1

Are there any morally accepted uses of human genetic

engineering?
By Douglas Grecian
Many of the most prominent issues in modern ethics deal with the application of new
and developing technologies, from surveillance to medicine. Perhaps one of the most
controversial is the field of genetic engineering. This is a subject that has more than
its fair share of hysteria attached to it, with many examples of popular culture
showing the potential consequences of its misuse, almost liking it to the science of Dr.
Frankenstein. At the same time there are plenty who believe the benefits outweigh any
potential problems. Is there thus any morally accepted use of the technology?
I intend to argue that genetic engineering can be applied in a way that is morally
acceptable. For this essay I will be focusing particularly on the issue of genetic
enhancement, since this is where much of the debate is centred. I will try to show that
although it something we give careful consideration to, we should not simply prohibit
its application. This will be done by first briefly clarifying what I mean by
enhancement and then examining some of the main arguments against it, focusing on
those that raise social issues. Note that this essay will be assuming that this
technology will be perfected at some point and will not dwell on technical issues.
Before tackling the main argument, it should also be pointed out that the medical uses
of genetic engineering will not be greatly covered either. This is because I think that
while there is some controversy on how it is researched, few people will object to
using it to give people with genetic disorders a chance at a better life. The same can
be said for the possibilities of stem cell research, such as re-growing organs.
Nevertheless, it must be taken into consideration due to the distinction between
therapy and enhancement that is often used in arguments concerning the latter, which
we will touch on later.
To start with, it should be clarified what we mean by genetic enhancement. In simple
terms, it involves manipulating the genes of a person so that certain traits are
improved or others become dominant, usually done at the embryo stage. One use of
this is to make people inherently more resistant or immune to diseases, though you
could possibly argue that this could fall into the same category as genetic therapy
since they are both presumably medical applications of the technology. Most people
tend to view enhancement in regards to a persons physical or mental traits, which
goes beyond medicine. It is this that has sparked some of the liveliest arguments
against genetic engineering.
One of the arguments you are likely to hear is that this application of technology is a
violation of the realm of God, sanctity of life etc. While these sorts of criticisms are
on the whole easily countered, George Annas has come up with a more sophisticated
example of this type of argument. He assumes that human rights and equality are
grounded in human dignity; and that dignity is grounded in a common human nature
(Fenton, 2008: 3). Genetic engineering would allow us to change fundamental
characteristics and therefore undermine the basis of human rights & equality. While
he has definitely given it some thought, I equate this argument with sanctity of life
ones because, as Fenton points out, Annas fails to properly explain his concept of
dignity (Fenton, 2008: 4). However, the fact Fenton wrote an article on this highlights
that even these sorts of arguments need to be properly addressed.

2
Far more compelling cases against the use of genetic enhancement often cite the
potential social consequences and problems of using this technology. One aspect that
is focused on in particular is the role of the parents.
More often than not, children will be genetically enhanced because of the wishes of
their parents, who want there child to have the best possible start in life. Critics would
then ask when does a healthy and responsible concern for a childs future interfere
with the childs right to choose his own values and life plans? (Kuhse & Singer,
2006: 215). The worry is that a child is going to have his life determined for him
before he is even born. Certainly, if someone has had their physical characteristics
enhanced in order to make them professional athletes, then they will most likely
follow that career. On the other hand, how a child will turn out is determined by more
than genes. Even the most gifted will not amount to much if they are raised poorly by
their parents, and rebellion by children against their parents is common.
Related to the argument above is how enhancement will affect the choices available to
a person. Dena Davies makes the argument that parents act unethically if they make
selections that constrain their childs range of futures (Schmidt, 2007: 191). For
example, if someone was made to be exceptionally tall in order for them to be great at
basketball, then there would be a number of opportunities denied to him due to his
stature. Although this is a reasonable worry with regards to the example used, I think
that generally parents would want to give their children as many opportunities as was
possible. You could counter this by saying that parents might be thinking more about
their own wishes rather than that of their child when selecting traits, such as living
their dreams through their children. The problem here is that unlike having them take
lessons, this is something that children would have absolutely no control over and is
permanent. Eric Schmidt, who wrote his article partly in response to Davies
argument, says that parents should not be permitted, ethically, to engage in parental
genetic trait selections that shift the range of the childs open future, based on the
parents conceptions of the futures they desire for their child (Schmidt, 2007: 197).
Although he provides what he believes is the best ethical guidance for parents, it is
very difficult to for most people to make decisions that are not influenced by their
own preconceptions. This would seem to indicate that no matter what the child gains,
he is losing some of his autonomy.
While we are on the subject of the next generation, it might be prudent to mention a
particular sub-discipline known as germ line engineering. Unlike other methods,
enhancements done this way are passed down through generations. This means that
the consequences are much greater than that of somatic engineering (the other main
method). Some commentators have noted that germ line alterations come closer to
playing god than have any other manipulations so far (Kuhse & Singer, 2006: 206).
At the same time, one should consider the potential this has to greatly improve the
lives of humanity as a whole.

