Introduction: Ethical boundaries empowered by technology and the crisis of “harmless” assumptions
In the context of the rapid advancement of modern biomedical technology, the clinical application of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is undergoing a paradigm shift from single disease prevention to complex trait intervention. Since the world's first PGT test-tube baby was successfully born in 1989, genetic testing technology has experienced decades of evolution from the initial polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to the most widely used high-throughput next-generation sequencing technology (NGS)1. The targeted region sequencing, whole exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing capabilities of NGS technology enable reproductive medicine researchers and genetic counselors to obtain massive genetic data about embryos1. In the traditional context, the clinical indications of PGT have strict medical boundaries, and its core purpose is medical, that is, pre-implantation aneuploidy screening (PGT-A) is mainly targeted at problems such as recurrent miscarriage, repeated implantation failure, and advanced maternal age, or blocking of pathogenic mutations for balanced translocations, Roche translocations, single-gene diseases, etc., so that normal embryos with minimal genetic risk can be implanted into the maternal uterine cavity to avoid the intergenerational transmission of serious genetic diseases1.
However, the omnipotence of genomics technology inevitably creates risks of transgressing ethical boundaries. Currently, an extremely acute and forward-looking bioethical dilemma is facing mankind: assuming that in the foreseeable future, embryo screening technology based on large-scale genome-wide association analysis (GWAS) and polygenic scores (PGS) will develop to the extreme, allowing prospective parents to "incidentally" screen embryos for "non-medical purpose" traits such as height potential, visual acuity (vision), intelligence level and even appearance characteristics during routine PGT treatment. If this screening process is only based on the algorithm's non-invasive reading and probability matching of massive genetic data, and does not involve any additional physical intrusion or genetic sequence tampering on the embryos, and thus "absolutely does not add any physical damage" in a biological sense, should human society accept it?
Within the scope of classic liberal theory, supporters often use reproductive autonomy and the “non-maleficence principle” as theoretical moats, arguing that parents as guardians have the right to use technological dividends to select “better” natural gene combinations for their offspring without damaging the physical health of the embryo. 3 This view believes that "incidental screening" is simply a rational optimization of the blind randomness in the natural conception process, and is a natural extension of human beings' pursuit of the prosperity of offspring. However, from a deep intersection of sociology and law, this seemingly benign and harmless “incidental screening” for non-medical purposes actually opens a Pandora’s box leading to systemic social deconstruction.
Once society widely accepts genetic trait screening for non-medical purposes on the grounds of “no direct physiological damage,” its uncontrollable Slippery Slope Effect will directly touch the core of the “social construction of disability” theory and awaken the “shadow of eugenics” sleeping deep in history. This behaviour will inevitably lead to serious structural discrimination against naturally conceived groups and groups with congenital disabilities or so-called "suboptimal genes". This report will systematically deconstruct this ethical dilemma, deeply analyse the inherent slippery slope of genetic screening for non-medical purposes, reveal the logical fallacies and disastrous consequences of liberal eugenics at the level of social construction, and finally settle on the framework of modern jurisprudence to demonstrate the legal reasons for prohibiting any form of "artificial optimization" of the human gene pool within the strict normative system of my country's Civil Code and Criminal Law.
Part 1: Technology evolution paradigm and the slippery slope mechanism of non-medical feature screening
To deeply understand why we must resolutely oppose "incidental screening" without physical harm at the legal and ethical levels, we must first clarify the development trajectory of modern genomics technology and the "slippery slope effect" deeply embedded in the logic of medical intervention.
1.1 The rise of social genomics and the transgressive potential of polygenic scores (PGS)
Currently, genetic screening technology is undergoing a historic paradigm shift from "single-gene deterministic testing" to "multi-gene probabilistic scoring". Traditional PGT (such as screening for cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease) relies on clear single-gene mutation sites with clear causal relationships and absolute pathological significance. However, the latest developments in sociogenomics have brought polygenic scores (PGS) to the forefront of application. PGS technology uses statistical algorithms to analyse hundreds or thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in an individual's genome that are associated with certain complex characteristics, and calculates a comprehensive probability score to predict the likelihood that an individual will exhibit specific physical or psychological characteristics in the future. 4
Initially, PGS was mainly used for complex disease risk assessment in the medical field, such as predicting the future risk of type 2 diabetes, early heart disease, certain cancers, and even schizophrenia in the fetus4. However, non-medical characteristics in humans (such as height, educational achievement potential, cognitive ability, aggression, and even sexual orientation) are also complex traits affected by the accumulation of small effects at multiple genetic loci. Therefore, the technical logic of PGS can be, and has been, theoretically translated to the detection of these non-medical features4.
In the routine procedures of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and PGT, once the complete genome data of the embryo is obtained through second-generation sequencing technology, there is no insurmountable computational obstacle to obtaining scores for these non-medical characteristics1. Some genetic prediction companies have even begun commercial operations, using algorithms to conduct comprehensive risk screening of multiple complex diseases on embryos. Although they currently claim that they have not directly screened for non-disease characteristics such as intelligence, this is only subject to the current policy environment rather than technical bottlenecks5. Because such non-medical feature predictions are often packaged as “add-ons” in regular in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, they are extremely hidden. When it is described as an "algorithmic reading that does not require additional punctures and does not cause physical damage," it is very easy to bypass the traditional ethical review system for medical damage, making the line of defence ineffective.
