This blog post explores the innovative possibilities designer baby technology could bring to humanity, alongside the ethical controversies and social issues surrounding it.

Introduction

Ongoing advancements in life science technologies allow us today to enjoy better healthcare and greater welfare than in the past. As developments in genetic research, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence accelerate, expectations for extending human lifespan and preventing disease are also rising. Alongside this, the emergence of gene editing technology has confronted us with new questions about the very essence of life. Under these life science advancements, a new form of baby has emerged: the ‘designer baby’. Designer baby technology refers to the ability to predetermine and create a baby’s characteristics through genetic testing and manipulation of embryos via artificial insemination. Currently, traits like gender or eye color can be determined. Furthermore, as research into human genetics advances, it is anticipated that not only physical appearance but also personality and intelligence could eventually be determined. Furthermore, designer baby technology is being utilized not only to determine traits while the embryo is still in its embryonic state but also for therapeutic purposes to treat children suffering from diseases. The advancement of this technology raises social and ethical issues beyond mere medical aspects, sparking philosophical debates about how much humans can alter the laws of nature. Various arguments for and against designer baby technology exist. This debate over designer babies could form the basis for crucial decisions regarding the scope of application once the technology is perfected. Therefore, this article examines both sides of the argument and discusses the appropriate boundaries for applying designer baby technology.

Arguments in Favor of Designer Babies

First, designer baby technology can prevent genetic diseases or disabilities in children. During the process of creating a designer baby, the genes of the pre-implantation embryo are tested. At this stage, genes that could potentially cause disease or disability can be manipulated to remove the genetic factors responsible for these conditions, thereby resolving the child’s congenital issues. This technology allows parents to prevent health problems their child might face before birth, which can have a positive impact not only on the family but on society as a whole. The birth of a healthy child can significantly contribute to reducing medical costs, preventing disease, and improving an individual’s quality of life. Furthermore, this preimplantation genetic diagnosis technology is more economical than treating genetic diseases, thereby alleviating the financial burden on families. Particularly for families affected by genetic diseases, this technology can be a beacon of hope and, on a societal level, contribute to lowering the incidence of severe diseases.
Second, it can be utilized for the treatment of a child with a disease. If a family has a child suffering from a rare or incurable disease, embryos matching the child’s bone marrow or blood tissue can be selected and born to treat the diseased child. In such cases, a designer baby can be a crucial breakthrough in disease treatment and contribute to solving problems difficult to overcome with existing treatment methods. Third, it can enable the birth of children with superior innate abilities through genetic modification. By modifying genes related to physical appearance or intelligence factors while the embryo is still in its embryonic state, these genetic predispositions can be enhanced, leading to the birth of children with superior innate abilities. This opens new possibilities for maximizing an individual’s potential and allows parents to design their child’s future more positively.

Opposing Viewpoints on Designer Babies

First, it fosters a culture that devalues life. When humans artificially create life through such processes, it risks undermining human dignity and human rights. Life is a product of nature, and excessive human attempts to control it threaten to diminish life’s mystery and preciousness. Second, it could exacerbate conflicts between social classes. Wealthier families may utilize customized baby technology more extensively to produce genetically superior offspring, potentially intensifying class tensions. Consequently, society could face a new hierarchy based on genetics, which could further exacerbate existing social inequalities. Third, there are concerns about the misuse and abuse of genetic manipulation technology. There is a risk that this technology could be misused or abused, such as for producing combatants for military purposes or for human cloning for illegal organ trafficking. Such misuse is not merely an individual problem; it could cause serious ethical and legal issues for society as a whole and lead to the technology spiraling out of control.

How far should designer baby technology be applied?

