This blog post explores how far it is ethically permissible to ‘design’ children amid advances in genetic technology.
Professor Michael Sandel unpacks the philosophical and ethical debate surrounding ‘designing children’ in his book ‘The Case Against Perfection’. While we can consider a partner’s character or qualities when choosing a friend or spouse, children are beings we cannot choose for ourselves. However, with the rapid advancement of genetic modification technology, the possibility of breaking this natural boundary has emerged, placing it at the center of ethical debate.
Professor Sandel cites the case of William May in his book, likening the act of genetically designing children to ‘manipulating the world’s framework,’ while contrasting the opposing view as ‘seeing the world as it is.’ He defines attempts to ‘enhance’ children through genetic intervention as parental arrogance, warning that this could lead to unforeseen side effects and social problems. Conversely, he argues that treating a sick child helps the child’s inherent potential—its natural strength—to be realized, aligning with the fundamental medical ethic of “restoring and maintaining natural function.”
However, I do not necessarily agree with Professor Sandel’s position. It is difficult to view the act of designing children as being limited solely to ‘enhancement’. Above all, the concept of ‘enhancement’ itself is highly subjective. For instance, genetically intervening to confer a constitution that resists weight gain might be perceived as enhancement by some, while others might view it as treatment for disease prevention or health maintenance. Such interventions can enhance a child’s quality of life and broaden their career choices. In other words, categorically labeling the use of genetic engineering as a eugenic attempt is an overgeneralization.
Moreover, the abandonment of children with disabilities remains a serious issue in contemporary Korean society. The Joo Sarang Community Church in Nangok-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, protects babies abandoned by their parents through a ‘baby box’. As of 2024, over 2,000 children have been protected through this baby box, a significant number of whom had congenital disabilities or health issues. In 2022 alone, approximately 262 children were abandoned nationwide, with disabled children accounting for 12% of this number. This figure is significantly higher than the proportion of disabled children in the overall child population, revealing that disabled children are relatively more likely to be abandoned. Demanding that parents simply accept their children as they are while ignoring this reality could ultimately result in placing an even greater burden on families and society.
Professor Sandel’s most forceful argument is that designing children is ultimately no different from forcing education upon them, and that its essence aligns with eugenic attempts. He points out that this approach disregards children’s individuality, instills uniform standards of success, and can ultimately lead to social pathologies. Indeed, excessive educational fervor has led to an increase in children diagnosed with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), countering the notion that excessive parental intervention always yields positive outcomes. Nevertheless, even today, some achieve success through this method, while others fail. In other words, we must recognize that both education and genetic intervention are not definitive answers but matters of choice, and their outcomes remain unpredictable.
The issue of designing children is no different. If all parents choose genetic intervention to ‘enhance’ their children’s potential, this could create a competitive structure similar to that seen in education, potentially leading to side effects like ADHD or psychological burdens. The reinforcement toward a ‘eugenic direction’ that Professor Sandel cautions against is certainly something to guard against. However, simultaneously, if we blanketly prohibit even reasonable enhancements aimed at improving a child’s quality of life and providing diverse options, this could instead result in hindering greater potential. In other words, it would be committing the error of ‘sacrificing greater opportunities to avoid minor risks.’
Edison said, “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.” This means that success is difficult to achieve through effort alone; inspiration is equally important. If genetic intervention could help identify a child’s innate inspiration or talent early on, it could reduce frustration from futile efforts and enable them to lead a more self-directed life. This is not merely a matter of competition but holds profound significance for self-realization and life satisfaction.
Of course, the impact of science and technology on human life is never simple. Throughout the history of science, the emergence of new paradigms has always been preceded by prolonged resistance and debate. Just as it took centuries for Ptolemy’s geocentric model to collapse and Copernicus’s heliocentric model to be accepted, gene design technology, though currently causing much confusion, may ultimately become a process of ethical progress humanity must confront. This discussion extends beyond the mere possibilities of technology, leading to the fundamental question: ‘What kind of being will humans become?’
If technological advancement is an inevitable reality, we must deliberate even more carefully on how we will use it. This is a moment demanding deep reflection on parental responsibility, social ethics, and human dignity. The questions posed by Professor Sandel serve as a crucial starting point for initiating this deliberation, and we must build upon them to continue a broader and deeper discussion.