1.2 Theoretical framework of landslide effect: double collapse of causality and conceptuality
In the academic debate on the boundaries of PGT technology in the bioethics community, the “Slippery Slope Argument” is the core theoretical tool with the most explanatory power against non-medical expansion. The slippery slope effect is not a simple rhetorical intimidation, but a prediction model with a strict logical structure, which is usually divided into two mechanisms: "Causal Slippery Slope" and "Conceptual/Vagueness Slippery Slope"7. In the context of genetic screening for non-medical purposes, these two mechanisms would be highly synergistically destructive.
1. Socio-psychological evolution mechanism of causal slippery slope: The causal slippery slope argument holds that if society ethically permits PGT and elimination of defective embryos for the early detection of serious disease-causing genes (behavior A), then this permission will serve as a powerful social psychological implication and institutional precedent, making the probability of PGT being used for other purposes (such as selecting embryos based on characteristics such as eye color, height or intelligence, i.e. behaviour B) greatly increased in the causal chain7. This causal driving force stems from the historical law of “normalization” of technology applications4. The history of the development of human reproductive technology has repeatedly proved this point: early in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology encountered great public skepticism and ethical resistance, and the babies born were called "test-tube babies" with a curious color; however, decades later, assisted reproductive technology was not only widely accepted, but its accompanying genetic testing also became routine and common in the reproductive cycle. 4 As public attitudes toward prenatal screening and fertility treatments become increasingly tolerant, consumers' perspective on the use of PGS for non-medical trait selection will also soften4. The profit-seeking instinct of the capital market, the commercial competition of reproductive clinics, and the extreme anxiety of parents about the competitive advantages of their offspring will constitute a powerful causal push, forcing the original intention of "preventing diseases" to slide irreversibly into the abyss of "customizing a perfect life."
2. Logical resolution mechanism of conceptual/ambiguity landslide: Conceptual landslide argument (i.e., variant of vagueness) reveals the logical impossibility of drawing absolute boundaries. The theory states that if behaviour (1) (such as screening for highly lethal, early-onset single-gene diseases, such as Tay-Sachs disease) is morally permissible; then behaviour (2) with extremely slight deviations (such as screening for late-onset genetic defects, such as the BRCA1 breast cancer susceptibility gene) should also be logically allowed; the legal counteraction to behaviour (2) This in turn provides room for justification for behaviour (3) (such as screening for characteristics that are not fatal but affect the quality of life, such as severe myopia or a predisposition to obesity); and so on, it must eventually be derived to behaviour (n) (such as purely non-medical enhancements, such as customized height, intelligence, or specific physical features), and behaviour (n) is essentially morally unacceptable7.
The reason why the conceptual slippery slope has impeccable lethality in genetic screening is that in the modern medical model, the boundaries between "disease", "defect", "sub-health condition", "normal variation" and "excellent enhancement" are continuously normally distributed and extremely blurred at the genetic level8. For example, there is no absolute biological break between "dwarfism" as an endocrine disorder requiring treatment, and "slightly below average height" as a non-disease. If it is allowed to screen genes in order to avoid "dwarfism", then the same screening is carried out in order to avoid "the psychological pressure caused by being below average height", the internal logical transition is extremely smooth. just
It is due to the essential ambiguity of this conceptual boundary that any institutional effort to draw a rigid red line between “medical treatment” and “non-medical enhancement” is doomed to collapse in practice. 3
In order to more intuitively and structurally demonstrate the derivation logic and social spillover effects of the above-mentioned double landslide mechanism in the evolution of genetic screening, the following table provides an in-depth comparative analysis of the purposes of embryo screening at different levels:
| Levels and core purposes of genetic screening | Philosophical basis of ethical justification | Technical means and scientific characteristics | Landslide risk assessment and social structure spillover effects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1: Severe lethal/disabling disease-causing gene blocking (e.g.: Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis) | Traditional medical intervention principles, avoiding severe and irreversible suffering for offspring (non-exclusive benefits) | Targeted single gene testing, clear causal relationship, accurate qualitative analysis | Extremely low. There is an extremely strong necessity for medical intervention and global ethical consensus, and it falls within the scope of protection of the basic right to life. |
| Level 2: Screening for late-onset diseases and mild susceptibility risks (e.g., breast cancer susceptibility genes, Alzheimer's disease risk factors) | Preventive medical treatment, minimization of health risk probability, extension of informed consent rights | Polygenic score (PGS), probabilistic risk prediction, highly influenced by gene-environment interaction | Medium. The boundary between "absolute pathological state" and "potential physiological risk" is beginning to be blurred, which may easily lead to hidden employment and insurance discrimination against sub-health gene carriers. |
| Level 3: Optimization of non-pathophysiological characteristics (the core of this case) (for example: height potential, visual acuity, facial feature preference) | Maximizing parental reproductive autonomy, freedom of consumerist choice, and no "collateral benefits" of physical harm | Extensive whole-genome sequencing, massive data algorithm mining, and non-invasive additional services | Extremely high. Completely crossing the legal boundary of medical intervention, triggering substantial controversy over "Designer Babies", leading to extreme simplification and homogenization of social aesthetics and physiological characteristics. |
| Level 4: Enhancement of social competitive traits and behavioral patterns (for example: intellectual potential, memory, emotional stability, aggressive restraint) | Liberal eugenics, social Darwinism, the ultimate utilitarian appeal for human prosperity | Genome-wide analysis of extremely complex traits, involving the deep intersection of neuroscience and genomics | Disastrous. It will induce a bottomless "human genetic arms race", completely deprive future generations of an open future, solidify social classes, and form a caste system and structural discrimination based on biological essence. |
From the above deduction, it can be clearly seen that the so-called "incidental screening" is not only not a natural extension of technology neutrality, but is a hidden process that uses technical means to reduce operating costs and direct physical damage risks, thereby trying to cover up its slippage to level three or even level four in terms of value concept.
