As science and technology continue to advance, the topic of genetic research increasingly arises. Today, genetics allow major improvements in variety of areas such as in food and agriculture industries, species management, and manufacturing and materials. The most controversial use of genetics, and the focus of this essay, is on human genetic intervention. In situations of genetic treatment used to prevent or cure genetic diseases, this procedure is ethically moral and acceptable. Although, in the case of genetic enhancement and the concept of “designer babies,” any procedure is unethical.
Recent experiments have been performed to “edit” genomes of various plants, and species- including humans through advancements in science and technology. This technological innovation indicates one of the most remarkable progress of scientific discovers that creates the possibility to manipulate our genetic code. In recent years, topics related to genetic engineering as it involves minimal limits despite human perceptions and moral values, have been highly discussed in popular media. Due to its various advantages and disadvantages to human condition, genetic engineering has caused a great deal of concern and debate. Scientists often addressing this topic limit their discussions to whether to use this technology for human enhancement or medical treatment. For some, this innovation creates fears of a dystopian society where eugenics is common and our genetic code is predetermined before birth. Although, others disagree and discuss the effectiveness and health benefits that result through this approach.
This essay focuses on the ethics of genetic engineering by looking at both sides: from the perspective of changing human’s at the most fundamental level, to the perspective of improving a species. It assumes that genetic engineering at the scope of this book is already scientifically possible and perfected, so any safety and health risks of the unknown are null. In addition, this work focuses solely on somatic genetic enhancement, which is genetic engineering of the body that aims to improve the functioning of the human individual, and avoids the topics of GMOs or cloning. It simply looks at whether genetically modifying humans is ethical from different standpoints in philosophy, religion, bioethics, and policy making.
Bioethics of Genetic Engineering
These advances in genetic engineering make the possibility of “designer babies” a reality. When the choice to change every aspect of every characteristic of a child is available, who would refuse? Why have an average child, when it is possible to have one with perfect health, good looking, intelligent and matching every other desirable characteristic parents prefer for their children? The benefits seem endless: the potential for a perfect society without physical imperfections and flaws, increased intelligence nor undesirable personality traits. The measure of how far this could go is unpredictable, and more importantly essential to determine potential limits as boundary while this technology continues to develop. Driven by these demands, Michael Sandel, argues that genetic enhancements threaten to create a “desire for mastery (Kamm, page 2).” He explains,
“the deepest moral objection to enhancement lies less in the perfection it seeks than the human disposition it expresses and promotes. The problem is not that parents usurp the autonomy of a child they design. The problem is in the hubris of the designing parents, in their drive to master the mystery of birth…it would disfigure the relation between parent and child, and deprive the parent of the humility and enlarged human sympathies that an openness to the unbidden can cultivate (Sandel, 2004, 57).”
And he adds on:
“…the promise of mastery is flawed. It threatens to banish our appreciation of life as a gift, and to leave us with nothing to affirm or behold outside our own will (Sandel, 2004, 62).”
Lastly, Sandel believes that the more our characteristics are a matter of chance rather than choice, “the more reason we have to share our fate with others (Kamm, Is there a Problem with Enhancement?).” According to Sandel, human beings are not products that can be “designed,” but rather deserve worthy of concern and respect in their own freedom and right. More importantly, Sandel discusses on the efforts to enhance children genetically has the potential to alter our autonomy and self-determination, and encourage discrimination (Kamm, Is there a Problem with Enhancement?). He leads to the conclusion that due to the desire for genetic perfection, it ultimately destroys our “giftedness” of life and lead to further harmful consequences.
Religion & Genetic Engineering
Most scholars argue that genetic engineering is interfering with the genes natural process of random selection in search of traits passed from parent to young ones. Moreover, through genetic engineering, individuals are engaging in God’s role in creation by manipulating and selecting genes to be passed from parent to offspring. However, this perspective ignores the benefits of genetic engineering. For instance, since 1982, most insulin has been produced using genetically engineered bacteria at a lower cost. Therefore, like most technologies, genetic engineering has the potential for both benefits and harms.
• I’m currently working on this section and trying to find accurate sources towards my overall argument. Although, I do plan on comparing nature vs. nurture and different religious beliefs such as Buddhism and Catholic perspective on genetic engineering.
Policy-Making & Genetic Engineering
• This will be the third section of the essay
Philosophy & Genetic Engineering
• This will be the fourth & last section of the essay
Discussion/Conclusion
As genetics allows us to turn the tide on human disease, it’s also granting the power to engineer desirable traits into humans. What limits should we create as this technology develops?
Moreover, this technology enables a unique perception of “self.” As technology and genetic research progress, the available resources for human enhancement allow us to consider: What is the “self?” Can it be found in scientific and technological innovations? In addition, does science have the final say about who we are? Will technology create an inception effect where people will not be able to distinguish out-of-body from in-body experiences? Similarly, Shelby Baker argues on the concept of self, relating it to the quality known as “presence (the sense of being immersed in a location or environment), need not be tied to our physical bodies.” She explains a study conducted in 1998 by psychiatrists Matthew Botvinick and Jonathan Cohen known as the “rubber-hand illusion,” that shows how the brain feels ownership of a body part that was not truly its own. Based on its result, this study contributes to the negative impacts of somatic genetic engineering and its ethical implications towards our individuality and uniqueness. Baker continues stating, “scientists have already imbued test participants with the sense of moving from their own bodies into another form, such as a Barbie doll, or watching themselves from a distance in a willful out-of-body experience.”
Within new advances in science and technology, there arises controversy. While most people acknowledge the negative consequences of genetic engineering, this technology also creates valuable aspects. The overall issue is that people are in fear of the unexpected. In addition, prior knowledge gained through resources such as media outlets might contain inaccurate information of its usage. So where do we draw the line? Should we change ourselves because we have access to these technologies, or should we let our environments dictate our evolution? Through research and testing of its effects, education to the public about its effects, and an analysis of both the advantages and disadvantages of genetic engineering serves as a precise and accurate way to control the issue.
Our assumption of what is “acceptable” or “unacceptable” could easily change in the world we strive to progress with. Our belief of what is right or wrong and our understanding of a “normal” human being has changed through progress. We must reflect on the importance for discussion on the moral aspects and beliefs with the reason to influence and direct an ethical policy for genetic engineering in humans.