Genetic Engineering Side Effects

Genetic engineering and new reproductive technologies (reprogenetics) are often critiqued in terms of their implications for the creation or reinforcement of various forms of social inequality. In what ways might these criticisms be valid?

For many years, the specter of human genetic engineering has haunted spiritualists and scientists alike. Generally, their main criticisms are:

First, genetic engineering limits children’s autonomy to shape their own destinies. The argument is that if parents are able to remake a child’s genetic makeup, they are in a sense writing the genetic instructions that shape his entire life. If a child’s parents decided to give him/her blue eyes instead of brown eyes, if they made them tall instead of medium height, if they chose a passive over an aggressive personality, their choices will have a direct, lifelong effect on their child. In other words, genetic enhancement is immoral because it artificially molds people’s lives, often pointing their destinies in directions that they themselves would not freely choose. Therefore, it represents a fundamental violation of their rights as human beings.

Second, some fear that genetic engineering will lead to eugenics. This arguments states that the recent progress in genetic engineering has resulted in the possible use of new, innovative and cutting-edge science to eliminate certain conditions such as: autism. However, in actuality, the use of these technologies would not be to cure autism or even make life better for autistic people. Infact the plan is to eliminate autism by eliminating autistic people. This utilitarian view of life inevitably has lead many to question exactly how different this approach is from the Nazi’s and their idealogy of creating a master race. The point emphasized by this argument is that human genetic enhancement perpetuates discrimination against the disabled and the “genetically unfit,” and that this