Part 2: The Reappearance of the Shadow of Eugenics and the Logical Fallacies of Liberal Eugenics
If future technologies are indeed capable of optimizing embryonic characteristics without any physiological harm, why do we still need to tread on thin ice? To answer this question, we must look deep into history and examine the heavy historical baggage carried by the concept of "eugenics" and the deep logical fallacies exposed by contemporary liberal eugenics in its attempts to absolve itself of this crime.
2.1 Essentialism and Exclusion Mechanisms of Classical and Modern Eugenics
Since its inception, Eugenics has been characterized by extremely strong essentialism and systematic exclusion and discrimination against people with disabilities or so-called "physical defects"3. During the ancient Greek period, Plato publicly advocated in "The Republic" that "the best men and women should mate frequently, while the worst men and women should not mate", and extremely cruelly recommended not to raise or even abandon the offspring of the "bad" ones. Aristotle also proposed explanations from the level of classical biology, believing that deformities or disabilities were caused by the failure of "form (essence)" to successfully dominate "matter" during embryonic development, and supported legislation to prohibit the feeding of deformed babies3. This ancient eugenics thought used "bloodline theory" and "city-state population purification" as its grand narrative, and mercilessly excluded people with disabilities, women, and foreigners.
At the end of the 19th century, Francis Galton officially founded modern eugenics in 1883, and was deeply influenced by Weismann's "germplasm theory" and formed a solid "genetic determinism". Modern eugenics mistakenly attributes human complex intelligence, poverty, criminal tendencies and even moral corruption and other social phenomena to the decisive results of genetic genes. 3 This pseudo-scientific concept not only gave birth to serious racist tendencies, but also led to the brutal state-mandated eugenics policy in the 20th century, which attempted to forcibly eliminate the so-called "misfits" carrying bad genes through institutionalized sterilization, isolation and even physical elimination. Eugenics has thus been firmly nailed to the historical pillar of shame as a crime against humanity.
2.2 The defence path of liberal eugenics and its inherent hypocrisy
Faced with this dark history, contemporary scholars who support genetic intervention for non-medical purposes are trying to construct a new kind of "Liberal Eugenics" in order to find a legal basis for genetic enhancement technology while getting rid of historical moral baggage. 3
Liberal eugenics attempts to revise the mechanism of exclusion by introducing modern political philosophical concepts such as "freedom," "autonomy," and "value pluralism." Its core claim is that as long as genetic selection is not a unified policy enforced from top to bottom by a centralized state machine, but is based on the reproductive autonomy of parents as individuals and the freedom of market consumption, then it should be allowed. 3 In this camp, many famous philosophers have proposed different defence paths:
- Robert Nozick and the “Gene Supermarket” Theory: Nozick advocates completely decentralizing the power of genetic selection to the market and transforming it into a kind of freedom of consumption. He envisioned a "Genetic Supermarket" in which parents could customize their children's genetic characteristics according to their own preferences and needs, just like choosing products, instead of letting any centralized state power determine the types and standards of future humans. 3
- Ronald Dworkin and the "Principle of Benefit and Harmlessness": Dworkin believes that if genetic enhancement technology can make humans live longer and be more intelligent, and science can prove that this operation is physiologically harmless, then this falls within the reasonable scope of human beings' pursuit of reproductive freedom and their own prosperity. He even refused to strictly distinguish between "gene therapy" and "gene enhancement", believing that the concept of "normal" itself is both descriptive and normative, and the pursuit of transcending "normal" is the driving force for human progress3.
