In this blog post, I will examine the historical debates and ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering and eugenics, and propose a plan for the limited adoption of these technologies.

The History and Problems of Eugenics

Eugenics is a branch of applied genetics that originated with the goal of “improving” the genetic characteristics of humanity and was established in the late 19th century. When applied to humans, eugenics typically involved distinguishing between “superior genetic traits” and “inferior genetic traits,” leading to attempts to encourage the reproduction of the former or suppress that of the latter. Here, “superior genetic traits” typically refer to the absence of physical or mental defects, and on this basis, discriminatory policies, sterilization procedures, birth control measures, and other coercive actions were proposed and implemented in various countries.
The immediate aversion to eugenics is largely linked to the extreme examples of Nazi Germany. The Nazis defined “superior bloodlines” based on specific physical characteristics and sought to propagate them through programs such as the Lebensborn program. Such policies led to human rights violations and genocide, clearly demonstrating that eugenics itself could be misused as an ideology of racial discrimination and violence. The criteria of that era were not based on objective scientific evidence but relied heavily on social prejudice and ideology.
Another related concept, social Darwinism, applies Darwin’s evolutionary ideas to social theory, viewing “survival of the fittest” or “competition” as the driving forces of social progress. However, this is a fallacy that directly transposes the principle of natural selection into social and ethical judgments, and it is sometimes used as a justification for brutal struggle. In fact, throughout history, there have been many instances where such theories were abused as a rationale for excluding or oppressing the vulnerable.
To prevent the misuse of eugenics, it is necessary to clarify the concept itself and make efforts to eliminate social prejudice. Since the mid-20th century, some biologists have retained the term “eugenics” while advocating for an approach grounded in scientific evidence and free from biases based on race, class, or gender. Reflecting on how eugenics was used in the past to justify social prejudice, a movement emerged to limit the application of genetic knowledge to humanitarian purposes—namely, disease prevention and treatment. Subsequent advances in genetic engineering have led to discussions of a “new eugenics,” which raises both technological possibilities and ethical risks.

The Potential of Genetic Engineering and Regulatory Proposals

Advances in genetic engineering offer positive possibilities, such as the treatment of diseases and the extension of human lifespan. However, there are also significant concerns that if the same technology is used to artificially manipulate individual characteristics, it could lead to serious problems such as social discrimination, infringement of identity, and the loss of genetic diversity. While proponents emphasize the benefits of the technology, opponents warn that such technologies could exacerbate inequality and undermine human dignity.
My position is that, given my serious recognition of the ethical and social risks of genetic engineering, it should not be hastily permitted across the board. However, I do not believe we need to completely rule out the potential for genetic engineering to treat diseases. Therefore, I propose a “restricted allowance” as a compromise between the pro and con positions. Specifically, genetic engineering should be strictly limited to the treatment and prevention of genetic disorders or incurable diseases.
The core concern raised by opponents is that once the technology is developed, there may be a desire to intentionally create individuals with “superior genetic traits.” If such technology were to be commercialized and access to it were distributed unequally, there is a risk that a genetically “enhanced” minority group would form a ruling class, thereby entrenching social inequality. Furthermore, the possibility of losing an individual’s unique identity and the genetic diversity of human populations cannot be ignored.
Strict regulation at the national level is essential to prevent this. The proposed principles are as follows: First, genetic engineering interventions should be permitted only for the treatment and prevention of diseases, while their use for selective enhancement—such as “performance enhancement” or the manipulation of appearance or intelligence—should be prohibited. Second, prenatal testing and the provision of genetic information should be offered only at the request of parents, and parents should be allowed to choose treatment and response strategies based on that information. This is a minimum safeguard to prevent coercive decisions or government-led screening.
Case studies clearly demonstrate that couples or individuals may reach different conclusions regarding genetic information and treatment options. For example, some may refuse prenatal testing and find fulfillment in choosing to live with a child with a disability, while in other cases, parents may consider prenatal testing after experiencing the extreme suffering and short life of a child born with an incurable genetic disease. A prime example is Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB), a severe genetic disorder caused by a deficiency of essential fibrillin, in which even the slightest contact can cause blisters and irreversible skin damage, potentially leading to a painful and fatal course. Given this reality, parental choice and the provision of information are highly sensitive issues that must respect the differing judgments of each individual.
Finally, the government must continuously monitor and regulate genetic engineering technologies to prevent their misuse for “enhancement” purposes. Such regulations should include ensuring transparency during both research and commercialization phases, review by ethics committees, and measures to strictly limit the scope and conditions of technology use through legal means. Furthermore, international cooperation is necessary to prevent lax regulations in one country from leading to the introduction and misuse of such technologies in other nations.
In conclusion, genetic engineering should be used primarily to alleviate suffering caused by incurable and genetic diseases, and the selective enhancement of human capabilities should, in principle, be prohibited. To this end, the provision of prenatal testing should be restricted within the bounds of respecting parents’ right to access information and their right to choose, and the misuse of the technology must be prevented through strict national-level regulation and oversight. By applying genetic engineering in this restricted manner and refining the relevant systems, we can harness the benefits of the technology while minimizing ethical and social problems.