Genetic Enhancement vs Gene Therapy
Loading...
Authors
Andrew Barrett
Issue Date
2026
Type
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
The following presentation will focus on genetic editing. Specifically, the distinction between gene therapy and genetic enhancement. The stance against genetic enhancement while allowing for gene therapy and maintenance is taken. One major argument against genetic enhancement has to do with the fact that it would most likely deepen the divide between socioeconomic status. This is because if favorable traits were able to be bought by those who could afford them, then those who are wealthier would acquire a permanent advantage over others. This wouldn’t be the case for gene therapy because gene therapy provides basic goods and brings people to baseline for a better quality of life. This contrasts with genetic enhancement which allows people to purchase traits that put them above others, allowing for a distinct competitive advantage. The counter argument for genetic enhancement is also explored, one argument is that parents should bring about the best state of affairs for their children, which is possible through genetic enhancement. One stipulation is that genetic enhancements that limit the opportunities people have in their lives shouldn’t be considered. For example, webbed feet would make for a good competitive swimmer, however that path is narrow. Genetic enhancements should open doors to increase opportunities, not close them. Traits like honesty, empathy, and patience are good contenders for genetic enhancement. However, it can be said that no one would get the opportunities of these traits even if they were available to everyone. This is because they are competitive goods which are only valuable if not everyone has them. The argument is made that autonomy is violated due to the fact that if the choices we make come from an external source, then it isn’t an autonomous decision.