In addition, some liberal eugenics scholars also try to introduce the John Rawls (John Rawls) theory of justice framework for moral whitewashing. Rawls believes that an individual's natural talents and origins are the result of "natural lottery" and are morally arbitrary. 3 Proponents reason from this that since natural distribution is blind, rational intervention through technology to increase the "natural primary goods" of future generations (such as health, energy, and potential intelligence) is consistent with justice. In order to completely solve the inequality problem caused by technology, they even proposed a genetic compensation mechanism based on the "Rawlsian difference principle": that is, only when the system design ensures that the funds for the rich to purchase genetic enhancement services can be converted into subsidies for gene therapy for the poor (i.e., "discounting"), the freedom of genetic selection will be opened up, thereby eradicating the historical crime of eugenics excluding the weak. 3
2.3 The Pitfall of “Bionormativity”: Why is Liberal Eugenics Doomed to Failure?
Although liberal eugenics appears to be extremely inclusive and logically consistent in its theoretical deduction, it conceals a fatal flaw at the sociological level: it is still firmly based on the cornerstone of "biological normativity"3.
Opponents point out very profoundly that whether genetic decision-making is forced by the state or freely chosen by individuals in the supermarket, as long as this kind of decision-making uses a specific biological characteristic (even if it is widely recognized as "healthy," "tall," or "good eyesight") as the standard reason for judging the value of human life, it will still inevitably lead to large-scale exclusion of defective groups that do not possess these characteristics at the macro level. 3 Under the market logic of consumerism, individual "free choice" does not occur in a vacuum, but is deeply dominated by the prevailing social values, aesthetic standards, and preferences shaped by capital advertising. When the vast majority of parents in the "gene supermarket" invariably choose to be tall, have a high IQ, light skin or a specific appearance for utilitarian purposes, this so-called diversified free choice will eventually converge into an extremely single, invisible and extremely powerful social coercive force at the group level.
As for the compensation mechanism of the "Rawlsian difference principle", it is almost a utopian fantasy in the context of realistic capitalist political economics. The profit-seeking nature of capital determines that the most cutting-edge multi-gene screening technology must be given priority and exclusive service to the top class who can pay a high premium to further consolidate the competitive advantages of their offspring. Trying to let the "enhancing behaviour of the rich" discount the "basic treatment of the poor" cannot be achieved in the absence of extremely strong state heavy tax regulation that is often opposed by liberalism itself. 3 Therefore, the so-called inclusiveness of liberal eugenics only remains on the surface of theory. The consequence of condoning the screening of non-medical characteristics is to subtly transform the exclusion mechanism of eugenics from crude state machine coercion into covert but more profound market structural oppression.
Part Three: The Social Construction of Disability and the Comprehensive Solidification of Structural Discrimination
When the logic of "biological normativity" is thoroughly implemented through technological means, the most direct and destructive victims will be those groups with natural conception and those with disabilities with any form of "imperfect" characteristics. Introducing a sociological perspective can clearly reveal how genetic screening for non-medical purposes can lead to unfathomable social disasters by reshaping the definition of "disability."
3.1 The construction of disability under the social model and the irrational upward shift of the “normal baseline”
In the fields of modern sociology and disability studies, the "Social Model of Disability" theory has replaced the traditional medical model and become the core paradigm for understanding disability issues. This theory asserts that disability is not just an impairment at the individual physical level, but also a product jointly constructed by a lack of inclusive social structure, rigid institutional arrangements, and mainstream cultural prejudices. In other words, it is the built environment, education system, and employment thresholds designed solely for so-called “normal” physical standards that turn natural physical differences that deviate from this standard into “disabilities.” For example, myopia in a society where wearing glasses is common and destigmatized is only a minor physical inconvenience and does not constitute a significant barrier to social participation.
However, genetic screening for non-medical purposes will interfere with and accelerate this social construction process extremely violently and crudely. Its core performance is the irrational upward shift of the "social normal baseline".
If society generally allows and accepts the use of PGT-PGS technology to optimize the height, vision, etc. of offspring, and cultivates a large number of "optimized offspring" with vision above 1.5 and height generally over 180cm in a few generations, then these characteristics that were originally "excellent" or "above average" in the natural population distribution will quickly become involuted and alienated into the "minimum passing line" for resource allocation and job competition in the entire society. In such a highly artificially optimized gene pool ecology, those naturally conceived individuals who cannot be screened, or individuals who still perform mediocre in acquired development even after screening, will be ruthlessly redefined as "subhuman beings with genetic defects." This forced upward shift of the baseline forces naturally healthy people, who were originally physically and mentally healthy, to be forced to become "hidden disabled persons" under the new social construction context, and suffer immeasurable psychological inferiority and social exclusion.
3.2 The transfer of moral responsibility and the collapse of the social empathy system
The more serious challenge is that genetic screening for non-medical purposes will completely destroy the foundation of moral empathy that human society relies on to maintain the welfare system and the spirit of mutual help.
In the long era of natural reproduction of human beings, reproductive activities have a strong "natural lottery" attribute. Due to the blindness and contingency of gene distribution, illness, genetic defects or congenital disabilities are regarded by the whole society as an irresistible natural destiny faced by mankind. Based on this profound understanding of human beings' "shared vulnerability" (Shared Vulnerability), modern civilized society has established a set of medical welfare systems and social support networks based on the principles of compassion, mutual assistance, and redistribution. People are willing to pay taxes and give away part of their profits to help those who are unlucky enough to be dealt a "bad" hand in natural gambling, because everyone realizes that they or their descendants face similar probabilistic risks.
