This blog post analyzes from various perspectives how child design through genetic engineering will change South Korean society’s values, educational culture, and intergenerational relationships, examining both its potential and risks.
Recent rapid advances in genetic engineering have enabled the complete mapping of plant genomes. Consequently, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are increasingly being created by selectively manipulating specific traits to produce beneficial characteristics for humans. While GMOs initially garnered significant attention as ‘superfoods’ upon their emergence, their safety has not been sufficiently verified scientifically. Indeed, recent data indicates South Korean public perception of GMOs remains largely negative. According to a 2023 survey by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, 78.5% of South Korean consumers stated that clear labeling for GMO foods is necessary, indicating that concerns about GMO safety remain high. Furthermore, a 2024 survey on gene editing (GE) technology awareness among 1,055 consumers nationwide found that while about 70% expressed willingness to purchase GE foods, concerns about safety, transparency, and regulatory frameworks emerged as key factors determining acceptance. These findings suggest that applying genetic engineering technology, which lacks trust even in the plant sector, to humans could spark even greater safety controversies. Humans are not mere biological subjects but beings with the capacity for thought; therefore, ethical perspectives must be considered alongside safety. For this reason, genetic engineering involving humans is a far more complex issue than that involving plants or animals.
In this context, Michael Sandel presents a clear position on the question “Is it acceptable to design children?” in his book “The Ethics of Life.” Sandel criticizes the act of manipulating children to fit parental desires as treating them as tools, arguing that “children should be accepted as they are, as gifts.” Indeed, the act of genetically manipulating children to create beings with specific traits evokes an instinctive moral aversion in many people. So where does this aversion stem from?
First, we need to view child design from the perspective of putting oneself in another’s shoes. How would I feel if I were a being designed according to my parents’ desires? As someone born in South Korea, cherished by my parents, the thought that I might not exist because a ‘better’ child was created through genetic manipulation is deeply unsettling. If my parents had wanted a child with superior looks, higher intelligence, or more exceptional abilities, the original me would never have come into this world. The mere thought that my original life could be erased by parental greed evokes a strong sense of rejection.
On the other hand, those who argue that designing children should be permitted present a different logic. They claim there is no fundamental difference between parents investing enormous sums in education to cultivate their child’s abilities and using genetic engineering to ensure the child is born with superior traits from the start. Recently in South Korea too, the importance of early education is emphasized, as reflected in the saying, ‘A child’s success won’t happen unless parents plan for it.’ They argue that by the time a child discovers their aptitude, they may already be falling behind in global competition, so boosting their abilities as early as possible benefits the child.
However, Sandel points out that this argument overlooks real-world problems. For instance, there are increasing reports of young people suffering serious physical damage due to excessive training. Even though most adolescents have not yet firmly decided their career paths, parents often push them into unreasonable levels of training, wanting their children to become the best in a specific field. There are even increasing cases where parents try to control their children’s university grades or give them drugs like Ritalin and Adderall to improve concentration, even when they don’t have ADHD. Some doctors even point out that this rise in prescriptions isn’t solely due to medical necessity. It reveals a social reality where children are treated like patients even when healthy, and their bodies and minds are forcibly adjusted to fulfill parental desires.
I believe this approach cannot be considered proper education for children. A parent’s responsibility is to help their child naturally develop their inherent abilities and guide them in the right direction. This requires a balance of appropriate laissez-faire and appropriate guidance. However, using genetic engineering to ‘easily’ grant children abilities they cannot possess on their own is unlikely to be truly helpful. This is closer to ‘giving them the fish’ rather than ‘teaching them how to fish’. Abilities gained this way are not achievements earned through the child’s own effort. Consequently, the child may become confused about the relationship between their given abilities and their own efforts. There is also a risk they might come to perceive their original traits as flawed. Ultimately, the attempt to create a perfect child driven by parental ambition is highly likely to result in low self-esteem and dissatisfaction for the child.
Parents choose child design because they hope their child will gain a slightly more advantageous position in a competitive society. However, this goes against nature’s principles and is not a desirable choice when considering the child’s long-term future. Parents who decide based solely on the short-term benefits offered by child design fail to sufficiently consider the risks and side effects these technologies bring. They believe child design guarantees their child a rosy future, but in reality, the burden ‘designed’ children must bear is immense.
If all parents had genetically enhanced children, society’s starting line itself would eventually be raised. Yet many parents, disregarding this broader context, insist their own child must outperform the average. This mindset fuels the deepest disappointment and anger when a child falls even slightly short of expectations. But the one who suffers the most, who becomes the most crushed, is the child themselves.
Parents who fail to recognize that the abilities made possible through child design stem from their own desires are more likely to express dissatisfaction and disappointment when their child faces difficulties, rather than offering understanding or support. Children raised in such an environment also risk growing up mirroring their parents’ attitude, developing dissatisfaction and feelings of inferiority. Consequently, an unfortunate vicious cycle can persist for both parents and children.
Therefore, claims that emphasize only the advantages of child design and promise a rosy future must be approached with caution. If the enhanced traits chosen by parents do not align with the life the child desired, can the many parents in South Korea truly help their children understand and grow into healthy adults without any issues? Human parenting is a long-term process lasting at least 20 years, and humans possess an extremely strong parental bond. Therefore, the issue of child design must be judged based on long-term impact, not short-term gain.
What matters most to the South Korean government and its citizens is the heart that loves the child’s very existence. Historically, South Korean culture has cherished the simple fact of a child’s healthy birth as a great joy. As Sandel emphasizes, accepting a child born as a ‘gift’ just as they are is the normal parental heart. Attempts to genetically design children do not stem from unconditional love for the child, but rather resemble an impulse to artificially control the ‘mystery of birth’ under the pretext of acting for the child’s future. The current generation of parents in South Korea and the generation destined to become future parents must now reflect more deeply on this issue.
