In this blog post, we examine whether a better future is truly possible, focusing on the potential for the creation of “designer humans” through gene editing, the ethical issues it raises, and whether it could exacerbate social inequality.

Overview of the Incident and Ethical Controversies in the Scientific Community

In April 2015, a research team led by Dr. Huang Junzhu at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China, published a paper on human embryo gene editing in the online scientific journal ‘Protein & Cell’. The team reported an attempt to remove the gene causing thalassemia from human embryos—which are incapable of independent survival—and replace it with a normal gene. In response to this incident, life scientists worldwide declared a moratorium, calling for a “temporary suspension of gene-editing research on human embryos.” It is no exaggeration to say that human embryo gene-editing technology currently stands at the center of ethical controversy in the scientific community, as evidenced by its coverage as a serious issue in various media outlets, including ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’.
Scientists cite two main reasons for their opposition. First, unlike somatic cells, editing the genes of germ cells means the results are passed down to future generations. Second, safety has not yet been verified. These two reasons form the core basis for many life scientists’ argument that we must proceed with caution regarding human embryo gene editing.

Sandel’s Philosophical Criticism and the Social Impact of Genetic Enhancement

The reasons people oppose human embryo gene editing go beyond the two mentioned above. Through Michael J. Sandel’s book ‘The Case Against Perfection’, we can identify additional reasons from the perspective of a philosopher rather than a scientist. First, Sandel opposes the idea of “designing” children through genetic engineering. As he defines it, the purpose of genetic engineering or genetic enhancement is closer to trait improvement than to treatment.
Sandel argues that a child is a “gift” to be accepted as they are, and that a parent’s love is not contingent on the child’s talents or personality. He also states that children should not be viewed as tools to fulfill parental ambitions. He distinguishes between a love that accepts the child and a love that seeks to change them, explaining that these two types of love serve to correct each other’s excesses. He believes that if transforming love becomes excessive, it leads to rejecting the child through constant demands, while if accepting love becomes excessive, it leads to neglecting the child. He argues that good parents must strike an appropriate balance between the two.
Sandel argues that the logic surrounding genetic enhancement becomes complicated because excessive “transformative love” is similar to genetic enhancement in many ways. In other words, he sees little difference between attempting to create a perfect child through education and training and attempting to create a perfect child through genetic engineering. However, he points out that the problems of high-pressure parenting do not justify genetic enhancement; rather, they merely highlight those problems even more.
Like Sandel, I oppose the genetic engineering of children. However, while Sandel criticized it from a moral perspective, I primarily take issue with genetic enhancement from a social perspective. Genetic enhancement is highly likely to exacerbate social inequality.
When genetic enhancement technology is developed and put into practical use, it will be extremely expensive. Therefore, access to this technology will likely be limited to a small upper class. Children of the upper class are born with a wider range and greater depth of talents, increasing their chances of attaining higher social status based on those talents. For example, according to an SBS report on May 2, 2015, the number of students admitted to prestigious universities and scores on various exams were clearly proportional to the scale of parental wealth, such as income and home values. In a reality where education has become a conduit for the intergenerational transmission of wealth and social class, children of the upper class—who have acquired exceptional intelligence through extensive private tutoring and genetic enhancement—will be able to pass on their wealth and social status more easily. This intensifies the phenomenon of capital begetting power and, over time, further accelerates social inequality.
While we have discussed inequality between social classes within a single nation, broadening our perspective reveals that inequality between nations and between races could also intensify. In developed countries that have commercialized genetic enhancement technologies, enhancement will occur over a long period of time; if a specific race, which constitutes a majority within a nation, is continuously enhanced, objective indicators may suggest that this group holds an advantage over others. This phenomenon could lead to serious side effects, such as justifying discrimination between groups.
There are two main criticisms of the counterarguments frequently raised by proponents of genetic enhancement. First, there is the claim that as time passes, the price of the technology will drop, making it accessible to many people. The rapid proliferation of smartphones is often cited as an example. However, this counterargument overlooks the time it takes for technology prices to fall to a level where poor people can actually afford it. During that time, social inequality could rapidly deepen, causing the gap between social classes to become unmanageable.
Second, there is the argument that while countless advanced technologies have been developed in developed countries, creating a gap of several decades with developing nations, this fact alone does not justify singling out genetic enhancement as a problem. However, this counterargument fails to sufficiently consider the differences that genetic enhancement would cause. Genetic enhancement is not merely a tool or a production technology; it changes humanity itself. Historically, there has been a repeated cycle of rise and fall, with nations that prospered through technology eventually declining while others rise to prominence; however, the effects of genetic enhancement accumulate, potentially altering the physical and cognitive characteristics of specific groups themselves.
If we recall horrific events such as the Holocaust resulting from Hitler’s Pan-Germanism, we can see just how significant the unique nature and risks of genetic enhancement are, even among countless advanced technologies. While some may criticize this as overly extreme, if the genes of a specific nation or race are continuously improved through genetic enhancement, we cannot rule out the possibility of ideologies far more horrific than Pan-Germanism emerging. Even if the probability is low, if the potential consequences are devastating, it is an issue that must be treated with the utmost caution.