In this blog post, we will consider the scientific possibilities and ethical dilemmas of preimplantation genetic diagnosis technology and discuss how far we can go.
There are no perfect humans in this world. All humans inherit various characteristics through genetic traits called DNA at birth, which is why people have different characteristics. However, if we could selectively inherit only the traits we want, how would our society change? There has been ongoing debate about how the development of genetic engineering will affect future generations and whether we should continue to research and develop genetic engineering.
The movie Gattaca (1997), released at the end of the 20th century, vividly depicts what could happen in the near future with the development of genetic engineering. In the world of the movie, liberal eugenics is rampant to help human regeneration. There is a technology that allows people to choose only the genetic traits they want to express when they have children. It is like tailoring clothes to create a “custom baby” of one’s choice. However, the main character, Vincent, was not conceived as part of such a plan and was born as an ordinary human being. Ironically, in this society, ordinary humans cannot live ordinary lives, and their places are taken by modified humans.
With the rapid advancement of genetic engineering technology, it is only a matter of time before the story in the movie becomes reality. The technology used to create “designer babies” in the movie Gattaca is actually Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) technology, which is currently being developed. Thanks to this technology, which was developed in the mid-1990s, we can now identify potentially harmful traits in fertilized eggs through genetic diagnosis before implantation. It is mainly used to diagnose three diseases: Huntington’s disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and Down syndrome. Scientists predict that within the next few years, preimplantation genetic diagnosis technology will be able to prevent disorders and diseases that may occur after birth, such as cancer, asthma, heart disease, and stroke. They also claim that characteristics determined by complex factors, such as height and intelligence, will also be predictable through this technology.
However, opponents of this technology argue that preimplantation genetic diagnosis causes discrimination. This is because, in addition to diagnosing diseases, this technology allows parents to know in advance the sex, eye color, hair color, skin color, and other characteristics of their children. In addition to the ethical issue that parents do not have the right to control the sex, intelligence, height, and other characteristics of their children, opponents argue that preimplantation genetic diagnosis causes discrimination against people with disabilities.
Those who believe that preimplantation genetic diagnosis causes discrimination raise issues with the process of genetic diagnosis. This technology does not manipulate the genes of a single embryo to obtain the desired traits, but rather creates numerous embryos in advance and then implants only those embryos with the desired traits, discarding the rest. In other words, this technology does not treat embryos with disabilities, but rather selects embryos that do not have disabilities in the first place. Ultimately, this means that discarded embryos are discriminated against because they are deprived of the opportunity to live simply because they will become disabled in the future.
Furthermore, it is argued that the social acceptance of preimplantation genetic diagnosis technology itself prevents the existence of people with disabilities and therefore discriminates against people with disabilities who already exist in the world. This is because, after the introduction of preimplantation genetic diagnosis technology, people with disabilities who exist in the world become beings who were born by mistake. Discrimination against people with disabilities is already a problem in today’s society, and if we argue that people with disabilities can be eliminated from society by removing embryos with disabilities and then cut off support for people with disabilities, this could lead to a way of thinking similar to that of the Nazis in Germany, which is almost impossible in modern society.
However, it is important to note that personal beliefs are involved in the debate over the pros and cons of this technology. Those in favor of technology believe that embryos should be treated as living beings because they can grow into humans and should be granted the same rights to life as living people. Others argue that embryos are not living beings because they have no consciousness and therefore cannot be granted the right to life. Therefore, the former case is problematic, but the latter is not.
At this point, we must recognize that discussing science and technology itself is a futile debate. This is because pre-implantation genetic diagnosis technology itself is not a direct cause of discrimination. Looking at this issue from a different angle, it is not technology that discriminates against people with disabilities, but ultimately people themselves. As in the example of “Gattaca,” the reason why the protagonist Vincent suffered discrimination and pain was not because of technology itself, but because of people’s prejudices. In the movie, the number of people who were “customized” due to the development of genetic engineering technology increased, and as a result, society changed to revolve around them. However, the changed society did not turn out to be the rosy future envisioned by those who advocated the development of genetic engineering technology. Rather, people who did not undergo genetic engineering technology were treated as abnormal. It is as if the current way of thinking toward people with disabilities has been transferred to people like Vincent, who were not disabled in the past. In other words, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis technology can be a background for discrimination against people with disabilities, but it is not the technology itself that directly causes discrimination, but rather the prejudices of society.
In order to prevent the social problems depicted in Gattaca, we must analyze the current problems of discrimination and find solutions. According to Lawrence Nelson’s thesis, disability activists argue that many doctors and clinicians who supervise and investigate the process of preimplantation genetic diagnosis often emphasize to many couples that raising a child with a disability is a burden. In such cases, it is not the technology that causes discrimination, but the clinicians and doctors. They also present arguments that lead parents to develop prejudices, but even in these cases, it is the parents who cause discrimination, not the technology.
In “Just Diagnosis? Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and injustices to disabled people,” T. S. Peterson states, “Rather than abandoning preimplantation genetic diagnosis technology, it seems more effective to address the obvious causes of this narrow-minded and selfish discrimination in order to reduce discrimination.” This can be resolved through education. If society educates people about the immorality of discrimination, especially against people with disabilities, even if people with disabilities are a very small minority, discrimination against them may not be completely eliminated, but at least it can be minimized.
As mentioned above, the root cause of discrimination is society, not technology. If society did not view disability negatively, preimplantation genetic diagnosis technology would probably not have been necessary in the first place. And in fact, from a technical standpoint, there is no reason to ban preimplantation genetic diagnosis technology. It is used to “prevent” negative consequences such as pain, physical or cognitive limitations, restrictions, medical complications, and shortened life expectancy caused by disabilities, and has been shown to be effective in treating diseases. Furthermore, the question of whether embryos should be considered living beings is currently a matter of personal belief and is therefore not suitable for discussion.
Amidst all the debates on the pros and cons of science and technology itself, and even on whether science and technology itself can be evaluated as right or wrong, it is difficult to easily decide whether the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis should continue. This technology has great scientific potential, and it is natural that continued research will yield significant results. In particular, looking at the recent research results obtained in China with CRISPR scissors technology, the rapid development of genetic engineering is making “designer babies” a reality. At this point, what we need to do is not to vaguely fear and oppose technological development, but to educate modern society about these issues and new technologies.
However, the reason why there has not been much discussion on pre-conception genetic diagnosis technology is because the technology has not yet developed to the point where it could cause problems. Although this technology has not yet been developed to the point where it can be applied to humans, the speed at which genetic engineering technology is advancing means that it is urgent to discuss genetic engineering technology in earnest. Therefore, we must establish boundaries between ethics and science and technology before the technology is introduced in earnest, considering how ethical issues related to technology will ultimately affect human society.