However, if in the future genetic characteristics and even external phenotypes such as height can be predicted and circumvented through technology, this logical foundation of mutual assistance will collapse. When a certain congenital defect (even just short stature or congenital myopia) changes from an "accident of fate" to a "controllable technological choice", the public's cognition will also undergo a fundamental change. The public, insurance companies and even policy makers are very likely to regard these "defects" in children no longer as sufferings worthy of sympathy, but as "extremely irresponsible wrong choices of parents" or "failure to conduct technical screening in a timely manner."
This shift in perspective will lead to extremely cruel social consequences. Society's sympathy for the disabled and naturally conceived groups will quickly turn into moral condemnation. Mainstream public opinion will believe that since harmless screening methods exist, parents who give birth to "imperfect" offspring are wasting limited public medical resources and social education resources. As a result, social tolerance will be drastically lost, and people with disabilities will not only have to endure physical pain, but also bear the social original sin of "should not have been born" on a moral level.
3.3 Genetic Divide: From Class Differentiation to “Biological Caste System”
If this kind of structural discrimination is allowed to spread, human society will face an unprecedented institutional tear: the "Genetic Divide" (Genetic Divide).
In the current social system, although inequalities in wealth, education, and cultural capital exist, because humans still maintain basic consistency and fluidity at the natural genetic level, it is still possible for outstanding individuals at the bottom to break down class barriers through acquired efforts. However, the introduction of non-medical feature screening technology will directly and irreversibly transform social wealth into absolute advantages at the biological and genetic levels.
The wealthy class who occupy the top resource distribution in society will not hesitate to spend huge sums of money to equip their offspring with the most perfect genetic screening package, so that their offspring will have an overwhelming first-mover advantage in all social competition dimensions such as health, intelligence, appearance and even emotional control before they are born. On the contrary, because middle- and low-income groups cannot afford these "non-medically necessary" value-added services that are not covered by medical insurance, they can only continue to rely on natural childbirth, which is highly uncertain. What their descendants face at the starting line is no longer just a lack of educational resources, but also an insurmountable generation gap in biological functions.
What is even more desperate is that this inequality will be deeply entrenched across generations through the material carrier of genetic inheritance. As time goes by, human society may transform from the historical "class differentiation" based on property, knowledge or blood to an extremely solidified "Genetic Caste System" based on essential biological differences. In this system, the upward mobility of the social structure is completely blocked by genetic coding, and the naturally conceived group will be permanently marginalized and become "another kind of human being" in the eyes of genetic optimizers.
Part Four: Ontological Crisis and the Fundamental Dissolution of Human Dignity
In addition to the disastrous deductions at the level of social structure, the inherent harm of genetic screening for non-medical purposes must be examined from a deeper philosophical ontological level. In the fields of bioethics and constitutional law, when faced with the challenges of genetic technology, the core and irreducible value concept that researchers most often resort to is "Human Dignity"9.
4.1 The instrumentalization of life and the violation of Kant’s categorical imperative
Immanuel Kant, the master of Western classical philosophy, laid an unshakable cornerstone for modern human rights theory: "Human beings are ends and must not be used merely as means." This categorical imperative requires that we at all times treat human life (including early embryos with the potential to develop into fully human beings) as independent individuals with intrinsic divine value, rather than as tools serving external goals.
When parents or medical institutions screen human embryos for non-medical purposes, the essence of their behaviour is to impose the parents' own aesthetic preferences, utilitarian expectations for social success, or even just to satisfy a certain desire for novelty and consumption, on a life form that has not yet formed and cannot express consent. In this process, when hundreds of embryos are randomly discarded, frozen, or refused to be implanted simply because they do not carry the "potential gene for height exceeding 180cm" or the "best vision gene combination," these embryos are essentially completely objectified, objectified, and instrumentalized.
Life is no longer the goal of self-fulfillment itself, but reduced to a "customized biological product" based on order requirements on the assembly line. As bioethics scholars who support the Dignity Supremacy theory have pointed out, any genetic intervention activities that attempt to transcend the medical bottom line and reprogram human life forms are blatant rebellion and trampling on the core value of human dignity9. This behaviour fundamentally changes the attribute that human birth is a natural and accidental fact, causing life to lose its original solemnity.
4.2 Depriving the "open future" and the generation of one-dimensional dependence
Another fatal blow to individual dignity caused by non-medical genetic screening is that it deprives future generations of “An Open Future” from an ontological level.
The famous contemporary German philosopher Jürgen Habermas issued a profound warning when discussing liberal eugenics: If an individual's genome has been deliberately set or selected by others (parents and technical experts) with specific intentions before birth, then such intervention will inevitably lead to a "one-way dependence" on the designer at the psychological and moral level in the offspring. Since genetic characteristics are no longer blindly endowed by nature, but are products of design with strong purpose, future generations will completely lose the complete "authorship" (Authorship) over their own destiny and life scripts during the long process of growth.
Imagine a scenario in which an embryo is carefully screened by its parents to select genes for extremely high mathematical talents and genes for excellent physical fitness. However, this individual had no interest in mathematics as he grew up. Instead, he longed to become an ordinary pastoral poet or caregiver. At this time, he will suffer an extremely huge existential psychological tear. His existence itself not only carries the huge financial investment of his parents, but also carries utilitarian expectations that cannot be changed. His whole life will be in the painful entanglement of "complying with genetic design presets" and "pursuing his true will."
