The ambition to genetically engineer “better” humans is no longer science fiction. Start-ups like Bootstrap Bio are openly discussing the prospect of offering parents the chance to select traits for their children. The core argument? Why should genetic advantages be left to chance when technology may allow for directed improvement? But the reality is far more complex than simple enhancement.
The Limits of Current Knowledge
At the heart of this discussion lies a list compiled by biologist George Church, detailing “protective and enhancing” gene variants. While intended as a thought experiment, it has become a focal point for transhumanists hoping to create genetically “superior” individuals. The list itself is a mix of confirmed mutations, animal studies, and preliminary medical trials, with over 100 entries.
However, many proposed enhancements are questionable at best. Would extra fingers truly improve function, or simply complicate daily life? Variants for pain insensitivity, while seemingly desirable, can lead to severe injuries in children unable to feel harm. Other traits, such as reduced body odor, hardly justify the risks of genetic manipulation.
The Trade-Offs and Unknowns
The most promising variants – those linked to longevity or intelligence – remain unreliable. Engineering these traits is far from guaranteed. Some associations may be incorrect, or effective only in combination with other, yet-undiscovered, genetic factors. More critically, many enhancements come with trade-offs. A gene linked to higher intelligence might also increase the risk of blindness, while resistance to one disease could elevate the likelihood of another.
The list often lacks comprehensive downside assessments. Variants associated with reduced sleep, for example, likely carry unknown neurological consequences given the vital role of sleep in brain health.
To truly maximize benefit, dozens or even hundreds of genetic changes would be needed at once, especially for traits like height and intelligence, which are polygenic (influenced by numerous genes). Current technology is nowhere near capable of safely executing such complex alterations.
The Bigger Picture: A Misplaced Focus?
The pursuit of genetic enhancement distracts from more immediate and impactful inequalities. Globally, millions of children suffer stunted growth and cognitive impairment due to malnutrition and lack of education. Addressing these basic needs would have a far greater effect on reducing the “genetic lottery” than engineering a few select individuals.
The real solution isn’t to engineer a few children to be “better,” but to ensure all children have the opportunity to reach their existing potential.
The ethical and scientific hurdles are substantial, but the underlying issue is one of priorities. Focus should be on expanding research—such as the UK Biobank, tracking genetic variants over decades—to gain clearer insights. Only then can we even begin to consider the responsible application of heritable genome editing.
The idea that genetic enhancement will make the world fairer is a dangerous illusion. The most effective way to level the playing field isn’t through gene selection, but through ensuring basic rights and opportunities for every child, regardless of their inherited traits.
