This blog post addresses the ethical dilemmas surrounding designer baby technology and the resulting need for legal regulation. It explores ways to resolve the social benefits and moral issues of genetic manipulation.
A ‘designer baby’ refers to a baby born after creating an embryo through artificial insemination and then selecting or creating a normal embryo with specific genetic traits. Recent advances in biotechnology have ushered in an era where genetic manipulation is possible, enabling parents to select or enhance specific genetic traits in their children. While the potential of this technology is vast, significant questions about bioethics remain unresolved. It is crucial to recognize that genetic manipulation is not merely biological progress but a critical issue that challenges the meaning and value of human existence. It is time to move beyond vague objections that “genetic modification challenges God’s domain” and instead redefine moral values through reflection on how genetic modification could impact society and individuals.
Philosopher Michael Sandel argues in his book The Case Against Perfection that the moral meaning of life begins with accepting its essence as given. He points out that when humans attempt to artificially redesign life through genetic manipulation, they compromise life’s inherent value, labeling this “excessive human subjectivity.” Sandel criticizes the act of parents designing their children’s genetic traits as an excessive exercise of parental role, arguing it overlooks the essential mystery and contingency of human existence. According to his view, human life should be accepted not as a planned product, but as a gift containing unpredictable possibilities.
Theologian William May divides parental love into ‘accepting love’ and ‘transforming love’. ‘Accepting love’ is the attitude of embracing a child’s innate being as it is, while ‘transforming love’ is the attitude of helping a child live a better life. May argues that only when parents balance both forms of love can they provide true affection to their children. However, in modern society, many parents tend to overemphasize ‘shaping love,’ leading to problems like excessive admissions competition, early education, and the private tutoring craze. Sandel points to this ‘love that changes’ as stemming from parents’ excessive agency, emphasizing that genetic manipulation to create designer babies is fundamentally no different.
If there are movements to regulate genetic manipulation technology, it is to maintain social stability and moral values. In the past, advances in science and technology have also put human moral values to the test, and sometimes these changes have sparked significant social conflict. However, humans have adapted to societal change while developing moral values. For example, in 2008, the UK’s medical ethics oversight body, the HFEA, permitted the birth of a genetically tailored baby to treat an incurable sibling. This demonstrates that genetic manipulation, when unavoidably necessary, can be conducted under limited legal regulation. Therefore, while various factors—such as the child’s autonomy, the value of respecting life, and parental desires—can conflict, it is possible to achieve social legitimacy and harmony through legal regulation.
It is also important to note that Sandel’s concern about ‘excessive parental autonomy’ can be addressed through legal regulation. He predicted that parents’ attempts to arbitrarily adjust their children’s genetic traits using genetic manipulation would manifest in forms like private tutoring or drug abuse. However, genetic modification differs from other forms of private education or drugs. This technology is performed under the supervision of highly skilled doctors and scientists, allowing mechanisms to control parental autonomy and prevent excessive interference. Therefore, the problem of excessive parental autonomy mentioned by Sandel can be appropriately controlled through legal mechanisms. This opens the possibility of evaluating genetic modification not merely as an ethical issue, but as scientific progress.
Some oppose genetic manipulation on the grounds that it could undermine social values, particularly the value of effort and achievement. If children with superior abilities are born through genetic manipulation, there is a concern that human society might shift towards a culture that relies on genes rather than valuing existing effort and passion. However, human abilities are not determined solely by genetic factors; environmental influences still play a significant role. For example, even the children of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan, who possess exceptional athletic abilities, cannot achieve the same level of skill without their own effort. While genetic modification might confer certain traits, it cannot override a child’s individuality and potential for development.
From an evolutionary perspective, the issue of genetic diversity is also frequently cited as a reason to oppose genetic modification. If everyone undergoes genetic modification to eliminate specific genes they dislike, there is a risk that the human gene pool could become homogenized. However, genetic modification technology includes somatic cell genetic modification and germline genetic modification. Since somatic cell genetic modification is not passed on to offspring, it can prevent this problem. By permitting only somatic cell gene editing and prohibiting germline gene editing, the effects of genetic modification can be prevented from being passed on to offspring. Indeed, the United States and the United Kingdom permit somatic cell gene editing while banning germline gene editing.
Another benefit of genetic modification is disease prevention and reduced societal costs. If genetic modification can prevent specific genetic diseases, it saves the costs and time required for treatment, ultimately leading to long-term societal benefits. Preventing the onset of genetic diseases reduces the burden on healthcare systems, leading to benefits for society as a whole. For example, designer babies can use preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to selectively exclude embryos with genetic defects. This is useful for reducing unnecessary treatment costs, and the economic benefits for both individuals and society through designer babies are significant.
In conclusion, the ethical dilemmas surrounding genetic manipulation can be resolved through a balance of legal regulation and moral values. This allows us to explore the possibility of enjoying the benefits of scientific progress while preserving the inherent value of humanity. To maximize the social benefits of genetic manipulation and minimize moral issues, proper legal frameworks and social consensus are necessary.
