Genetically engineered personalized babies: Ethical challenge or scientific advancement?

The use of genetic engineering to create personalized babies is an ethically controversial issue. Legal regulations and moral values can help ensure that genetic modification is used in a positive way in society.

 

A “designer baby” is a baby created by selecting or creating a normal embryo with a specific genetic trait after creating an artificially fertilized embryo. While biotechnology has made genetic modification a reality, we have neglected to consider the bioethics involved in genetic modification. We need to rethink the moral values of genetic modification and not just assume that it is a challenge to God’s domain.
In The Case Against Perfection, Michael Sandel argues that life has moral meaning when we recognize it as a gift. He argues that when humans seek to alter their lives through genetic enhancement, they undermine the moral meaning of life. He calls this “excessive human agency” and points out that it is a fundamental problem with genetic enhancement. Michael Sandel believes that parents designing their children is also an example of “excessive parental agency.
Theologian William May suggests that parenting is a balancing act between “accepting love” and “transforming love. Accepting love is the affirmation of the child’s existence, while transforming love is the pursuit of the child’s well-being. Today, many parents tend to lean toward transformative love, which leads to social problems such as over-competition in school admissions and excessive early education. Michael Sandel sees this “transformative love” as excessive parental agency, which he argues is the same as the underlying problem with genetic modification.
However, he believes that designing children through genetic manipulation can be justified through legal regulation. Historically, scientific advances have threatened human moral values, and human values are constantly changing. The issue of genetic modification also involves conflicting values, such as the autonomy of the child, the value of life, and the desires of the parents, but it can be applied to society through legal regulation. For example, in 2008, the HFEA, the UK’s medical ethics regulator, officially authorized the creation of a “personalized baby” with the same genetic traits to treat a terminally ill sibling. Similarly, genetically engineered therapies have also been allowed through legal regulation, albeit with much debate.
In addition, Michael Sandel’s argument of “excessive parental agency” can be criticized within the framework of law. He argued that genetic modification, like excessive private education and substance abuse, would represent excessive parental agency. However, unlike private education and drugs, genetic modification requires high technical skills and expertise. Therefore, it is a false analogy to argue the problem of genetic modification through excessive private education and drugs. Parents have the freedom to design their children through private education and drugs, but the freedom to design their children through genetic modification is under legal regulation.
Opponents of genetic modification might argue that it would lead to a loss of social values such as hard work and passion. If genetically modified children are more capable than unmodified children, humans will place more value on genetic modification than on hard work, and this could lead to blind faith in genetic modification or lethargy towards life. However, arguments based on genetic reductionism are rebuttable. It’s not just one gene that determines our abilities, but a combination of genes. For example, there are about 54,000 genes associated with human intelligence, and they work in concert. In addition, acquired factors also play a role in human performance. For example, the children of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan wouldn’t have the same abilities if they didn’t try. Even if parents design their children through genetic manipulation, their abilities cannot be unleashed without hard work and passion.
Another expected objection is the problem of genetic homogenization from an evolutionary perspective. Even if laws regulate gene enhancement, if genetic manipulation continues and is passed on to the next generation, genetic diversity could be lost. For example, if everyone is genetically modified because they don’t want to be bald, the human baldness gene will disappear. However, depending on the method of genetic modification, the modified gene can be legally regulated to prevent it from being passed on to the next generation. There are two types of gene manipulation: somatic cell gene manipulation and germline gene manipulation. Somatic gene manipulation involves placing a desired gene into a cell to express a trait, taking over the function of a faulty gene or replacing a faulty gene. Germline genetic modification, on the other hand, involves inserting a gene into a fertilized egg or an early-stage embryo, meaning that only the latter of the two methods is passed on to future generations. This means that if germline genetic modification is banned by law, the modified genes will not be passed on to future generations. In fact, the United States and the United Kingdom only allow somatic cell genetic modification and prohibit germline genetic modification.
Finally, genetic modification has greater value in terms of societal benefits. Genetic modification can benefit society by proactively treating over 3,900 genetic disorders. Genetic modification can also benefit society by preventing conditions that aren’t called disorders, such as hair loss, but require medical treatment. For example, personalized babies use a technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). The cost of PGD is less expensive than the cost of giving birth to and treating a child with a genetic disorder. There are many societal benefits to be gained from PGD.
In conclusion, legal regulation can establish the moral values of genetic modification. By shifting the actor of genetic modification from the parents to the doctor or the state, the law can solve the moral problem of “excessive agency”. It can also protect social values such as hard work and passion by avoiding reductionist genetic manipulation, and prevent human genetic homogenization and maintain diversity by banning germline gene therapy. With legal regulations that uphold these moral values, genetic modification can be used for societal benefit and to ensure a healthy life for our children.
If a musician with stage fright uses beta-blockers to overcome stage fright, it is criticized as going against the spirit of musicianship, and if a classical singer uses a sound amplifier to be heard from the back of the stage, it is criticized as going against the spirit of overcoming. Similarly, genetic enhancement was once criticized because it implied that humans were manipulating humans, challenging the realm of the divine. However, as with the use of beta-blockers and sound amplifiers over time, the issue of genetic enhancement will greatly contribute to human welfare when humans establish the right moral values and implement them within the framework of the law.