This blog post explores the ethical issues surrounding genetic modification through ‘The Case Against Perfection’ and discusses whether genetic modification can be ethically justified.
As biotechnology advances at an exponential pace, humans are now shifting their focus beyond curing diseases to genetic modification aimed at preventing them. However, like any biotechnology, genetic modification stands at the center of numerous controversies. Amidst these debates, Michael Sandel approaches the issue from a different angle than conventional arguments—not from the commonly explored ethical perspective, but from the perspective of the parent-child relationship.
In his book ‘The Ethics of Life,’ Michael Sandel argues that parental nurturing can be divided into ‘accepting love,’ which involves accepting children as they are, and ‘changing love,’ which seeks to transform children for the better. He contends that the ideal parenting strikes a balance between these two. However, he criticizes the current trend where modern parenting leans excessively toward ‘transforming love’—an overbearing desire to control and perfect children. Michael Sandel interprets genetic modification as a result of this excessive parental ambition, viewing it as an act containing eugenic elements and opposing it. While the typical argument against genetic modification focuses on ethical concerns related to the dignity of life, Sandel interprets it as part of parental behavior aimed at enhancing their children, offering a distinct perspective on the issue.
While Michael Sandel’s argument has merit, his approach has problems. He underestimates the significance of treatment in genetic modification, explaining treatment and enhancement separately. Discussing enhancement without mentioning treatment, one of the core goals of genetic modification, prevents a proper examination of its legitimacy. As Michael Sandel himself noted, the boundary between cure and enhancement is ambiguous. Focusing on only one aspect prevents accurate discussion. Viewing genetic modification through the lens of cure reveals its potential to fundamentally eliminate numerous genetic diseases and prevent those with high potential for occurrence. While viewing genetic modification through the lens of enhancement raises significant concerns, the therapeutic perspective offers many positive elements.
Given the ambiguous boundary between therapy and enhancement, the rational approach would be to define this boundary clearly. This would maximize the therapeutic benefits achievable through genetic modification while minimizing the adverse effects of enhancement. However, establishing such a standard is extremely difficult. As Michael Sandel noted, while the blurred line between enhancement and treatment is problematic, the bigger issue is that human genetic manipulation technology itself has not yet been realized. It cannot be ruled out that the boundary between enhancement and treatment could shift dramatically depending on how genetic manipulation technology is implemented. Therefore, the discussion about the boundary between treatment and enhancement is an issue that should be addressed more concretely once genetic manipulation technology has been sufficiently established. At the current stage, it is impossible to definitively judge the merits or demerits of genetic manipulation.
Even if time progresses to a point where enhancement and treatment can be somewhat distinguished, it is incorrect to unilaterally treat the enhancement aspect of genetic manipulation as unjustifiable. The fact that modern society is skewed toward enhancing children does not mean genetic manipulation is inherently wrong. The problem lies in the modern societal climate that places excessive emphasis on enhancing children and the resulting excessive desire for enhancement, not in genetic manipulation technology itself. Just as sending children to cram schools excessively is problematic, we cannot treat the act of sending children to cram schools to improve their grades as inherently unjustifiable. Similarly, while excessive enhancement through genetic manipulation could be problematic, enhancement through genetic manipulation itself is not inherently problematic.
Regarding enhancement through genetic modification, some oppose it due to the unique nature of genetic enhancement. Since genetic enhancement involves directly manipulating genes, this trait is passed down to subsequent generations, gradually accumulating differences between those who can afford genetic modification and those who cannot. In other words, they argue that genetic modification could be misused as a tool to exacerbate the gap between the haves and have-nots. However, the deepening of the gap between the rich and poor is not an inherent flaw of genetic modification technology itself. The reason the poor inevitably remain poor lies in the societal structures that make this outcome unavoidable. Furthermore, one cannot sanction the act of seeking to enhance individual capabilities simply because it might exacerbate wealth disparities. The solution to widening social disparities through genetic manipulation is not to ban the technology, but to reduce disparities through social welfare systems. Therefore, banning genetic manipulation technology out of concern for wealth disparity is like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
Alongside the issue of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer due to genetic manipulation, another problem raised is the ethical issues arising from manipulating genes. There has always been significant backlash against treating life as an engineering project. However, most of these controversies have tended to diminish over time. When test-tube babies were first attempted over 60 years ago, similar concerns to those raised by opponents of genetic manipulation today were present. Yet to date, over five million new lives have been born through IVF, and the initial ethical concerns have gradually diminished. This is because the benefits of IVF technology are clear, and its side effects have been minimized through various institutional and technical safeguards. If genetic modification technology follows this same path, its ethical issues can also be minimized.
Michael Sandel, in his book, condemns genetic modification as stemming from parents’ desire to enhance their children. However, he overlooks the fact that enhancement and treatment are not clearly distinguishable; they cannot be separated and explained independently. As long as the therapeutic benefits of genetic engineering are evident, it is wrong to discuss genetic modification solely in terms of the negative aspects of enhancement. Furthermore, even if enhancement and treatment could be separated, the issue lies with excessive enhancement through genetic manipulation, not with the parents’ attempt to enhance traits itself. Just as the end does not justify the means, conversely, the end cannot prohibit or justify the means. For these reasons, genetic manipulation can sufficiently establish its legitimacy.
