In this blog post, we’ll examine how gene editing technology deepens social stratification and affects individual effort, and explore why we must distinguish between gene editing for therapeutic and enhancement purposes.
As biotechnology advances, it has become possible to modify living organisms through human intervention, and in the future, designing human genes will no longer be entirely out of reach. So, assuming that sufficient technical safety has been ensured, should we allow the genetic engineering of children’s genes?
Michael Sandel, author of ‘Talking About the Ethics of Life’, distinguishes between two main categories of genetic manipulation of children. The first involves modifying a child’s genes to treat genetic diseases, which he refers to as “therapy.” The second involves selecting or altering a child’s genetic traits for purposes other than treating disease, which he calls “enhancement.”
While distinguishing between these two concepts, Sandel acknowledges the necessity of genetic engineering technology within the limited scope of treating genetic diseases. However, he opposes attempts at genetic “enhancement” that fail to accept a child as a given being. He argues that attempting to alter a child according to the parents’ intentions even before birth is an act of human arrogance that seeks to control the mystery inherent in the creation of life, and reflects an attitude that leans toward “love that changes” rather than “love that accepts.”
Thus, Sandel focuses on the attitudes and intentions of parents who attempt genetic design rather than on “violation of a child’s autonomy,” which is generally the most frequently raised issue. This is because if the discussion were framed in terms of a child’s autonomy, the very question of whether the concept of autonomy can be applied to a fetus would become another point of contention.
I believe that the “deepening of social stratification” that genetic design could bring about is a more significant issue than the ethical debate surrounding whether a fetus possesses autonomy. Genetic design creates the possibility that parents’ economic power will be passed down across generations not only as wealth but also as biological capabilities. As a result, the very likelihood of success in certain fields could depend on parents’ economic status, and there is a risk that social stratification will become even more entrenched.
Therefore, if gene-design technology becomes commercially available, parents’ social class will exert a greater influence than an individual’s ability and effort, and ultimately, we could end up with a society where it is difficult to be rewarded based on individual effort alone. For this reason, I believe that gene design beyond therapeutic purposes should not be permitted.
A counterargument to this is that the claim that gene design deepens social stratification is a logical leap. This argument posits that social class is shaped by various factors, and since gene design alters only some of the characteristics of society’s members, it cannot significantly affect the class structure itself.
However, this argument fails to fully consider the extent to which genetic engineering technology might advance. Its impact could vary greatly depending on how precisely it can produce desired traits and how widely it becomes available. In particular, the term “gene design” itself implies the ability to select and design desired genetic traits, going beyond the mere treatment of genetic diseases. In other words, if gene design advances to the point where it can realize what Sandel refers to as “enhancement,” the differences between those who have undergone gene design and those who have not could have a significant impact on social stratification.
For example, preventing or treating genetic disorders such as albinism through gene design may not pose a major social problem. However, the situation changes if we reach a level where we can design genes related to height. In an extreme scenario, a society could emerge where it is difficult to become a model without undergoing gene design.
In particular, considering that access to gene design will vary depending on parents’ economic status, the economic disparity among the parent generation could extend beyond mere differences in wealth to include differences in biological capabilities among the next generation. If current social stratification is heavily influenced by acquired factors such as parental economic status, the addition of genetic differences—an innate factor—in the future will make it even more difficult to move up the social ladder through individual effort alone. Ultimately, social class is likely to become far more rigidly entrenched than it is today.
Some might argue that since the influence of innate factors already exists in certain fields, there is no need to view this as a problem unique to gene editing. They point out that even without gene editing, some people are naturally tall and others are short, and the reality that shorter people find it difficult to become models is not generally considered particularly unfair.
Of course, innate factors already have a significant influence today, and there are people who find themselves at an advantage or disadvantage as a result. However, the fundamental problem with genetic design lies not in these innate factors themselves, but in the fact that humans can intentionally intervene in them. While current genetic traits are the result of random genetic combinations, in the future, parents will be able to design genetic traits in the direction they desire. Therefore, the scale and degree of genetic differences themselves are likely to become much greater than they are today.
For example, today, a person who is about 190 cm tall—depending on random genetic combinations or efforts during their growth—can become a model. However, if genetic design technology advances to the point where desired traits can be freely engineered, people well over 2 meters tall may emerge. If that happens, it may become difficult to compete in certain fields based solely on natural genetic combinations.
In other words, the reason innate factors resulting from genetic design are particularly problematic is that they are no longer the result of chance but are determined by human intent. Furthermore, as the desire among those who can access genetic design grows, those who cannot will face limitations that are difficult to overcome through effort alone.