As scholar Zhao Tingyang summarized, genetic intervention is an existential "life upgrade temptation" that attempts to make people transcend the traditional concept of "human" and evolve into another existence that seems to be more advanced but actually loses free will9. This kind of intervention not only changes the scientific path of natural selection of life, but also subverts the definition of "person" in the modern legal system on a philosophical basis - it destroys the self-evident basis of free will and behavioral responsibility that a subject of rights must have9. To what extent can the behavioral choices made by an individual who is genetically pre-programmed and deprived of unpredictability be considered truly free?
Part Five: The Construction of Legal Barriers—The Collaborative Regulation Network of the Civil Code and Criminal Law
Based on the above-mentioned detailed and profound ethical disaster preview and sociological structural crisis, we can draw an irrefutable conclusion: No matter how "safe" and "harmless" genetic trait screening for non-medical purposes is claimed to be at the current physical and technical level, at the level of modern legal norms, the state must use the most severe coercive force to resolutely block it. At present, my country's legal system has shown a high degree of forward-looking and normative nature. Through the private law defence of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China and the public law punishment of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, a multi-level collaborative regulatory network has been constructed10.
5.1 Article 1009 of the Civil Code: Solid red lines in the field of private law and defence of macro interests
my country's Civil Code has established a comprehensive management framework for human gene editing and screening activities from macro-spirit to micro-relief, completely filling the legislative gap where relevant norms in the past mostly existed in the form of departmental regulations (such as the "Measures for Ethical Review of Biomedical Research Involving Humans"), were low-level and lacked systematicity11.
At the macro level, Article 109 of the General Provisions of the Civil Code solemnly declares that "the personal freedom and personal dignity of natural persons are protected by law" and establishes respect for the subject status of people as the unshakable bottom line of all medical scientific research activities. At the same time, the principle of "public order and good morals" established in Article 8 delineates the behavioral boundaries for all civil actions, including genetic technology, which means that any so-called scientific and technological innovation that violates the overall moral and ethical order of society will be absolutely negatively evaluated in private law11.
As the legal core of the Mahogany Principles, Article 1009 of the Personal Rights Section of the Civil Code makes a very specific and clear provision: "Engaging in medical and scientific research activities related to human genes, human embryos, etc. shall abide by laws, administrative regulations and relevant national regulations, and shall not endanger human health, violate ethics and morals, or harm public interests." 10 This refined clause essentially sets three insurmountable legal red lines for the behaviour of "incidentally screening for non-medical characteristics", and its internal regulatory logic is extremely strict:
1. The value barrier of "not violating ethics and morals": The law is not a cold dogma, but the crystallization of the highest ethical values in society. As demonstrated in the ontology section above, genetic screening for non-medical purposes severely turns embryos into tools and objects, challenging the Kantian bottom line of human dignity. This kind of eugenics behaviour that attempts to commercialize, productize, and design life directly violates the bioethics that have long been formed and widely recognized in our society, and violates the principles of public order and good customs that protect the sanctity of the existence of natural persons. Therefore, it has lost its legal basis for existence in civil law11.
2. Macroscopic prevention of “not harming public interests”: In the context of the Civil Code, “Public Interest” has extremely rich connotations. It not only covers the stability of the current social order, but also the long-term intergenerational equity and structural stability of human society11. The "genetic gap" inevitably caused by artificial optimization of genes and the systematic exclusion of naturally conceived groups and disabled groups are fundamental subversions of the core public interest of overall social fairness and justice11. The law has the responsibility to prevent genetic technology from becoming a tool for creating class divisions, social discrimination and ethnic divisions. Therefore, based on the grand considerations of maintaining the natural evolution of the human gene pool, ensuring human diversity, and preventing the emergence of a biologically privileged class, the law must strictly prohibit such behavior11.
3. Risk prevention interpretation of “must not endanger human health”: Even if technology supporters repeatedly argue that the screening process is “just information reading and does not increase physical harm”, the “Precautionary Principle” must be introduced in jurisprudence for expanded interpretation. Given the extreme complexity of the human gene network, the high degree of pleiotropy (that is, one gene may affect multiple seemingly unrelated traits), and the deep gene-environment interaction mechanisms that have not yet been completely deciphered, current PGS technology is far from reaching a level that can exhaust and predict all potential health hazards. Isolated selection for a so-called “excellent” trait (such as abnormal height) is very likely to unpredictably induce another serious fatal disease in hidden genetic circuits and break out later in life11. Faced with this kind of intergenerational and even transgenerational uncertainty that cannot be eliminated in scientific cognition, legislators have adopted an extremely cautious stance of preventive intervention, treating any changes and interventions without direct medical urgency as potential harm to "human health"11.
