achieved, I believe the practice of genetic engineering is risky because I believe it is likely to exacerbate social problems, especially the global distribution of wealth. I believe that it is dangerous to genetically engineer children unless adequate safeguards and solutions are found for both of these problems.
I believe that parents design their children with genetic engineering because they want their children to be happy. Enhancements to their physical appearance, intellectual abilities, and in the case of athletes, athletic performance, to be socially competitive, are the main ways that society generally believes that children can be happy. Therefore, when genetic engineering becomes available, I believe that most parents will use it to enhance their children’s functioning. Even before the ethical issues of genetic engineering, I doubt that genetic engineering can make children happy, and given the current social trends, I think that if genetic engineering becomes available to design children, most parents will use it to improve their children’s intelligence, athleticism, and musical talent. Consider the current situation of high school students in South Korea. Many parents in South Korea compete fiercely for their children’s success in education, spending large sums of money on private tutoring, advanced learning, and getting their children involved in extracurricular activities, including after-school programs. While most parents in South Korean society would like to see their children improve their intellectual abilities in many of the ways mentioned above, only those who can afford the cost can benefit from private education. The Korean education issue and the genetic manipulation issue are similar in that both are done for the well-being of the child. As this case shows, if genetic modification can be used to acquire dominant traits, parents will want to use it to improve their children’s intellectual abilities, athleticism, musical talent, and physical appearance to make them more competitive. However, given that education is also quite expensive, and those who are not wealthy are not able to benefit from it, fewer people will be able to afford the cost of genetic modification, which will have a greater impact on human life than acquired education, than those who can afford private education. In addition, given the difference between the effects of education, which is an acquired endeavor, and the effects of genetic modification, which directly affects human life, the difference between those who benefit from genetic modification and those who do not will be even greater, and the conflicts that arise will intensify.
Are children happy in Korea’s fierce educational frenzy? Korea’s youth happiness rate ranks among the lowest in many countries. It can be expected that the extreme differences and conflicts between those who can benefit from genetic engineering and those who cannot will be greater than the conflicts in education, which is currently an issue in Korean society, so if we design children, will they be happy in such a society? If this question is not resolved, the purpose of the act will not be achieved, so designing through genetic engineering will eventually become an act that has lost its original intention.
I believe that if some groups, countries, or ethnicities acquire superior traits before others and monopolize social, cultural, economic, and other priorities, not only a country but the entire world could be in trouble. Right now, the world’s wealth and influence is controlled by a few giant countries. If genetically eugenic design of children is realized, everyone will want to benefit from this technology, but it is likely that only a very few people will actually benefit from this technology, because it will cost a lot of money to realize this technology and the investment period will be long. Therefore, when this technology comes to the market, the cost will be unimaginable. For example, when a global pharmaceutical company develops a new drug, it usually requires an investment of more than $100 million and a development period of 10 to 15 years. In addition, it usually takes 15-20 years of exclusive patent protection to recoup the investment when the drug is brought to market. This is currently the case for chemical pharmaceuticals that use chemical reactions, and gene therapy, which is a more advanced technology, requires a higher investment and longer exclusivity period than drug development. Gene therapy, which delivers genes in various forms in the human body to treat diseases without direct genetic manipulation, is very difficult to mass produce and has many limitations in producing uniform and high-quality products, unlike conventional chemical synthesis. Gene manipulation, which requires even more advanced technology, can be expected to trigger unimaginable price competition. In the case of genetic analysis to diagnose possible genetic defects in children, for example, it cost about $100 million in 2001 when it was first introduced, but many people were willing to pay for it. If a genetically engineered technology were to be introduced to the market, the market price would be $10 billion or more, and wealthy people would be willing to pay that price to acquire a dominant trait. Furthermore, the cost of genetic testing has dropped from $100 million in 2001 to about $1000 13 years later, a factor of 1/100,000. It may take three times as long for genetic manipulation technology to come down to the $1000 level, given the more advanced technology, investment costs, production efficiency, and patent duration (20 years) than just genetic testing. This is a conservative estimate, but we can expect it to take at least 30 years. This is about a generation gap, and the first country or individual to get the technology will have the superior trait a generation ahead of the rest of the population, which can create a hierarchy of superior traits. This has the potential to increase eugenic and hierarchical inequality.
Even in the problem of disease, which is a common human concern, it is difficult for most people to benefit after a long period of time, and I think it will take a much longer period of time for people to benefit universally in the eugenics problem (designing children with better traits). During that time, the first group to benefit will have established a monopoly in the academic, social, economic, political, military, and cultural domains, and will have passed it down through generations. The gap between the haves and have-nots will be incomparably greater than it is today. It may be extreme, but the world could become a world of only those who have benefited from some technologies. Because of the potential for this to happen, I think it is dangerous to genetically engineer children unless the above issues are addressed.
It could be argued that if we regulate the use of genetic modification to acquire dominant traits such as appearance, intellectual ability, and athletic ability, and establish laws and policies that only allow genetic modification to treat diseases, we can achieve the happiness of our children and not worry about social problems. On the other hand, I don’t think there is a problem with using genetic modification to treat acquired diseases. In the case of an acquired disease, it is more likely that the child will recover and be happy through gene manipulation, and unless the gene in the germline is manipulated, it is unlikely that the child will inherit the dominant gene acquired during the disease treatment process, so it is unlikely to have a significant impact on social problems. However, if gene manipulation is used to prevent the onset of a disease rather than just treating an acquired disease, I think that socially difficult problems may arise, if not worse than those caused by directly selecting dominant traits (appearance, intellectual ability, athletic ability, etc.) and passing them on to children through gene manipulation. If the probability of developing a certain disease, such as Parkinson’s disease, is very high, I think it is okay to use gene manipulation to prevent it. When we talk about the likelihood of a disease, we have to use some probability-based criteria to determine whether it can be treated with genetic modification, but we also have to decide who should and shouldn’t be covered when there are people with a 1 in 100,000 or 10% chance of developing the disease. This could result in people who are not eligible for genetic modification because they are not likely to develop the disease, but later develop a genetic disease and are unable to get relief. Also, if we allow genetic modification to eliminate the possibility of genetic disease, how can we control the level of genetic modification? In addition to preventing exposure to the disease, it also enhances the body’s ability to perform much better, such as eliminating attention deficits, resulting in a high level of concentration.
Genes are an important part of the information about human life. Nowadays, with the advancement of science and technology, secrets about genes are being revealed one by one, and many people have expressed their thoughts on “should we genetically design our children” in anticipation of changing human lives by artificially manipulating human genes. I am in favor of using genetic engineering only to treat diseases, but I think it is dangerous to use genetic engineering to design children for the acquisition of other dominant traits (physical appearance, intellectual ability, athleticism, artistic ability). They argued that if genetic engineering is allowed to design children, it will not only be possible to treat diseases, but also to make children express dominant traits through genetic manipulation, which will lead to social discomfort and other problems due to groups pre-empting them. In response, if the scope of genetic manipulation is limited by laws and national policies, the problem of social inequality due to the preemption of dominant traits can be solved. I also think that children can live a better life by treating genetic diseases with genetic engineering.