In this blog post, we will examine the possibility of genetic engineering leading to human enhancement beyond disease treatment and its ethical limitations.
As genetic engineering has gradually advanced, criticism and controversy surrounding genetic engineering and eugenics have grown. Those who view genetic engineering positively believe that genetic engineering will eliminate disease and extend human life. They argue that genetic engineering is a tool that can greatly improve the quality of human life. On the other hand, those who see the social turmoil and ethical issues that genetic engineering may cause as greater than its potential raise opposing voices. They are concerned that genetic engineering may cross moral boundaries and threaten human life and identity.
Between these two positions, I also take a fundamentally opposed stance toward genetic engineering technology based on the ethical issues, social turmoil, and potential discrimination that it may cause. On the other hand, I believe that we cannot ignore the positive possibilities that genetic engineering technology will bring. For example, the possibility of preventing or treating fatal genetic diseases through genetic engineering is clearly very attractive. If such technology can prolong life and improve quality of life, completely rejecting it could raise other moral issues. Therefore, I argue that genetic engineering technology should be allowed to a limited extent, balancing the pros and cons. I will now examine genetic engineering from the perspective of eugenics and propose ways to reduce this controversy by introducing genetic engineering technology in a limited manner.
First, let us learn about eugenics. Eugenics is a field of applied genetics that studies various genetic factors and elements for the purpose of genetically improving the human race. Eugenics as applied to humans was established in 1883 by Francis Galton in England, and its focus is on studying all conditions and factors related to the occurrence of physical and mental defects in order to increase the population with superior genetic qualities. At that time, superior genetic qualities meant the absence of physical or mental defects. Based on this, in the 20th century, several countries proposed and partially implemented eugenic laws that forced alcoholics and the mentally ill to undergo sterilization or encouraged discriminatory births in order to improve human genetic characteristics. Currently, these laws have been abolished on the grounds that they are discriminatory, but with the advent of genetic engineering, eugenics is once again gaining attention. Most people immediately reject the term “eugenics,” and this instinctive rejection is likely due to the eugenics program implemented by the Nazis in Germany.
The extreme eugenics policies implemented during the Nazi era in Germany are a prime example of human rights violations. The Nazis implemented the Lebensborn program based on the belief that only the best humans should reproduce. They believed that the Aryan race was the superior race, characterized by tall stature, blond hair, and blue eyes. The Nazis believed that the Scandinavian race was the most superior among them, and their goal was to create a German people with pure Nordic blood. To this end, the Nazis established the Lebensborn foundation in Germany and Norway and encouraged women who were approved as Aryan to give birth to children. In addition, Hitler, a social Darwinist, praised struggle and survival of the fittest, which led to the massacre of Jews who were considered to have poor genetic traits according to Nazi standards. Social Darwinism is a theory that introduces Darwin’s theory of evolution into sociology and views the struggle for survival as the fundamental driving force of socialization. Social Darwinism believed that evolutionary competition occurs not only between individuals but also between groups, and that cruel struggle is the only strategy for survival. Due to the cruelty of the Nazi Lebensraum program, which was carried out in the name of eugenics, many people feel repulsed by eugenics. However, the Nazis’ selection of the “best” humans was based solely on physical characteristics, and such programs cannot be said to have been based on objective scientific grounds. Therefore, I believe that the eugenics program implemented by the Nazis was nothing more than racism justified from a eugenic perspective.
In order to prevent the misuse of eugenics, it is necessary to establish a clearer definition of the concept of eugenics. In the 1930s, there was a movement among British and American biologists, led by British biologists J.B.S. Haldane and Julian Huxley and American biologist Herbert S. Jennings, to defend eugenics. They argued that social prejudices related to race, class, and gender should be eliminated from eugenics, and that eugenics should be based on human genetics. The eugenics of the past, as discussed above, was difficult to consider scientifically based and used eugenic concepts to justify social prejudices. Currently, a new form of eugenics based on scientific foundations has emerged, which is closely related to genetic engineering.
The advent of genetic engineering has sparked a new debate that differs from that of eugenics in the past. While eugenics in the past aimed to genetically improve humanity, modern genetic engineering focuses on the treatment and prevention of individual diseases. However, despite these differences, there are important links between the two concepts. In particular, there is still the possibility that genetic engineering will go beyond its role as a tool for treating incurable diseases and be used to create humans with superior genetic traits. Therefore, it is essential to discuss how this technology will be used. I believe that genetic engineering technology should be limited to treating diseases such as genetic disorders and incurable diseases. Most of the arguments against genetic engineering are based on the idea that genetic engineering will be used to create humans with superior genetic traits (such as tall stature, good looks, physical fitness, and high intelligence). They argue that if only individuals with superior genetic traits can be cloned or reproduced, social discrimination will intensify, genetically superior individuals will become the ruling class and control the world, causing social chaos, and the unique identities and human rights of individuals and genetic diversity will be lost. Therefore, limiting the use of genetic engineering technology to eliminating genetic diseases in fetuses would reduce such opposition.
However, once such genetic engineering technology is developed, there is a possibility that people will want to develop individuals with superior genetic traits, as opponents of genetic engineering fear. To prevent this, I believe that all national governments must strengthen regulations. The government should provide information about a child’s illness only when the pregnant couple requests it, and allow the couple to choose whether to seek treatment for the child’s illness. The following two cases illustrate why couples should be given this choice. For example, Dominic Lawson refused prenatal testing, saying that it was “no different from the government helping to kill viable, sentient fetuses,” and his daughter was born with Down syndrome, a genetic disorder. Although his daughter was born with a genetic disorder, he was satisfied that he did not undergo prenatal testing. In contrast, a couple’s child was born with EB, an incurable genetic disease. EB (Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa) is a disease in which the skin is deficient in essential fibers, causing blisters to form on the skin upon contact with anything, which develop into non-healing inflammation and leave ugly scars. The child lived only 12 weeks due to the disease and suffered throughout his life. Therefore, the couple decided to have a second child, keeping in mind the possibility of abortion through prenatal testing. The above two cases show that perspectives on genetic engineering and eugenics can differ depending on an individual’s circumstances and beliefs. Therefore, the government should allow couples to choose whether to investigate and treat their child’s illness.
In conclusion, I believe that the concepts of eugenics and genetic engineering should not be used to increase the number of individuals with superior genes, but only to treat diseases such as incurable and genetic diseases caused by poor genes. To this end, I propose that the government conduct prenatal testing only when requested by parents, provide them with information about their child’s illness, and allow them to choose the treatment. In addition, strict government regulation is essential to ensure that genetic engineering technology is used only when absolutely necessary. It is necessary to strictly investigate and regulate whether genetic engineering technology is being used to increase the number of superior genes. Through such limited use, we can maximize the positive aspects of genetic engineering technology while minimizing the ethical issues and social turmoil that it causes. Therefore, if we develop the technology in a way that narrows the gap between proponents and opponents, genetic engineering technology can bring great benefits to humanity.