3
If we do accept that using genetics to enhance their children is something that is
morally acceptable for parents, we might ask what effect this would have on wider
society. One particular worry is that because genetic enhancements will never be
universally available on demand (e.g. due to cost constraints), the myth of equality of
opportunity may well be shattered, thereby dividing human society between a genetic
nobility and a jockeying biological underclass (Baylis & Robert, 2004: 15). You could
also argue that this could widen the gap between first and third world countries, which
would fall even further behind in terms of overall prosperity. However, if we assume
the technology is perfected then you could argue that it would become cheaper as time
progressed, making it affordable for most people. As a result, the richer countries
would be more willing to share this knowledge with those less fortunate.
Another case against genetic enhancement that is related to the above is how we view
humanity as a species. If we are able to alter ourselves at a genetic level particularly
the germ line then there is the possibility that we could change large sections of the
population to fit certain standards, which might not necessarily be for the best. Going
back to the argument of equality, you could turn it on its head and say that using
genetic engineering to make everyone truly equal is intrinsically inhuman, since one
of our great strengths is our diversity. There is also the issue that this technology can
be used as a form of eugenics to create an ideal vision of a particular race. One author
claims it is morally suspect to use parents and their children as means to achieve
socially directed ends not necessarily shared or desired by the family (Kuhse &
Singer, 2006: 201). This perhaps links back to previous issues of autonomy, only now
it extends to the parents as well, but it also brings up the question of how this
technology should be distributed. Still, I think that many would think that ensuring
that everybody was healthier and lived longer is something that few people would
object to.
Having examined some of the fears that drive a number of the critics of this
application of genetics, it would be prudent to briefly examine the views of those who
embrace it. Authors like Jonathan Glover and those who follow the post-humanist
philosophy view the coming of genetic technology in the same way many viewed
organ transplants and chemotherapy in that while there are many practical questions
to be answered, there is no doubt that it should be available. In regards to its
distribution, Robert Nozick rejects the regulation of genetic choices and favours what
he calls the genetic supermarket where parents can simply buy the genes they choose
(Glover, 2006: 76). This seems to indicate a strong libertarian streak that is common
among supporters. Although it could create a form of genetic competition, Glover
argues that even if your parents chose intelligence, energy, and creativity for really
bad reasons, you may still not regret their choice (Glover, 2006: 81). While he admits
that this situation could turn out very badly, he seems to believe that these benefits
will outweigh the potential cost. In general, Glover and others like him support
widespread genetic enhancement in terms of its benefits to society and the individual
as well as peoples freedom and self-determination. Others might argue that this is
being overly optimistic.

4
On a final note, it must be noted that all the arguments presented here are purely
speculative. Unlike gene therapy, the technology for genetic enhancement has not
progressed to a point of practical application. Thus we have yet to have any hard
evidence that would support the reasons for this being an ethical practice or not. On
the other hand, you might argue that ethics should be based on some higher moral
code and that we can make reasonable assumptions.
In conclusion, I think that while there is an issue of whether we are right to affect
future generations in such a massive way, the potential benefits that could be derived
from it mean that it should not be banned outright. Ultimately, I do not think that we
should deny this avenue of research based on what is, at present, mostly speculation.

Bibliography

Baylis, F. & Robert, J.S., The inevitability of Genetic Enhancement

Technology, Bioethics 18, 1 (2004)
Fenton, E., Genetic Enhancement- a Threat to Human Rights, Bioethics 22, 1
(2008)
Glover, J., Choosing Children, (Clarendon Press, 2006)
Khuse, H. & Singer, P. (eds), Bioethics: An Anthology, (Blackwell, 2006)
Schmidt, E.B., The Parental Obligation to Expand a Childs Range of Open
Futures When Making Genetic Trait Selections for Their Child, Bioethics 21,
4 (2007)