Educational or genetic blueprints, what’s the difference?

Abstract

Following the use of genetic technology to prevent and cure different pathological conditions, it will relatively soon be possible to enhance athletic performances through genetic engineering. In theory, genetic interventions could be effected either on an already existing person (somatic genetic modifications) or at an embryo level (germ-line genetic modifications), in order to ameliorate certain physiological characteristics that enhance athletic performance (for instance, the capacity for oxygen uptake and the propensity for muscular growth); this use of genetic technology in sport medicine is nowadays popularly called gene doping. In the case of germ-line modifications, the transformed genetic structure will be inherited by the modified persons offspring. Most people, including those who believe gene technology could be made relatively safe from a medical point of view in the future, see the eventual irruption of this new technique as a fundamental threat to sports and society. Regarding sports, these people believe gene doping subverts the ideal of fair competition, that not only is central to sports, but even has educational value for the new generations. In this article, I will discuss an objection to gene doping based on the ideal of personal autonomy. Gene technology provides a new, dramatic dimension to the educational paradox as formulated by Kant in his question How do I cultivate freedom through coercion? Focusing mainly on germ-line genetic modifications, I will question whether the genetic design of a (still unborn) child is a fundamental threat to, or even a denial of, that childs personal autonomy. And I will also ask whether genetic pre-programming essentially differs