The relationship between ethics and science has had a long, complicated history. Although the atrocious Nazi experiments performed in the name of science are 70 years behind us, science continues to cross new boundaries. An advancing science that is currently forcing society to re-evaluate ethical boundaries is genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering (also called genetic modification) is the direct manipulation of an organism’s genome using modern DNA technology. So far, the study and application of genetic engineering has been much slower, more complex, and less effective in humans than in plants and animals. Whereas animal cloning has been somewhat successful since Dolly’s famed birth in 1996 (and more recently the capacity to clone your beloved dog for $100,000), the ability to successfully clone humans has proved difficult scientifically and highly controversial ethically.
Genetically modified plants and animals have led to significant benefits, such as herbicide resistant crops and fast-growing animals. At the same time, this technology has created major ethical concerns relating to the perceived “unnaturalness” of changing a living organism and a fear that scientists are “playing God” through their alterations of an original being. In humans, researchers have predicted that gene therapy will not only allow us to treat and prevent debilitating diseases (an elusive goal for scientists over the past 20 years), but also enhance or improve normal human traits.
Should we have the right to enhance our muscles, memory and moods through genetic modification? At what point should genetic engineering be forced to draw a line? The answer to this is tricky.
Although still mainly limited to science fiction, genetic enhancement in humans is a controversial issue. The largely publicized topic of “designer babies,” for example, leads to debates over whether it is significantly worse for parents to try and give their children the best opportunities by selecting certain genes using in vitro fertilization (IVF) and pre-implantation diagnosis (PGD), versus hiring sperm and egg donors with coveted genetic traits. Personally, I find it easier to agree that disease prevention and treatment are beneficial goals of genetic engineering in humans, than for me to accept human enhancement as a morally acceptable goal.
However, we do not yet grasp the full extent of what genetic engineering means for human development. What we deem “acceptable” or “unacceptable” in the world we currently inhabit with our presently available science and technology could easily change as scientific capacity advances. Our notion of what is right or wrong and even our fundamental understanding of what it means to be a “normal” human being have continually changed through scientific progress. Once, the only option for biologically influencing a person’s development was through mate selection. Today, scientific advancements such as prenatal screening technologies, in vitro fertilization, and pharmaceuticals targeting cognitive and emotional functioning allow parents to avoid certain birth defects, select for sex, and improve their child’s cognitive ability and moods.
Instead of drawing an imaginary “do not cross” line or moral boundary for genetic engineering in humans, we should emphasize the need for continuous negotiation with moral notions and beliefs with the purpose of directing and influencing policy as a result of this mutual interaction. Organizations such as the Stanford Center for Integration of Research on Genetics and Ethics (CIRGE) are examples of this approach. CIRGE is one of six interdisciplinary Centers of Excellence in Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) Research (CEERs) created by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) “to proactively identify and deliberate ethical, legal and social issues in current and emerging genetic research.”
This strategy of anticipatory ethics advocates that “ethics” should accompany and monitor advancing technology rather than simply react to it. Instead of demanding immediate draconian controls, a vigorous concurrent moral debate should occur to provide a framework within which genetic engineering can progress. Good research-based policy decisions should result from the continuous and simultaneous review of advancements in genetic engineering as studied from an analysis of their ethical and social consequences. Science should raise ethical issues and ethical issues should influence science, thus creating a healthy tension between genetic engineering research and ethical checks and boundaries, and hopefully avoiding potential harmful consequences of unmonitored science through this balanced approach.
Photo Credit: IRRI Images
The Discussion
I would also note that genetic modification in humans would not be easy. There is still so much we don't know about gene expression, and how a number of these proteins may work in networks. Its easier to make something go wrong that to make it go right.
1 Replies
I have my own views on the science and use of genetic modifications (too long to discuss here) but your assessment of how ethical standards for new and developing technologies is spot on. I would only add that a dimension for investigating the possible long term societal effects be included in such an assessment as the effects of decisions made now can and often do have magnified ramifications tens and hundreds of years out.
If we breed animals to improve them and fix desired traits, why shouldn't we be able to do the same with our own species? Must the human race just muddle along for the next few million years with what's basically an Ice Age design?