5.2 Criminal Law Amendment (11) and Article 336-1: The ultimate sword to protect the interests of human natural reproduction
If the Civil Code builds a value line of defence in the field of private law, then the Criminal Code is the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of anyone who transgresses. The risks to human survival involved in non-medical genetic intervention are too great, prompting my country's laws to quickly realize the "departmental legal leap in gene editing regulations"11. The "Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (Eleven)" passed in 2020 officially added the "crimes of illegal implantation of gene editing and cloning embryos" as Article 336 of the Criminal Law11. This major legislative measure demonstrates the firm stance of my country’s criminal law system in responding to the risks of disruptive biotechnology and safeguarding human genetic security11.
To deeply understand why this crime can have a powerful legal radiation and blocking effect on "non-medical genetic characteristic screening", we must deeply explore the legal interests protected by this crime. In the fierce debate in the criminal law community, scholars have keenly abandoned traditional views such as the simple "right to life" and "right to health" (because early embryos are not yet independent legal personalities, and it is difficult to directly determine causality for potential damage), as well as the overly vague "human dignity", and instead refined a more explanatory and penetrating "double-layered protection of legal interest theory"12. This theory maintains that the superficial legal interest of this crime lies in maintaining the country’s strict “public health management order”, while its real core deep-level legal interest is the extremely important “Human Natural Reproductive Interests”12.
The establishment of this legal interest doctrine provides an extremely sophisticated and solid legal logic chain for comprehensively blocking any form of "artificial reproductive optimization":
1. The sanctity and inalienability of "natural reproductive interests of mankind": Article 336-1 of the Criminal Law directly criminalizes the act of "implanting illegally modified or cloned embryos into human bodies or animals"12. Its essential purpose is to protect the purity, randomness and natural evolution of the human species' reproduction process. The interests of human natural reproduction are not only related to the security and steady evolution of the human species gene pool at the macro level, but also to the original freedom of each natural person from technological alienation and deliberate design at the micro level. If society allows large-scale whole-genome pre-screening for non-medical characteristics during in vitro fertilization and implements clinical implantation, the essence of its behavioral logic is no different from direct gene editing—both of them crudely replace the "contingency and mystery of natural reproduction" with arrogant "artificial deliberate design and selection." This kind of eugenics-oriented screening implantation essentially constitutes a fundamental violation of "human natural reproductive interests"12.
2. The precise limits of legal grounds for obstruction and legislative guidance: While exploring the protection of legal interests, it also defines the strict boundaries of criminal punishability. Criminal law theory clearly points out that if the relevant genetic intervention behaviour only stays at the basic cutting-edge research stage in experimental vessels (as long as implantation into the body is not carried out), or it is only somatic cell gene therapy to cure the diagnosed patient (it does not involve genetic changes in the germline), then because it does not affect the wider human gene pool and does not infringe on "human natural reproductive interests", there are substantial legal grounds for obstruction and does not constitute a crime. 12 This clear boundary between crime and non-crime demonstrates the profound wisdom and value orientation of the modern rule of law: the law encourages and tolerates all medical exploration activities aimed at exploring scientific truth, saving current lives, and restoring individual health; but for any attempt to tamper with or systematically screen the human reproductive code, and conduct cross-generational "reproductive optimization" and "genetic class customization" that are creator-like and arrogant, the state apparatus will definitely give the most severe criminal crackdown and completely block it.
3. Regulatory expansion and legal extension from "editing" to "screening": It is true that based on the strict principle of statutory criminal law, Article 336-1 of the current "Criminal Law" directly regulates "gene editing" activities involving entity modification (such as CRISPR technology). However, from a more macro legal spirit and the purpose of legal protection, a penetrating review shows that once the PGT-PGS technology, which relies on high-throughput sequencing, is separated from the purpose of medical treatment and is used systematically and on a large scale to screen the fittest for non-disease characteristics of human offspring, its devastating destructive power on "human natural reproductive interests", the degree of deprivation of an open future, and the solidifying effect on the equality of human social structures are highly consistent and even homomorphic with the final social consequences of direct gene editing. future, with
The iteration of legislative technology and the improvement of judicial interpretation can be fully based on the principle of "substantial legal interest infringement theory", or by integrating with mandatory norms such as "Strictly prohibiting gender selection for other than medical purposes" in the "Administrative Measures for Human Assisted Reproductive Technology"1. Through systematic legal interpretation or legislative amendments, customized screening for non-medical purposes using assisted reproductive technology will be fully included in the strict administrative control and even criminal punishment networks, thereby completely closing the legal loopholes that may be caused by "incidental screening".
Conclusion: Defending the contingency of natural life and the equality of the human community
To sum up, assuming that the rapid advancement of technology in the future can indeed achieve precise screening of non-medical characteristics such as height, vision, and intelligence of offspring during PGT treatment without causing any increase in physical damage to the embryo, we must still resist it extremely resolutely and without compromise in the three dimensions of sociology, ethics, and jurisprudence.
This decisive resistance does not originate from a blind fear of human technological exploration instincts, but is deeply rooted in a profound insight into the inherent fragility of human social structures and the dark abyss of human nature. Genetic trait screening for non-medical purposes, even if it is wrapped in sweet and gorgeous liberal eugenics sugar-coatings such as "no direct physical harm", "respecting parents' right to reproductive choice" and "pursuing human prosperity and progress", is still an extremely dangerous social engineering practice at its core. Its attempt to redefine what is “normal” and “excellent” through cold biological normativity will inevitably lead to the unlimited and irrational expansion of the socially constructed boundaries of disability and defect.