Above, we explored what designer babies are and examined the arguments for and against them. Next, we will discuss how far the scope of application should be set for the benefits of designer babies claimed by proponents—such as curing genetic diseases, treating patients, and modifying genetic traits—and then consider or critique the anticipated opinions and counterarguments, focusing on the arguments of the opponents mentioned above. The potential benefits of designer baby technology are undeniable, yet the possibility of its abuse and misuse cannot be ignored. Therefore, discussions on how far this technology should be permitted must be cautious, requiring ethical and legal considerations on a case-by-case basis.
First, the use of designer baby technology for the purpose of treating genetic diseases could be applied for medical purposes. Opponents argue that applying designer baby technology could spark ethical conflicts, such as fostering a culture of disregard for life. However, I believe it is somewhat of an overreaction to suggest that gene editing at the embryonic stage alone will lead to such a culture of disregard. Humankind has been manipulating nature for thousands of years, and the advancement of medical technology has consistently aimed to improve human life. When the first test-tube baby was introduced in 1978, the technology of artificial insemination faced significant criticism from a bioethical perspective. Yet, over 30 years later, more than 4 million babies have been born worldwide through IVF procedures, and no ethical issues like a disregard for life have emerged from this practice. Instead, it is recognized as a technology for infertile couples. In 2010, Dr. Robert Edwards was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his contributions to the birth of the first test-tube baby. This case demonstrates that designer baby technology can be appropriately used based on medical necessity and accepted as societal perceptions evolve. Designer baby technology for treating genetic diseases is considered an extension of this IVF technology. For parents carrying genetic disease factors, it can be seen as a beneficial and economical technology that alleviates worries about their child’s illness and the costs associated with treating genetic diseases.
Next, I believe that designer baby technology for treating children with diseases should also be partially introduced, provided it does not place significant strain on the newborn’s body. For incurable or intractable diseases like leukemia, methods such as bone marrow transplants are often necessary. In such cases, if designer baby technology can be applied, it could become a beneficial technology that saves the lives of children with diseases. This technology presents new treatment methods that transcend current medical limitations and can offer great hope to patients and their families. However, cases that place undue strain on the customized baby’s body, such as organ transplants, should be excluded. Those opposing this technology will argue that it violates the human rights of the newly born customized baby and disregards human dignity. However, applying the technology within limits that do not significantly burden the customized baby’s body could instead be reinterpreted as a technology that safeguards human dignity by saving human life. In the act of saving lives, if accompanied by appropriate procedures and ethical considerations, customized baby technology can be seen not merely as a tool but as the realization of humanity. Indeed, on April 8, 2003, following a lawsuit by a couple with a child suffering from a disease, the UK High Court ruled that “If it can save a child’s life, the birth of a designer baby is a legitimate use of new technology.” Furthermore, the UK’s medical ethics oversight body, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), officially permitted the birth of a designer baby with identical genetic traits to treat an incurably ill sibling on May 20, 2008. However, there is a risk that such designer babies may grow up without proper parental love or be treated like disposable items, which could raise significant ethical concerns. Therefore, legal and social mechanisms must be established to protect the human rights and welfare of designer babies. This is the responsibility of both parents and society. Consequently, for parents seeking treatment for their diseased children, educational counseling prior to designer baby procedures and the establishment of social systems for the child through observation and visits over several years should be required.
As stated above, designer baby technology should be applied only within limited areas, particularly for medical purposes involving human life. However, designer babies created for human trait modification should be avoided. From a pro-designer baby perspective, Nicholas Agar argues that genetic enhancement should be treated on the same level as environmental enhancement. Just as active parental intervention to improve the environment is ethically permissible, parental intervention to enhance a child’s innate abilities through genetic manipulation should also be morally permissible. However, as opponents argue, this technology could fuel wealth disparities and open the door to misuse. If commercialized, it could become a major threat to social equality and fairness. If designer baby technology is not confined to medical purposes but extends to determining human traits, it could deepen social inequality. Moreover, the potential for abuse—such as the creation of designer babies for illegal purposes—cannot be ruled out. Lee Silver, a molecular biologist at Princeton University, has also pointed out in his book that genetic manipulation driven by the desire to improve children’s genes will lead to extreme polarization in society. This will create a stratified society divided into the ‘Naturals’—those born through natural conception—and the ‘GienRich’—a wealthy genetic class born through artificial genes. (GienRich). This is not mere speculation but a significant example warning of the real dangers of genetic manipulation technology. Proponents will counter that abuse can be controlled through sufficient regulation. However, just as it is impossible to completely regulate the abuse of narcotic painkillers by law, it cannot be denied that the misuse of this technology could cause major social problems, such as the production of humans for war or for illegal purposes.
In response to the argument above, if designer babies for genetic modification should be avoided because their misuse cannot be sufficiently regulated, one could counter that introducing designer baby technology for treating diseased children would also be difficult to prevent from misuse. Of course, some legal regulation could be applied in the case of treating diseased children, but as seen in other cases, perfect regulation is impossible. However, there is a significant difference in purpose between introducing technology for treating children with diseases and for genetic modification. The former serves a medical purpose—curing incurable diseases—while the latter is simply introducing technology based on parental preference. This difference creates a major distinction in the ethical justification for introducing the technology. This can be compared to how drug use is legally prohibited, yet narcotic painkillers and anesthetics are permitted for medical purposes. Even with the same potential for abuse, the fact that medical use is permitted allows for differential application. This is not fundamentally different from the issue of differential adoption of designer baby technology.

Conclusion

We have examined the arguments for and against designer baby technology and presented our opinion on the matter. In conclusion, designer baby technology is a complex tool possessing both potential and risk. To summarize the opinion: Designer baby technology for medical purposes to save human life, such as treating genetic diseases or curing children with illnesses, should be introduced under appropriate regulation. Conversely, designer baby technology aimed at altering traits, which could create wealth disparities or abuse issues, should be avoided. This can serve as an important benchmark for maintaining balance between technological advancement and ethical responsibility.
In today’s world of relentless advances in life science technology, we will inevitably confront the issue of designer baby technology, whether we like it or not. At that point, determining the appropriate scope of its application will undoubtedly be a critical question. However, designer baby technology is a double-edged sword depending on how it is used; therefore, neither unconditional opposition nor unconditional support is warranted. We have a responsibility to actively embrace the new possibilities offered by science and technology while simultaneously scrutinizing and preparing for the social and ethical issues they may raise. Therefore, regarding the introduction of designer baby technology, we need to consider in advance the scope of its application to enhance human quality of life without compromising human dignity or leading to problems like misuse. I believe this article can serve as one indicator for defining that scope. We hope that such discussions will continue to flourish, guiding technology toward contributing to human welfare and advancement.