In this blog post, we examine the ethical issues surrounding “designer babies”—a phenomenon brought about by advances in biotechnology—and their impact on the dignity of life and free will.
Advances in Biotechnology and the Ethical Issues of Designer Babies
Are advances in biotechnology truly a blessing for humanity? Thanks to these advances, insulin—used to treat diabetes—can now be mass-produced, and developments in stem cell and gene therapy are opening up new treatment possibilities for diseases that were previously difficult to treat. From this perspective, humanity has reaped many benefits from biotechnology. However, as biotechnology continues to advance, attempts to genetically engineer a child even before birth—in order to produce a child with traits desired by the parents—are also becoming the subject of real-world ethical debates. Are such attempts truly justified?
Sandel, author of ‘Talking About the Ethics of Life’, opposes the use of biotechnology to “design” children according to the parents’ wishes. He argues that attempts to alter a child stem from parental arrogance in seeking to conquer the mystery of birth. This arrogance arises from parents’ inability to accept their children as they are. Parents may become disappointed in children who fail to meet their expectations, and the children, in turn, may be disappointed in such parents, ultimately damaging the parent-child relationship.
Opponents of this view argue that “child design” is not fundamentally different from medical treatment. They argue that therapy is also an act of restoring health to help children fully realize their abilities, and that “child design” is a method of maximizing a child’s potential to help them lead a better life. However, if we distinguish health into the two concepts of “healing” and “enhancement,” therapy corresponds to healing, while using biotechnology to maximize health or abilities corresponds to enhancement. While healing has specific goals and limitations, enhancement has no such restrictions. Therefore, allowing enhancement risks fueling endless competition, which could lead to eugenic thinking.
Furthermore, the very act of designing a child implies that parents view their child as a means to an end. For this reason alone, child design should not be permitted. On the other hand, some argue that it is inconsistent to accept enhancing a child’s abilities through education while opposing genetic engineering. However, while education leaves room for autonomy and choice during a child’s development, genetic engineering for child design strongly tends to define a child in a specific direction even before birth. Furthermore, considering that excessive parental intervention in education should also be avoided, genetic engineering—which constitutes a far more powerful form of intervention—must be approached with even greater caution.
The Dignity of Life and “Designer Babies”
I, too, agree with Sandel’s argument. First, it is difficult to consider current genetic engineering technology sufficiently safe. In the past, the success rates for gene introduction and stem cell production were very low, and although related technologies have advanced significantly, the safety, accuracy, and predictability of human embryo gene editing have not yet been sufficiently verified. In particular, due to the possibility of unintended genetic mutations and the potential for these effects to be passed on to future generations, many countries strictly restrict or prohibit the genetic editing of germ cells or embryos. Under these circumstances, genetically engineering a child could pose a serious risk to life.
If parents repeatedly create and screen embryos in order to have a child with desired traits, there is a possibility that many fertilized eggs will be discarded in the process. Such actions lead to the evaluation of life based on criteria of success and failure, raising concerns that the dignity of life may be compromised. Therefore, the practice of “designing” children using genetic engineering technology is, in essence, no different from eugenic thinking in that it reduces life to a means to an end, and must be carefully restricted.
Even if genetic engineering technology were to advance dramatically in the future, enabling the realization of desired traits with a very high degree of accuracy, I would still agree with the author’s argument on the grounds of the dignity of life. The dignity of life is a value that serves as the foundation for all fundamental rights in modern states. If the dignity of life—the most important foundation sustaining the community—is shaken, the community itself will be difficult to maintain.
“Designer babies”—allowing genetic manipulation so that parents can have the children they desire—could instill the perception that it is acceptable to design a human life according to human intent. If this perception spreads throughout society, there is a risk that life will be viewed not as a precious entity in and of itself, but as a tool for achieving a specific purpose. Treating life as a tool could also lead to an attitude of readily abandoning or excluding lives that are not beneficial to oneself or that fall short of expectations. If such values become widespread, they could ultimately severely undermine trust and safety within the community.
