This blog post delves deeply into the ethical issues that can arise when parents manipulate a fetus’s genes.
One of the most talked-about scientific issues in the medical community recently concerns CRISPR, a new form of gene scissors that is central to gene recombination technology. Following reports of its increased accuracy and efficiency compared to existing technologies, bright prospects emerged, suggesting it could offer hope for treating diseases like AIDS and cancer. However, many people expressed concerns about the emergence of a society where genetic manipulation occurs freely. Is it truly acceptable to allow parents to alter a child’s physical abilities or traits through genetic manipulation so that the child is born with characteristics they desire?
Films addressing this theme are readily available, and as biotechnology, particularly genetic engineering, continues to advance, these ethical debates persist. Michael Sandel’s book, ‘The Ethics of Life,’ which inspired this article, also tackles related themes. So, should parents be allowed to genetically modify their child’s genes using biotechnology?
To begin by clarifying my position: genetic manipulation of the fetus should not be performed. Of course, there may be some unavoidable, special cases, such as cutting out the gene responsible for a disease when it is medically incurable or has a very low chance of cure. However, this only modifies disease-related traits; the child still would be born with its predetermined physical appearance and characteristics. In other words, what we are arguing here is that it should not be permitted for parents to alter a child’s general characteristics at birth—such as physical abilities like motor skills, appearance, height, or cognitive abilities—to match their preferences.
The first reason is that significant disparities in children’s lives would arise based on whether and to what extent genetic modification occurs, determined by the parents’ economic circumstances. The ‘ideal’ form of child design would create differences based on how closely parents’ financial means can match that ideal. Those who support the birth of children through genetic manipulation—or, to borrow Sandel’s phrase, the ‘design’ of children—question the difference between mobilizing expensive tutoring in academics, sports, piano, etc., to help a child achieve more, and ensuring a child is born with better genes to increase their probability of success. However, it is important to note that the very act of mobilizing expensive tutoring already provokes aversion in many people. The question is whether a race where the starting line itself is not equal can truly be fair.
It is well known that the number and extent of private education children receive varies greatly depending on regional average income today, and that this is a major factor causing significant disparities in academic achievement across regions. Some children grow up receiving tailored education from an early age through expensive tutoring, while others grow up without ever receiving private education due to circumstances where even attending a decent school is difficult. When this continues for over a decade, differences in academic ability naturally emerge, and this directly translates into economic capability upon reaching adulthood. In a reality where the mindset that children should receive private education to avoid falling behind in competition is pervasive, the economic circumstances of parents inevitably extend to their children.
However, if this disparity intensifies to the point where differences arise not from education received after birth, but from the very conditions children are born with, that gap becomes even more severe. Children born with ordinary physical abilities and appearance, yet subjected to genetic modification to possess exceptional physical abilities and appearance, and those born in their ordinary state, will have fundamentally different probabilities of success, regardless of their own will. If private tutoring provided a difference that could be somewhat overcome through considerable effort, genetic modification would become the cause of differences that cannot be overcome even through extreme effort. Furthermore, if designing children through genetic modification becomes as commonplace as today’s private education, and the possible range of modifications diversifies, the physical and cognitive abilities a child is born with would vary enormously. This would depend entirely on the parents’ economic capacity to afford genetic modification and the extent to which they could insert superior genes. These differences would impact the child throughout their entire life, ultimately only exacerbating the current societal problem of inheriting parental economic circumstances.
Secondly, there is the issue of uniformity. If told, “You or your child’s genes can be modified,” the genetic modification methods most people envision would likely be predictable. In a society where external attractiveness emphasized by popular culture and media, cognitive abilities deemed crucial for success, health sufficient to live without illness, or athlete-level physical capabilities are prioritized, these would likely be the targets. As plastic surgery becomes commonplace, those who oppose it often cite concerns about the homogenization of beauty standards as one reason. Similarly, if genetic modification becomes widespread, there is a risk of homogenization not only in appearance but also in cognitive and physical abilities. If every child born were to resemble each other and possess similar abilities, as if churned out like products from a factory, then even though genetic modification is merely ‘possible’ and not an obligation, children born without such modification—without exceptional intelligence or physical prowess—would be treated as if they were disabled. The film “Gattaca” starkly depicts this very future.