2 Replies
1 Replies
When the application of this research can end up deeply impacting the population of the world, one would be wise to take ethics into consideration. Besides a couple major infractions by a scientist, could end up with something even more restrictive.
1 Replies
Thought: If we do reach a point where we can select genes for our children, what will be their limits? Could we only use genes from the parents? Or is there a way of inserting another person's genes into the offspring?
If it's the former, we will always be limited by our parents' genomes. But if it's the latter....well, say hello to all kinds of popular SciFi
Apart from the fuzzy metaphysical objections to genetic "enhancement" of human beings it is also a problem from an equality standpoint, as surely these technologies would only be available to well off parents. Children of wealthy parents have enough advantages as is.
1 Replies
Would you say all human enhancements are not medically necessary?
2 Replies
1 Replies
Jessica,
When I read "However, we do not yet grasp the full extent.." I understood where you were headed. I believe you outline the correct approach. What was yesterday is not today. What's today may not be tomorrow. Who knows what benefits to human health will be possible through genetic engineering. How can our food supply be improved to possibly address hunger and famine? What diseases can be treated or eliminated? While I hope genetic engineering of human traits never become accepted as normal, perhaps future generations after I'm long gone will. One negative to your article. Nazi experiments have no correlation to your topic. You shouldn't have used that comparison.
2 Replies
1 Replies
Fascinating! Science etc. has progressed so dramatically that complete cloning is possible yet - chemotherapy, radiation, dialysis, etc.outdated treatments that are many decades old remain in operation. If such advances are possible to 'create species' why has so little progress been made in outdated treatments? Because illness is the biggest business of all and because people usually accept these deadly treatments. Why not 'clone' the healthy part of a diseased part? Or remove the damaged organs-make them healthy & put them back.
A person's intelligence is less important than how they use it. Which person served humanity better Hitler or deaf & blind Helen Keller? The purpose of life is not be perfect it is to find and use our humanity.
2 Replies
1 Replies
To be quite honest when addressing the question of how much should science be allowed to do in any field, my answer is if it can be done it should be done. Any advance we can make in any scientific field could very well one day save us from extinction. If we were to limit a scientists ability to research anything and it one day proved to be the one thing that would save humanity from destroying itself then who can we blame in the end?
One of the main concerns about this field has been left unaddressed for far too long. Now is the time in which we must address the issue of whether or not we can allow any single human being to receive a treatment that would extend their life indefinitely. It may sound like science fiction to most people but the tech that will make this possible is right around the corner and once we let the genie out of the bottle there is no putting it back.
2 Replies
1 Replies
Though you have a very balanced paper, I must completely disagree with your assertion "ethical issues should influence science". Says who and whose ethics? If we are talking about "Do no harm" to fellow human beings, then yes that is a generic good to all mankind. However, if your talking about one philosophy or religion over another's outlook, then I disagree. Ethics as a scientist doesn't look at the benefit is worth the atrocity. Though the NAZI's gave tremendous psychological and other advances in medicine through their macabre experiments, they were not ethical in the least nor should they be repeated ever. Yet, US gov ethics has experimented on people secretly and just as insidious. No harm gene therepy should be fully allowed.
2 Replies
1 Replies
In regard to crops, Monsanto represents the greatest threat to the world's food sources ever known. Terminator seeds and their ability to patent them threatens not only the food sources but every person on the planet who wishes to grow their own food, especially if they wish to do so organically. There are even reports that in addition to the terminator seeds which only germinate with Monsanto made chemicals, the company has studied developing a strain/race of bees which will only pollinate Monsanto crops. Playing God indeed and we'll all have the devil to pay.
2 Replies
Interesting article on a topic that has always intrigued me! While not genetic engineering, I have found the ethical debate behind the use of transcranial direct current stimulation interesting: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/science_blog/brainboosting.html
I am all for boosting human potential!
1 Replies
If we have the right to our bodies, it follows that we have the right to modify or enhance our bodies. That includes tattoos, plastic surgery, or gene therapy. I can think of no important difference between modifying one's own genes and modifying the genes of one's offspring. People already try to guide the prenatal development of their children by not smoking, eating plenty of specific vitamins, or even blaring Mozart into the womb. Why not start from the ground up?
3 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies