“The alternative to a cloned or genetically enhanced child is a child genetically determined by chance.”

Introduction

In recent times, with rapid advances in medicine, there has been extensive debate about the morality of the genetic enhancement of human beings. The development of IVF in the late 1970s has led to many possibilities in the field of human genetic enhancement. Today, the most common form of genetic intervention is in screening technology, such as in Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). Other forms of genetic enhancement, including direct genetic manipulation are, in general, still in the infancy stages.

In this article, I present arguments both for and against the genetic enhancement of humans with minimal use of technical jargon, in order to allow other students like myself to have an idea of the ethical debate behind this issue. I believe that there is no black-and-white answer on whether it is ethical to genetically enhance a child or to let a child be genetically determined solely by chance, as the type of enhancement in question will be an important consideration. Hence, I will also attempt to propose some criteria which one can consider when assessing whether a genetic enhancement is ethically acceptable.

Due to space constraints, I will assume that the procedure of genetic enhancement discussed would be relatively successful, with few unwanted physical side effects on the patient.

Arguments against Genetic Enhancement and Possible Counter-Arguments

The main objections against genetic enhancement can be made from several points of view, ranging from the rights of the unborn child, the unequal access to such technology due to non-medical reasons, possible impact on society like costs and deontology ethics.

The argument from the perspective of rights is concerned that a genetically enhanced child may be “wrongfully denied significant opportunities later in life” (Robert Wachbroit 2005) as a result of the genetic enhancement given to the child before the child was born (and hence could not consent or oppose to). The fear is that a child who is genetically enhanced to be predisposed to a certain activity would face parents’ and societies’ expectations to take part and excel in this activity, thus denying him of the opportunity to take part in other activities which may be more enjoyable, and hence bring more satisfaction, to this child.

While this concern may hold true for certain types of genetic enhancements concerning ability and talents (most of which are still only theoretical), such as selecting genes for long-distance running or for musical ability, this concern would be less likely to hold true for enhancements which only aim to correct genetic disorders and mutations, which cause medical disabling disease, especially diseases which carry a lifelong disability. Here, we would assume that the person in question would have chosen not to have the disease (if given the chance), due to the added social and health costs, associated pain and suffering, decrease in quality of life for both the child and the family, or perhaps lethal nature of the disease. Furthermore, many children today are born with high expectations from society and family, even when they are born “genetically determined by chance”, simply due to their family background. For example, a child born into a family of singers might be expected to be good at singing, or a child from a family of scientists might be expected to excel in science in school, instead of in other subjects such as art. If this kind of expectation is generally deemed morally acceptable, then increased expectations of a child who is genetically enhanced would be relatively more acceptable than it would at first seem.

Another issue is the possible widening of social inequality. Some fear that the relatively high cost of genetic enhancement for offspring would widen the gap between the rich and the poor, as only the rich would be able to access the resources needed for genetic enhancement. The difference between “haves” and “have-nots” would extend to a biological level, as the genetic advantages which only the rich can afford would further add on to the environmental advantages which the poor are currently deprived of (Bostrom 2003). This would...