Some argue that the fact that genetic design intentionally intervenes in innate factors is not problematic in itself, citing the existence of cases today where people intentionally select genetic traits for their children. For example, some matchmaking agencies rank members based on height, appearance, and educational background, and these factors are given significant weight in the process of selecting a spouse. This can be interpreted as reflecting not only personal satisfaction but also the intention to improve the genetic characteristics of future children. Furthermore, cases where advertisements are placed publicly to obtain sperm from individuals meeting specific criteria can also be seen as clearly demonstrating the intention to select a child’s genetic characteristics.
However, it is difficult to equate the act of selecting a child’s genetic traits through spouse selection or sperm donation with genetic engineering. First, while these methods may increase the likelihood that a child will possess specific genetic traits, it is impossible to precisely increase or decrease desired traits to the exact desired level. In other words, while parents may intend to “design” their child, they cannot fully realize that intention.
Furthermore, with the exception of extreme cases such as advertisements for sperm donation, it is realistically rare for a spouse to be chosen solely for the purpose of ensuring a child’s genetic superiority. Since various factors—such as personality, values, and lifestyle—are taken into account in the actual selection of a spouse, it is difficult to conclude that the intention to improve genetic traits is the decisive factor, even if such an intention exists.
Gene design, on the other hand, is fundamentally different in that it allows parents to directly and technically implement the genetic traits they desire. Because parents’ intentions can be realized exactly as intended through gene design technology, the potential for social problems increases significantly. Therefore, the fact that these intentions can be technically realized is a more significant issue than the parents’ desire to improve their children’s genetic traits itself.
The discussion so far is based on the premise that gene-editing technology is accessible only to certain socioeconomic groups due to economic constraints. Therefore, it is possible to challenge this premise itself. This is because most technologies tend to be very expensive when first developed but become more affordable and widespread over time. The argument is that, just as the first automobiles and computers were luxury items available only to the wealthy but are now accessible to most people, gene design will eventually become a technology available to everyone and will cease to be a social issue.
However, this argument has two limitations. The first is that the phenomenon of technology becoming more affordable and widespread over time does not always occur naturally. While prices are likely to fall in a sufficiently competitive market, the pace of adoption can be significantly slowed by institutional factors such as strict government regulations, monopolies held by specific companies, or patents. To put it bluntly, if it becomes evident that genetic design technology further entrenches social class divisions, we cannot rule out the possibility that the classes already benefiting from it—or companies monopolizing related industries—will attempt to restrict access to the technology in order to preserve their own interests.
Second, even if a particular class does not intentionally block the widespread adoption of the technology, there will always be disparities in access as the technology becomes more widespread. While cars and computers—once luxury items—are now widely available, not everyone drives an expensive supercar or uses a top-of-the-line computer. Similarly, even if gene design becomes widely available, a disparity may arise: households with average incomes might use it only for essential purposes, such as treating genetic diseases, while wealthier households might design additional traits they desire.
Ultimately, the widespread adoption of gene design technology is more likely to further deepen social stratification rather than provide equal opportunities for everyone. If gene design remains prohibitively expensive and accessible only to a tiny minority of the wealthy, it may remain a problem limited to certain social classes, just as it is today. However, if the cost of the technology gradually decreases, allowing ordinary households to utilize different ranges of gene design depending on their economic status, the issue of social stratification discussed earlier is highly likely to manifest widely across a much broader spectrum of income levels.
When discussing the issue of genetic manipulation in humans, the most frequently raised concern is safety. Indeed, while current gene-editing technologies are advancing rapidly, debates surrounding safety issues—such as off-target mutations—and ethical concerns continue. However, even if such technical safety is sufficiently ensured, differences of opinion regarding whether gene design should be permitted will still persist. This is because, while gene design technology offers the significant advantage of being able to fundamentally cure genetic diseases, it also carries the potential to cause not only ethical issues related to human dignity but also social and biological side effects.
I agree that gene design is a technology capable of revolutionizing the treatment of genetic diseases. However, I believe it should not be permitted if it is applied beyond therapeutic purposes to enhance human abilities, appearance, or physical characteristics, as this would likely further entrench social stratification.
Those who oppose this view may argue that, since the causes of social stratification are highly diverse, gene editing alone will not significantly alter the social hierarchy, and that the social benefits of gene editing far outweigh the risks, so the technology should be permitted.
However, if gene-design technology advances to the point where specific traits can be freely engineered in a desired direction, it is highly likely that disparities will arise that are difficult to overcome through individual effort alone. Furthermore, since the scope and extent to which gene design can be utilized will inevitably be closely linked to parents’ economic status, it could serve as a factor that further solidifies social class.
Therefore, gene-design technology may be permitted within the scope of its greatest advantage: the prevention and treatment of genetic diseases. On the other hand, I believe it is preferable not to permit its use for purposes beyond therapeutic goals—such as enhancing human abilities or characteristics—as this raises concerns that it could exacerbate social inequality and entrench social stratification.
