This blog post deeply examines, from an ethical perspective, what changes might occur in human nature and social values if genetic engineering becomes a reality.
In the film ‘Gattaca’, most children are born with artificially manipulated genes. Sperm and eggs are collected from the parents, artificially fertilized to create embryos, and then genetically edited. Only embryos with reduced rates of rare diseases and disabilities are implanted into the womb. Children born this way have no physical abnormalities whatsoever. They are born with bodies capable of easily enduring a life expectancy of 100 years. Furthermore, it is possible to alter the innate talents, personality, and appearance a child is born with through additional manipulation.
In the novel ‘Brave New World’, children are born in artificial wombs rather than their mothers’ bodies, and people live their entire lives in young, healthy bodies before dying peacefully. Isn’t that astonishing? While this story may sound like it belongs to a distant future, the day our society transforms into one like ‘Gattaca’ or ‘Brave New World’ might not be so far off. This prediction is made possible by rapidly advancing genetic engineering technology. In fact, even in today’s IVF procedures, a process called ‘preimplantation genetic diagnosis’ exists, similar to the babies in ‘Gattaca’, where genes are examined beforehand before implantation. Eggs and sperm collected from the parents are fertilized to create an embryo, and after 4-5 days, genetic diseases are diagnosed from the embryonic cells. Through PGD, the presence of genetic defects or other genetic disorders is identified, allowing only embryos with the most favorable genetic makeup to be implanted.
Modern genetic engineering technology has advanced to the point where it can diagnose an embryo’s genes and determine its implantation. Notably, CRISPR gene editing, a major topic in the life sciences in 2015, is further accelerating this technological progress. CRISPR gene scissors are enzymes that cut DNA containing specific genes in human, animal, or plant cells. Using this technology can reduce the time required for gene editing, which previously took years, to just days, and it also allows for the simultaneous editing of multiple genes. A Chinese research team successfully used CRISPR gene scissors to replace the mutated hemoglobin beta (HBB) gene, which causes anemia, with the normal gene in a human zygote (embryo). If this zygote is implanted into the uterus, the child born would not suffer from anemia. This is nothing short of the realization of ‘Gattaca’.
However, reaching this level of human genetic engineering raises various concerns about its application in our society. Should we accept human genetic engineering into our society? If so, how should we accept it? We must ponder this issue.
Human genetic engineering clearly exists for the benefit of humanity. A healthy body that does not age, does not develop hereditary diseases, and is not easily invaded by external viruses or bacteria is something humanity has long dreamed of. Genetic engineering technology can fulfill the human desire for health and longevity. However, on the other hand, this technology could threaten humanity’s nature and values.
In today’s competitive society, various techniques are employed to enhance one’s appearance and abilities to increase competitiveness. Methods like cram schools, certifications, dieting, and plastic surgery are employed. If human genetic engineering is introduced into our society, genetic enhancement will be added to this list. If one could give birth to a child enhanced in appearance, personality, intelligence, and health, how many would refuse? The problem is that this process could undermine human dignity and the essential values of democracy.
Enhancement through genetic manipulation exhibits eugenic traits by selecting and eliminating genetically unsuitable individuals for the purpose of improving genetic traits. Increasing the population with superior genes and reducing those with inferior genes appears superficially sound logic. However, we already know the evils of eugenics combined with totalitarianism, as seen in Nazi Germany. Serious human rights violations occurred, such as forced sterilization or mass extermination of carriers of “bad” genes to increase “good” genes. The dignity of individual humans was disregarded for the sake of overall genetic improvement.
Even if future eugenics does not merge with totalitarianism, the outcome is not bright. In our competitive, capital-centered modern society, genetic modification is highly likely to intersect with issues of inequality. This is because access to genetic modification technology will be unequally distributed based on capital. Satisfying the desire for a child to possess superior genes requires money. Whether descendants inherit better genes, average genes, or inferior genes will be determined by the financial status of their ancestors. In a competitive society, children with genetically enhanced traits through modification will naturally have a higher probability of success. Genetic enhancement achieved unequally over multiple generations may give rise to a class logic dividing people into genetic aristocrats and genetic commoners. This contradicts the democratic principle that all citizens are free and equal.
Furthermore, genes deemed inferior by eugenics are not necessarily inferior. Sickle cell syndrome is one example. Normal red blood cells possess spherical hemoglobin, enabling efficient oxygen delivery. However, mutated red blood cells with sickle-shaped hemoglobin, caused by genetic mutation, cannot supply oxygen smoothly, leading to chronic anemia. At first glance, the completely dominant (SS) red blood cells with spherical hemoglobin appear advantageous for survival. However, individuals heterozygous for both the round and sickle cell genes (Ss) retain the round cell shape while gaining resistance to malaria. The seemingly disadvantageous sickle cell gene persisted precisely because it conferred survival advantage in malaria-endemic regions like Africa. This is the result of natural selection. As seen in the case of sickle cell syndrome, the same gene can be advantageous or disadvantageous for survival depending on the environment an individual inhabits, leading to distinct natural selection processes. So, can traits artificially selected and evolved by humans, rather than nature, truly be considered equivalent to those shaped by natural selection among diverse mutations? We must consider whether genetic manipulation aimed at suppressing mutations might actually become an obstacle to human evolution.
As science and technology advance rapidly, we have theoretically reached a level where genetic manipulation could enable humans to transcend their limitations. However, while technological development is extremely fast, ethical consideration regarding its application has not kept pace. The application of human genetic engineering simultaneously carries ethical concerns such as eugenic aspects and issues of equality. Therefore, human genetic engineering technology should be applied only within limited scope, ensuring it benefits humanity while minimizing social problems. For example, sex selection of embryos should only be permitted when a recessive genetic disease is detected during preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Sex selection based solely on parental preference must be prohibited to prevent population gender imbalance. Furthermore, genetic manipulation should only be permitted when the symptoms of a genetic disease are life-threatening. Governments and societies must establish guidelines for each genetic disease and genetic manipulation.
On the other hand, one might argue that such restrictions constrain human progress. However, to minimize societal disruption, applying these restrictions after ethical discussions about the technology have taken place is preferable to allowing the technology to be abused without any conscious consideration.
