Philosophy
The Ethics of Genetic Engineering and Human Enhancement
Quick fact
As of 2023, more than 1,000 human genes have been edited in embryos in research labs, yet no country has approved heritable human genome editing for pregnancy, despite the fact that a Chinese scientist He Jiankui claimed the first gene-edited babies in 2018—a move widely condemned by the scientific community for bypassing ethical norms.
Why this is interesting
You’ve probably heard of CRISPR and 'designer babies,' but what’s actually wrong with editing a child’s genes? The answer isn’t as simple as you might think.
Read the full explanation
Understanding The Ethics of Genetic Engineering and Human Enhancement
Genetic engineering involves directly modifying an organism's DNA. When applied to humans, we can distinguish between somatic (non-reproductive) and germline (heritable) editing. Somatic editing affects only the individual, while germline changes are passed to offspring. The ethical conversation centers on whether we should use these tools to treat disease (therapy) or to enhance traits like intelligence or physical ability. The therapy-enhancement distinction is crucial because therapy aims to restore health, which is widely accepted, whereas enhancement aims to go beyond normal functioning, raising concerns about fairness, coercion, and altering human nature. Imagine a spectrum: at one end is curing a fatal disease (therapy), at the other is choosing your child’s eye color (enhancement). The controversial area is in between—where does prevention end and enhancement begin?
A deeper explanation
Underpinning these debates are different ethical frameworks. Consequentialists would evaluate genetic modifications by their outcomes: enhancing intelligence might produce great social benefit, but could also worsen inequality if only the wealthy have access. Deontologists emphasize duties and rights: a child has a right to an open future, and modifying them for parental preferences could violate that. There is also a forward-looking concern: germline edits affect not only the individual but all descendants, making consent impossible. This raises the 'non-identity problem'—if an edit changes who is born, is that person harmed compared to non-existence? Additionally, concepts of disability and diversity: some argue that eliminating conditions like deafness could do harm by eroding neurodiversity. Virtue ethics asks what kind of people we become if we treat children as products. These perspectives yield no consensus, but they structure the ethical terrain.