Research progress in the field of genetics during the last years shows that perhaps we are closer than ever to the possibility of achieving genetic engineering in humans. Genetic engineering is a process where the direct manipulation of the genome of an individual is achieved, by using genetic tools like CRISPR – a technique which can alter the genome of almost any organism leading to novel or improved organisms.
This process will potentially take place at an early embryotic stage, providing us the extraordinary ability to prevent anticipated genetic diseases and disorders before they even appear, by removing ‘bad’ genes and replacing them with good ones. Indeed, in 2015, a group of Chinese scientists announced for the first time in human history that they had created a genetically modified human embryo by conducting experiments in non-viable embryos. Now, are there (or should there be) any moral limitations to this practice?
Although genetic engineering for purely medical reasons seems to be morally acceptable – if not obligatory given that we have the technology, it is not hard to realize that eventually this achievement will automatically give us the power to alter the human genome in embryos for non-medical reasons as well; and it is not clear at all whether this practice would be a good idea. In other words, there is a possibility in the near future, that we will have the biotechnology to give to our children some extra physical strength and specific cognitive traits, creating this way our future ‘designer babies’ according to our tastes or needs.
A common line of defence for this kind of human enhancement is that parents should be totally free to choose whatever genetic modification they like as long as they do not harm their child or others. For instance, in his famous book ‘Anarchy, state, and utopia’ Robert Nozick, advocating what he calls liberal eugenics, notoriously argues that we should run ‘genetic supermarkets’ to meet the individual specifications of prospective parents, within certain moral limits and with minimal state intervention. But should we? At a first glance, opting for a particular eye color or making our children taller seems indeed harmless. Moreover, some might think that making our children smarter and immune to certain diseases not only is harmless but provides them with valuable dispositions for succeeding and flourishing in their lives.
What happens in the long run though is different. The consequences of this practice might well be worse than we could have imagined.
For example, taking control over nature in shaping the genomes of our descendants will probably lead to a new sort of inequality, namely a genome inequality, in addition to our fairly rich menu of existing inequalities in our societies. Given that such advanced bio-technologies are usually not accessible to poor people or even the middle class, we may eventually find ourselves living in a world where rich people will have the advantage of choosing how to shape their children, creating eventually an elite class of genetically modified enhanced humans.
But even if we grant that everybody will eventually have access to such reproductive genetic technologies, it remains unclear whether a universal standard of enhancement will ultimately be an advantage. Take height for example. What makes height an advantage, is the fact that there is an average height of humans, and certain individuals are above that level. What is the meaning of being tall if everybody else is tall too? The example may seem trivial, but nonetheless it points to something much deeper. It raises the very important question of where we should set the bar of enhancement. How tall or strong or fast can and should we be? The issue becomes even more complicated once we start asking about cognitive traits such as intelligence, bravery, self-confidence and others. There seems to be an inherent value in the fact that there is cognitive and physical diversity among humans and targeting certain ‘popular’ traits via genetic engineering will lead to the elimination of this diversity.
One can easily provide further reasons against human enhancement, such as that we must protect our human nature and not risk tampering something so fundamental as our genetic structure. A possible answer to all these claims would be that genetic engineering is a powerful tool in our hands, thus we should find ways to benefit ourselves from it. We can and we must find the appropriate formulas to regulate the genetic market in such a way that will prevent excessive and inappropriate use of these bio-technologies and in addition maintain a balance within societies, some might say.
There is however another important issue. Freedom of choice. People claim that parents should be free to choose the genetic structure of their descendants. But what about the descendants? Shouldn't they be free to choose their own genetic structure? More importantly, don't they have the right to remain free from genetic alternations whatsoever? Studying Ethics and Aesthetics has nonetheless taught us that defining a universal concept of goodness or beauty is a very difficult and elusive task; and what we think today is good or beautiful for our children can be easily deemed unwanted by future generations. This, I believe, is the most crucial concern in genetic engineering. By altering our children’s genome, we are violating in an irreversible way their right to remain genetically genuine, whatever that means.
To conclude, it seems that genetic engineering in humans will indeed take place in the near future, at least for medical purposes. Our aspirational human nature will drive us towards finding ways to justify this practice and make it seem morally acceptable. But then we will have to set the boundary between medical and non-medical cases. And this, I think, is an extremely subtle issue. As soon as this happens, a door will open that can never be closed again; and thus we must be extremely cautious because that door may well lead to some rather undesirable consequences.