Once the floodgates are opened, those ordinary groups who have to rely on natural conception, as well as those individuals who inevitably have "non-perfect" genetic combinations, will suffer more systematic and serious structural discrimination than ever before in various dimensions such as medical resource allocation, access to educational opportunities, workplace competition, and social moral identity. This kind of laissez-faire is tantamount to allowing the ruthless market consumption logic to conspire with the power of capital to unknowingly complete the class-based cleansing and isolation of the gene pool of the human species, and ultimately create an irreversible "genetic caste" society.
In the highest form of legal civilization, my country's current legal system has given a clear answer. The insurmountable private law provisions of Article 1009 of the Civil Code that do not violate ethics and morals and do not harm public interests, and the core public law spirit of defending "natural reproductive interests of mankind" established in Article 336-1 of the Criminal Law, jointly build an indestructible fortress of the rule of law to prevent the extreme instrumentalization of life and resist the genetic differentiation of human classes. 10
What the law strives to protect is the fundamental reason why human beings become human beings and have dignity - that is, the birth of every life should be a sacred miracle of natural chance, and every newborn individual naturally enjoys an open future that is not predetermined by others. Human beings are by no means custom-made consumer goods that are jointly customized by capital and technology, coldly calculated and eliminated by the survival of the fittest on the genetic screening assembly line. Only by firmly adhering to this bottom line that involves the foundation of human existence and morality can we preserve the basic inclusiveness of the human community, the diversity of life forms, and true social equality based on a community of natural destiny in an era of rapid biotechnology and temptations.
Works Cited
1. Ethical controversies and current status of the application of preimplantation genetic testing technology \- Medicine and Philosophy, accessed May 10, 2026, [https://yizhe.dmu.edu.cn/article/doi/10.12014/j.issn.1002-0772.2022.07.04?viewType=HTML] (https://yizhe.dmu.edu.cn/article/doi/10.12014/j.issn.1002-0772.2022.07.04?viewType=HTML)
2. Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons: an Ethics Committee opinion (2022) \- ASRM, accessed May 10, 2026, [https://www.asrm.org/practice-guidance/ethics-opinions/use-of-reproductive-technology-for-sex-selection-for-nonmedical-reasons-an-ethics-committee-opinion-2022/] (https://www.asrm.org/practice-guidance/ethics-opinions/use-of-reproductive-technology-for-sex-selection-for-nonmedical-reasons-an-ethics-committee-opinion-2022/)
3. A Defence of Liberal Eugenics \- Medicine and Philosophy, accessed May 10, 2026, https://yizhe.dmu.edu.cn/data/article/yxyzx/preview/pdf/16-02-huangjiacheng.pdf
4. The Slippery Slope of Prenatal Testing
for Social Traits \- PMC, accessed May 10, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10020886/
5. Polygenic Embryo Screening: Ethical and Legal Considerations, accessed May 10, 2026, https://www.thehastingscenter.org/polygenic-embryo-screening-ethical-and-legal-considerations/
6. The Ethical Implications of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis | myadlm.org, accessed May 10, 2026, [https://myadlm.org/science-and-research/clinical-chemistry/clinical-chemistry-podcasts/2014/the-ethical-implications-of-preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis] (https://myadlm.org/science-and-research/clinical-chemistry/clinical-chemistry-podcasts/2014/the-ethical-implications-of-preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis)
7. Slippery Slope Arguments Against PGD — DRZE, accessed May 10, 2026, [https://www.drze.de/en/research-publicat
ions/in-focus/preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis/modules/slippery-slope-arguments-against-pgd](https://www.drze.de/en/research-publications/in-focus/preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis/modules/slippery-slope-arguments-against-pgd)
8. Refining the ethics of preimplantation genetic diagnosis: A plea for contextualized proportionality \- PMC, accessed May 10, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6587504/
9. Does gene editing necessarily violate human dignity? --China Law Network, accessed on May 10, 2026, http://iolaw.cssn.cn/fxyjdt/201907/t20190711\_4932597.shtml
10. Collaborative regulation of human gene editing activities - taking Article 1009 of the Civil Code as the entry point \- Civil and Commercial Law Network, accessed on May 10, 2026, https://www.civillaw.com.cn/t/?id=38024
11. Shi Jiayou and Liu Zhongxuan: The multi-dimensional governance of human gene editing is based on the interpretation of Article 1009 of the Civil Code, accessed on May 10, 2026, [https://www.shupl.edu.cn/xbbjb/2022/0705/c2265a110322/page.htm](https://www.shupl.edu.cn/xbbjb/2022/07
05/c2265a110322/page.htm)
12. Legal protection of the crime of illegal implantation of gene-edited embryos \- Dialectics of Nature Newsletter, accessed May 10, 2026, https://jdn.ucas.ac.cn/public/uploads/files/66a9a6709e1b9.pdf