If genetic engineering leads to uniformity in the appearance of children born, this will significantly impact their futures. Proponents of genetic engineering might argue that an increase in people born with exceptional abilities would enhance overall industrial efficiency. However, people live by finding work suited to their individual aptitudes based on their inherent abilities. For instance, those with exceptional intellectual abilities might become researchers contributing to society and humanity, while those with exceptional physical abilities might pursue careers requiring such skills. But if everyone is born with the same abilities and conditions, they might never discover such aptitudes. If everyone lived with similarly high intellectual abilities, children might never realize they are ‘exceptional’ or even recognize their suitability for research careers. They would likely feel that countless others could easily replace them. People feel a sense of belonging to a group and find meaning in life when they realize they are ‘needed’ by that group. However, if everyone possessed the same abilities, even if someone’s personality or traits made them uniquely suited for a task, they would likely think, ‘There are plenty of others with the same abilities; someone else can replace me.’ Consequently, they would not feel that sense of belonging or fulfillment.
Of course, some might argue that if genetic manipulation based on economic power, as mentioned in the first argument, exists, uniformity would not occur. But this is merely a difference in degree; ultimately, the genetic elements parents wish to impart for their children’s successful lives are somewhat predictable. As college entrance exams intensified and the private education market expanded, cram schools faced criticism for becoming factories churning out children who solve identical problems and think alike. Similarly, as the plastic surgery market grew, terms emerged to describe people who underwent multiple procedures to achieve similar facial features. Yet, private education and plastic surgery also vary in accessibility based on economic means. Similarly, if designing children through genetic manipulation becomes possible, parents would likely attempt to create children matching that ‘ideal type’ implied by mass media and our society, differing only in degree. This counters the argument that the two grounds above conflict.
The final reason why designing children should not be allowed concerns the child’s sense of their roots. The existence of terms like “musical family” or “athletic family” stems from certain traits—such as musical talent or athletic ability—being passed down genetically between parents and children. While optimal environments, educational methods, or parental connections might also contribute to success in these fields, we generally expect children born to two exceptional athletes to possess above-average athletic ability themselves. Furthermore, children are born not only with innate talents but also with physical features resembling their parents. These traits passed down through genetics play a role in helping children feel a sense of belonging within their family. Isn’t the reason many children adopted during infancy seek out their birth parents, no matter how devotedly their adoptive parents raised them, because those birth parents are the ones who made them who they are, the ones they resemble? However, if a method to design children were available, many parents would likely want to avoid passing on their own flaws to their offspring. They might also genetically engineer their children to possess abilities they themselves never had, hoping their children could achieve dreams they couldn’t due to physical limitations. As a result, the child born would possess outstanding strengths their parents lacked, or would be born without the prominent flaws their parents had. In that case, the characteristic of ‘resemblance’—which currently holds such great weight when we discuss parent-child relationships—would become entirely meaningless.
As the child grows, they will contemplate their roots, and that outstanding quality—the largest component of the identity society assigns to the child—will be found in neither parent. In the past, discovering similarities to one’s parents would have been an opportunity to enhance a sense of belonging and intimacy. But if these traits are gained through genetic manipulation, should the child be grateful to the researcher who engineered them, or to the parents who ‘purchased’ these superior genes before the child was even born? In this case, the crucial meaning that biological parents possess—that they “passed on genetic traits”—disappears, leaving only the fact that they gave birth and raised the child. It is a matter worth considering whether a child born through genetic manipulation will feel the same sense of roots and bond with their parents as a child born in an era without genetic manipulation. It is often said that the family forms the smallest unit of society. If the bonds within the family diminish, the impact of this phenomenon on society as a whole will likely be significant.
As technologies required for genetic manipulation—reading, cutting, and splicing genes—continue to advance, and successful experiments using animals become more frequent, the debate over whether it is acceptable to manipulate genes before a person is born persists. While proponents may cite reasons like creating flawless bodies or enhancing industrial efficiency, this approach resembles a factory churning out children tailored to societal demands rather than natural childbirth, ultimately leading to uniformity. Moreover, a child’s future success potential becomes significantly altered even before birth based on the family’s economic circumstances. This creates difficulties in establishing identity within the family and regarding one’s roots, potentially destabilizing society by undermining the family system, the most fundamental foundation of society. Therefore, arbitrarily modifying a child’s innate physical or cognitive characteristics—beyond merely correcting severe physical defects—should not be permitted.
