The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering

The main problem with bioengineering is that it represents the “triumph of willfulness over giftedness, of dominion over reverence, of molding over beholding” (85).

The question is, why is that triumph necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps the answer is religious: Bioengineering allows people to see themselves as rivalling the power of God. Sandel believes there is an equally persuasive secular argument. Parenthood requires humility, as parents must accept and love whoever their child turns out to be. People may feel a sense of humility about their own attributes, as they did not choose their own genes. If people did have that choice, they might lose their sense of gratitude for their own existence, whether that gratitude is directed at God or at the randomness of the universe.

People often suggest that genetic enhancements would make people less responsible for their own successes, but the opposite could be true: The option to undergo genetic modification could become the responsibility to do so. This is already the case in some sports where players commonly take performance-enhancing drugs: Those who elect not to are sometimes shamed for letting the team down or for not giving the game everything they have. The same thing happens to parents who have children with Down syndrome or other genetic disorders that can be detected before birth with genetic testing.