This blog post examines the ethical issues surrounding GMO and human genetic engineering, focusing on the arguments against them and the counterarguments.
You’ve probably heard the term “GMO” at least once before. Whether you heard it on the news or read it in a newspaper, GMO has become a familiar term to us. GMO stands for “Genetically Modified Organism,” which can be translated into Korean as “genetically modified food” or “genetically modified organism.” A genetically modified organism is an organism created by taking specific useful genes from one organism and inserting them into another organism that does not possess those genes, thereby imparting the characteristics of those genes to the recipient organism. Among such organisms, those that have been evaluated by the government as safe and suitable for human consumption are permitted as food, and these are referred to as genetically modified foods. However, despite government-proven safety, public perception of GMOs is far from positive. In fact, books warning of GMO risks have been published, and anti-GMO movements have emerged, indicating that society—or at least the general public in Korea—views GMOs very negatively. In this context, it is no surprise that human genetic engineering, which involves manipulating human genes, is met with skepticism. The most representative arguments against human genetic engineering are concerns about human dignity and side effects. However, these arguments are not very valid. Let’s take a closer look at why.
First, let’s talk about human dignity. The dictionary definition of human dignity is as follows: “Human dignity refers to the idea that human beings have value simply because they are human beings and that their personalities must be respected.” Of course, human dignity is one criterion that distinguishes humans from other living beings, and its importance is sufficiently emphasized in the Constitution of Korea. However, is it appropriate to use human dignity as a universal key to regulate all forms of human genetic engineering? Let us consider an extreme example. Hemophilia is one of the most representative genetic diseases, caused by a deficiency of clotting factors in the blood. Hemophilia patients experience difficulty in stopping bleeding, meaning even minor injuries can pose a significant threat to their lives. Suppose a couple’s wife is a carrier of the hemophilia gene. Since the hemophilia gene is caused by a mutation in the X chromosome, there is a 50% chance that their son will inherit the condition. The couple must live each day with this uncertainty. Of course, these days, if hemophilia is suspected, it is possible to determine whether the fetus has the condition through blood tests during pregnancy. However, since there is currently no cure for hemophilia, the difficult life remains the same. Now, suppose that human genetic engineering has advanced to the point where it can replace the F8 and F9 gene mutations on the X chromosome, which cause hemophilia, with normal genes.
Would we still oppose genetic manipulation on the grounds of the sanctity of life? Should hemophilia be included in the concept of human dignity and respected as such? The answer to this question is left to the readers to consider. Another point of contention among those who discuss human dignity is the commodification of life.
They argue that, as depicted in films like “The Island” and “Gattaca,” buying and selling lives for money could lead to immoral practices. However, there already exists a legal place where lives are bought and sold for money: hospitals. In hospitals, you must pay to save a life. This is because the money is used to maintain the hospital and save more lives. Human genetic engineering is no different. It is exactly the same system of receiving money in exchange for extending a person’s life. The only difference is whether the treatment takes place before or after birth. Therefore, human genetic engineering does not pose any ethical problems.
Those who oppose human genetic engineering argue that it should never be done because of the risk of side effects. However, this is also a foolish argument made by people who do not understand how genetic engineering works. Basically, all research related to life undergoes sufficient preliminary experiments. First, the theory behind the research is examined. Then, the theory is applied to animals such as mice. Only if no problems are found during this stage can clinical trials on humans proceed. Only when all these stages are completed and the theory is deemed to be perfectly applicable is it recognized as a treatment method. In other words, most of the treatment methods we encounter have been recognized as safe.
Of course, there are some exceptions. These exceptions can be broadly categorized into two types. The first type involves cases where side effects are minimal or can be sufficiently avoided. Medications are a good example. For instance, taking cold medicine may cause drowsiness, but few people avoid taking the medication due to this side effect. Additionally, taking excessive amounts of medication can be life-threatening. However, this is a situation that individuals can avoid through their own volition. The other case is when side effects must be tolerated because there is no other option. Cancer treatment is the most representative example. According to data from Statistics Korea, the total number of deaths in South Korea in 2023 was 273,076. Of these, 81,818 people died of cancer, accounting for 30% of the total.
This is an unimaginably high percentage. Given this situation, developing a cure for cancer is the dream and goal of all doctors and scientists. However, there is currently no complete cure for cancer. Cancer treatment can be divided into two categories: active cancer treatment and palliative care. Active cancer treatment can be further divided into surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. However, active cancer treatment has very serious side effects.
Even if surgery is successful, there is always a possibility of recurrence, and the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation therapy are well-known for their severity. However, the benefits of these treatments outweigh the risks, so patients often choose to undergo treatment despite the potential side effects. However, as cancer progresses to its advanced stages, the risks outweigh the benefits. In such cases, palliative care, which focuses on improving the patient’s quality of life and reducing pain, is preferred over aggressive cancer treatment.
Excluding the two extreme cases mentioned above, where side effects are either too minor or too severe, most treatments, including human genetic engineering, either have no side effects or can be managed. When vaccines—which implant a disease into the body before it occurs—were first developed, people expressed significant resistance. However, once it became clear that vaccines are safe and highly effective, they became an essential tool for maintaining public health. If people had refused vaccines out of fear of side effects when they were first developed, vaccines would not have achieved their current status. The point is that the development of human genetic engineering should not be halted simply because of fears of side effects. Consider how modern medical technology has advanced despite numerous side effects.
Movies and dramas related to human genetic engineering are very entertaining. However, they are purely fictional. They aim to attract audiences by depicting extreme and sensational scenarios. Real-world human genetic engineering will develop in a much quieter and more gradual manner. Let us set aside our concerns and worries and instead focus on how this technology can be developed in a safer and more appropriate direction.