However, when discussing the ethics of life, one might ask why genetic modification of plants such as tomatoes or corn is permitted. In fact, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are cultivated and distributed in many countries around the world. Yet, the development of GMOs does not automatically imply a denial of the dignity of life. This is because the dignity of life discussed above is a concept premised on human life. There are fundamental differences between humans and tomatoes in terms of the presence of consciousness and the capacity for self-determination. Humans possess free will and act according to their own thoughts and judgments, whereas plants do not. Furthermore, even when compared not only to plants but also to other animals, humans possess highly developed cognitive abilities and the capacity for moral judgment; therefore, they can be considered deserving of special consideration regarding the dignity of life.
Why should human life be respected in a special way?
A counterargument based on the “vegetative state” might then be raised. As mentioned earlier, this argument asserts that individuals in a vegetative state should be excluded from the dignity of human life because they lack consciousness. However, people in a vegetative state are treated the same as others, and their lives are also respected. The reason lies in the possibility of recovery and in their very existence as human beings. Even if a person is currently unconscious, the possibility of regaining consciousness exists; therefore, one cannot deny the dignity of human life solely on the grounds of a current lack of consciousness. Consequently, humans must receive special protection, taking into account not only their current level of consciousness but also the inherent value and potential of their very existence as human beings.
This raises the question: Does the dignity of life remain intact even in cases where there is absolutely no possibility of regaining consciousness? This issue has long been a subject of debate in bioethics. Modern medicine strictly distinguishes between a vegetative state and brain death. A vegetative state is a condition in which consciousness is absent but some brain functions are maintained, and—though rare—there is a possibility of recovery. In contrast, brain death is a state in which all brain functions have been irreversibly lost; in South Korea and several other countries, organ donation is permitted under certain legal conditions. Therefore, a vegetative state and brain death cannot be viewed as the same condition, and ethical discussions regarding the dignity of life must also distinguish between the two states.
Free Will and Designer Babies
The act of designing a child has the potential to infringe not only on the dignity of life but also on the child’s free will. Free will is deeply connected to human dignity and is one of the core values that sustain society. However, child design carries the risk of limiting free choice by preemptively incorporating the parents’ intentions into the child’s life. For example, if parents intentionally select genetic traits related to muscle development in the hope that their child will become an outstanding track and field athlete, the child is likely to grow up facing parental expectations in a specific field, regardless of their own will. Situations where the parents’ will takes precedence over the child’s free will must be approached with caution, as they can infringe upon the human right to self-determination.
On the other hand, there is a counterargument that applying “universal enhancement”—which evenly improves all abilities—would actually broaden a child’s range of choices. Universal enhancement refers to the overall improvement of various abilities, rather than enhancing only specific ones. Therefore, the argument goes, it does not force a specific profession or career path but rather helps the child demonstrate superior abilities regardless of the field they choose.
However, such universal enhancement also has the potential to restrict freedom in other ways.
People find meaning in life through the process of discovering and developing their own abilities. The future is not entirely predetermined, and the process of exploring one’s own potential is itself a vital human experience. If all abilities were intentionally designed before birth, the joy and meaning derived from discovering one’s potential and forging one’s own path in life could be diminished. Therefore, while universal enhancement may broaden the range of choices, it is difficult to conclude that it fully guarantees the meaning inherent in a truly human life and the value of free self-formation.
Should “designer babies” be permitted?
The practice of designing children is a highly significant ethical issue that requires careful consideration of the dignity of life and free will. While some argue that there is no reason to grant humans a special status compared to plants and animals, which are subject to genetic modification, humans warrant special ethical consideration because they possess a high level of intelligence, the capacity for moral judgment, and the right to self-determination.
Everyone may have a desire for superior abilities. However, people with superior genetic traits should not be regarded as more valuable. If this perception spreads throughout society, there is a risk that eugenic thinking—judging human value based on genetic conditions—could resurface. This could seriously undermine the principles of equality within the community and human dignity.
Selecting or excluding lives in order to produce individuals with better traits can never be justified. Just as we do not harm others simply because we possess a knife, the existence of gene-editing technology does not mean we must necessarily use it to design human beings before birth. Science and technology must exist for the benefit of humanity and must not be used in ways that infringe upon human dignity and freedom.
