# Genetic Enhancement: Prioritizing Society Over Individual Traits
Written on
Chapter 1: Understanding Genetic Enhancement
The advent of genomic technologies, encompassing everything from embryo screening to genome editing, presents significant ethical challenges. While these tools are available, their appropriateness in fostering a harmonious society is questionable.
For instance, in the UK, all expectant mothers are offered screening tests for Down’s syndrome. Yet, researchers are now proposing that embryos can be screened for traits beyond medical conditions, including intelligence and height. In the United States, some clinics already provide assessments on whether an embryo may develop below-average IQ levels. Soon, technology that predicts the facial appearance of embryos is expected to emerge, allowing parents to visualize potential traits, such as eye color.
While some may view these advancements as an expansion of parental choice, one must ponder the implications of such selections. Higher intelligence is statistically linked to enhanced life outcomes, leading to the question: if we accept screening for Down’s syndrome on the grounds of improving a child's life, why not extend this logic to desirable traits?
Ethics of Editing: Is Genetic Engineering Worth the Risk?
This video discusses the ethical implications surrounding genetic engineering, emphasizing the risks involved in modifying human traits for the sake of perceived improvement.
Section 1.1: The Question of Disability
It's crucial to reevaluate the assumption that screening for Down’s syndrome is inherently justified. Many disability rights advocates argue that such screening undermines the value of disabled lives. While it’s understandable that parents may wish to avoid having a child with this condition due to the additional care required, it highlights a societal failure rather than a genetic one. By improving institutional support and access to services, we could alleviate the challenges faced by families with disabled children.
Subsection 1.1.1: Redefining Disability
Chapter 2: Reevaluating Intelligence and Wealth
The association between high IQ and favorable life outcomes raises further questions. Wealth often correlates with intelligence, influenced by career opportunities. This relationship suggests a cycle where socioeconomic status significantly impacts overall health and well-being. We must consider whether it is just for life outcomes to be so heavily dictated by intelligence and wealth.
The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies
In this video, Paul Knoepfler explores the moral complexities surrounding the concept of 'designer babies' and the societal implications of genetic selection.
Section 2.1: The Influence of Appearance
Research indicates that perceived attractiveness can affect success, leading to the “halo effect,” where individuals deemed attractive are also assumed to possess positive traits like intelligence and ambition. However, these perceptions are shaped by cultural biases that we should be working to dismantle, rather than reinforce. The potential for facial prediction technologies could exacerbate societal pressures, particularly on women, by further linking their value to appearance.
Section 2.2: The Pursuit of Equality
Proponents of genetic enhancement may argue for universal enhancement to reduce disparities in health, intelligence, and appearance. However, a more equitable solution would be to address the structural inequalities that dictate life outcomes. Advocating for systemic changes in society rather than individual genetic modifications could lead to a more just and supportive environment for all.
The discourse around these technologies prompts critical considerations about who is shaping these changes. The developers often come from a limited demographic, potentially overlooking the needs and concerns of marginalized groups. Additionally, the reliance on private funding for research can skew the focus toward profit rather than public good.
Section 2.3: Philosophical Perspectives on Justice
Political philosophers have long debated the fairness of life circumstances, particularly regarding traits like health and intelligence that individuals cannot control. John Rawls argued for a society where individuals would endorse the system without knowing their genetic lottery, promoting fairness irrespective of personal attributes.
The dialogue surrounding genetic enhancement reveals an underlying belief that certain lives or traits are less valuable, which could reinforce negative perceptions of those who do not conform to newly established norms. While the pursuit of eradicating serious genetic diseases is commendable, we must be cautious about extending this rationale to the creation of "enhanced" individuals.
In conclusion, rather than enhancing individuals genetically, we should focus on ensuring equitable well-being across society. By bolstering public services and support systems, we can promote a healthier, more inclusive society. Rather than perpetuating the notion that intelligence and genetics dictate a person's worth, we must recognize our shared humanity, understanding that we all rely on one another at various points in our lives.
Gulzaar Barn is a postdoctoral research associate at King’s College London, where her research delves into the ethical implications of scientific advancements, perceptions of the body, and justice theories. She previously served as a postgraduate research fellow at the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.