This blog post explores discussions on genetic engineering and bioethics through Michael Sandel’s The Case Against Perfection. It introduces content examining technological advancement and ethical boundaries.
With the steady advancement of genetic engineering, we have now achieved technological progress sufficient to complete the human genome map and clone animals, or even beyond. Genetic engineering, alongside computer science, is demonstrating the fastest growth rate among engineering fields. Consequently, bioethical questions regarding genetic modification, therapeutic interventions, and life replication are coming to the fore. This book, ‘Talking About the Ethics of Life,’ is precisely about that bioethics, and within it, we will discuss the question: “Is it acceptable to design children?”
The author, Michael Sandel, argues that parents designing their children reflects parental arrogance and an impulse to conquer the mystery of birth, citing examples like a child’s health and education. Regarding a child’s health, he contends that health is not a tool to be maximized, and that health can be pursued without resorting to genetic enhancement. Concerning education, he argues that while genetic enhancement and modern high-pressure parenting systems share similarities, the high-pressure parenting itself is problematic. However, my view differs. I believe there is ample room to accept parents designing their children.
First, regarding health, design doesn’t solely mean ‘creating a superhuman child who never gets sick and possesses immense physical strength.’ While medicine has made tremendous progress compared to the past, illness remains a significant problem. And one of the major concerns for parents when having a child is likely birth defects and genetic diseases. The primary goal of health design is precisely to cure such conditions—birth defects, genetic disorders, and further, incurable or intractable diseases that medicine alone struggles to resolve. Curing these diseases aligns with what the author describes as restoring health, recovering and maintaining natural human functions, so the author would likely approve. However, I believe not only treating these diseases but also genetically enhancing health—what the author calls enhancement—should be permitted.
The author defines treatment as restoring and maintaining natural human functions, acknowledging that the criteria for natural human functions are ambiguous. I believe some aspects of enhancement the author envisions could also fall within natural human functions. While the author states health can be pursued without genetic enhancement, health achieved through genetic enhancement is not merely about pursuing the bare necessities of survival. It encompasses greater well-being, such as enhancing stamina and resilience to reduce sleep and increase leisure time, or maintaining a positive mood without irritability from fatigue after strenuous work. It also includes enhancing athletic ability so that people who dislike exercise find it enjoyable, allowing health to be maintained naturally without the need for deliberate effort. In this way, it can enrich modern human life both mentally and physically. This falls within the scope of good health, an element constituting human flourishing as the author describes, and I do not consider it unnecessarily maximized health.
Next is design from an educational perspective. The author acknowledges similarities between modern society’s high-pressure parenting systems and genetic manipulation, criticizing both. In my view, the author seems to conflate designing children with parents designing children according to their own intentions (a problem with the method of design). However, considering them separately seems more accurate. Just as we don’t ban nuclear power generation simply because nuclear engineering can create nuclear weapons, or prohibit medicines that can also be used as drugs, we need to first discuss the act of designing children itself, rather than the act of parents designing their children. First, designing a child to possess slightly superior traits is unlikely to cause harm. Suppose a child shows immense interest in machinery but lacks talent in math or science, leading them to choose a different path. If the parents had genetically modified the child before birth to compensate for these deficiencies, wouldn’t that child have been able to succeed in the field they were passionate about? Thus, a person’s interests and talents may not align. However, if genetic modification compensates for deficiencies, the child’s choices would become more liberated. The author argues that designing intellectual aptitude or athletic ability turns children into products of parental will or tools for ambition. This, as mentioned earlier, pertains to the method of design—that is, the parents’ issue. Therefore, I believe we should not ban genetic modification itself, but rather impose restrictions on its usage. Moreover, it’s nonsense to claim that simply performing a genetic modification to turn a child into a sports star will guarantee they become one. Genes are merely one factor in becoming a sports star; they are not a sufficient condition. Genetic modification aimed at creating a sports star would only produce a healthy high school student who plays soccer a bit well and enjoys playing with friends. That hardly qualifies as a tool for ambition, does it?
I don’t want parents to recklessly design their children either. I certainly oppose the idea, as the author suggests, of parents turning their children into mere tools for their own desires. However, if we use genetic modification technology as originally intended and strive to ensure it is used for that purpose, our children born in the future, and their children, could enjoy a more mentally and physically fulfilling life. As with any other technology, I believe it’s not about opposing the technology itself, but about applying it while addressing its problems.
Furthermore, the advancement of genetic engineering can contribute to improving the overall quality of human life, going beyond mere health and education issues. For instance, its potential can be harnessed in various fields such as enhancing environmental adaptability, preventing aging, and improving mental health. The positive changes such advancements could bring may exceed our imagination. Genetic engineering might even allow us to envision new forms of human interaction and social structures. This could become a crucial factor not only in enhancing individual quality of life but also in driving the development and progress of humanity as a whole. In this context, genetic engineering is highly likely to establish itself as a core technology of future society.
Finally, the advancement of genetic engineering will play a vital role in helping us overcome our own limitations and explore new possibilities. This signifies not merely technological progress, but provides a new understanding of the essence and potential of human existence. Genetic engineering empowers humans to determine their own destiny, which could represent one of the most innovative and significant turning points in human history. Therefore, rather than fearing these technologies, we should view the boundless possibilities they offer positively and seek ways to utilize them correctly.
Thus, discussions on genetic manipulation and bioethics demand deep reflection not merely on technical issues, but on the future of humanity and the quality of our lives. Through such reflection, we can design a better future and build a society that maximizes human potential.
