The debate over genetically modified children
Imagine a future where parents can choose their child’s eye color, intelligence level, and even their likelihood of becoming an Olympic athlete. Sounds like the plot of a dystopian movie, doesn’t it? But with the rapid advancements in genetic engineering, it’s getting closer to reality.
For some context, CRISPR-Cas9 technology has revolutionised genetic engineering which allows for precise editing of DNA. This technology uses a guide RNA to direct the Cas9 enzyme to a specific location in the genome, where it makes a cut in the DNA. This cut can then be used to add, delete, or replace genetic material, enabling the modification of specific genes responsible for various traits. For example, scientists have successfully edited out the gene responsible for muscular dystrophy in mice, and similar efforts are underway for other genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia.
Beyond disease prevention, genetic engineering opens the door to enhancing physical and cognitive traits. Parents might one day choose to boost their child’s intelligence, physical endurance, or resistance to diseases. While still in the theoretical stage, the implications of such enhancements are both significant and deeply controversial.
A crucial ethical distinction lies between using genetic engineering for therapeutic purposes , such as correcting genetic disorders, and non-therapeutic purposes — enhancing human traits. The former is generally seen as a moral imperative to prevent or minimise suffering, while the latter ventures into the realm of ‘playing God’ and altering the natural course of human development. Therefore,
Where do we as a society draw the line between ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ uses of genetic engineering?
One of the most pressing issues is the potential for genetic engineering to amplify already-existing social inequalities. If only the wealthy can afford to enhance their children, it could lead to a society divided by genetic ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’, deepening pre-existing disparities and creating new forms of inequality. Such a division could result in a separated society where access to genetic enhancements determines one’s social and economic opportunities, further marginalising disadvantaged groups and perpetuating cycles of inequality.
Genetic engineering also poses significant risks to human diversity, which is essential for the resilience and adaptability of our species. Human diversity encompasses the wide range of physical, genetic, and cultural differences among people. This diversity is not merely a superficial attribute; it is foundational to our collective survival and progress. The natural variation in traits within populations allows humans to adapt to changing environments and new challenges. If genetic engineering becomes widespread and people begin selecting for similar traits, we risk creating a homogenised population.
The psychological effects on individuals who are genetically modified also warrant consideration. If people are engineered to meet specific societal standards, it could lead to a loss of individual identity and self-worth. Individuals might feel pressured to conform to parental or societal expectations rather than developing their own unique identities (more pressure than already is).
Worse, the psychological and societal impacts of genetic engineering extend beyond the individuals directly affected. The idea of selecting specific traits in offspring could lead to societal pressure to conform to certain genetic ideals, potentially stigmatising those who do not undergo genetic modifications. This could create a culture of genetic perfectionism, where the value of individuals is judged based on their genetic makeup rather than their inherent worth as human beings.
However, it is important to, again, consider substantial benefits that genetic engineering can bring. While designer babies is a controversial territory, genetic engineering has the ability to eradicate genetic diseases. Diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and Huntington’s disease, which cause immense suffering and have no cure, could be eliminated from the human gene pool. By correcting these genetic mutations at the embryonic stage, we could prevent countless individuals from experiencing the effects of these conditions, significantly improving the quality of life and, potentially, reducing the burden on healthcare systems worldwide.
Furthermore, genetic engineering has the potential to revolutionise agriculture and food security. By creating crops that are more resistant to pests, diseases, and extreme weather conditions, we can ensure more stable food supplies, particularly in regions that are most vulnerable to climate change. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can also be ‘designed’ to have higher nutritional value, addressing malnutrition and food scarcity issues in developing countries. The ability to produce crops with enhanced growth rates and yields can contribute to feeding a growing global population, highlighting the broader societal benefits of genetic engineering beyond human health.
The scientific revolution brought by genetic engineering, particularly through CRISPR-Cas9, is (what I personally believe to be) one of the most significant developments in modern biology. It brings forth a new era where we have the power to directly manipulate the genetic code, offering unparalleled opportunities for medical and scientific advancements. It is crucial, therefore, to approach this technology with a balanced perspective, acknowledging the risks while also embracing the opportunities it presents for improving human life and the world we live in.
