With the advent of genetic engineering quickly approaching, mankind will soon be confronted with the issue where to draw the line between playing God and treating conditions. Someday scientists will be able to modify genes to the point where parents could essentially customize their children. Should parents be allowed to dictate the characteristics of their child? Is it ethical to allow parents to assign the sex of their child? There are two sides to the use of genetic engineering: one side advocates using genetic engineering to its fullest potential to improve the human race while the other side advocates moderate to no genetic engineering to avoid the potential ethical turmoil.
The largest issue stemming from genetic engineering is where to draw the line. Many argue that genetic engineering and gene scanning should be used to prevent diseases. But how should we define these terms? Most people would argue that a disease represents a chronic departure from the norm that leaves the individual less fit when compared to the rest of the population. When most people think of a disease they think of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, AIDS, cancer, etc. because these are debilitating (usually terminal) ailments that will haunt an individual for the rest of his life. If we take disease to mean a disorder that negatively affects a person’s life, could we not also view the female gender as being a disease in China? It is common knowledge that Chinese laws allow families to bear only one child, and because families prefer males over females, many female babies have been essentially murdered. Would it be ethical to allow parents in China to choose the sex of their child to terminate this atrocious behavior?
If choosing the gender of a child is deemed ethical, where should the next line be drawn? Should parents be able to choose the height of the child? IQ? Hair color? Eye color? Where does it stop? Should parents be able to completely customize their child to have him/her be their ideal image?
I believe that genetic engineering will be a very important aspect of our lives in the near future. I believe, however, that there need to be tight regulations that dictate what genes can be altered. Part of humanity is being different and having individuality. If genetic engineering were to be used to optimize each and every person, differences would disappear as all people become smart, athletic, attractive, etc. Mankind would slowly be stripped of one of its identifying factors. Unfortunately, at an individual level, using genetic engineering to enhance one’s child proves beneficial. This situation gives rise to one similar to game theory where an individual’s desires are at ends with the desires of the population; parents would want their children to be the best possible but the population would not want mankind to be stripped of humanity. Although I believe genetic engineering should only be used to correct diseases, I realize that in the long run there may be additional problems. For example, once all diseases as we know them today become eradicated, and assuming new diseases do not develop due to superior medicine, vaccines, gene therapy, etc., how will we define the next disease? Would having light skin be considered a disease since it is more susceptible to skin damage? What about fair colored eyes that are more susceptible to light?
Where would the next line be drawn?
4 comments:
Since you told me that you were going to reply to the first comment on your blog with "Wasn't my title awesome?", I'm going to take preemptive action and, contrary to what I told you earlier when you first thought of it, say that your title lacks creativity.
Wasn't my title awesome? (Because a promise is a promise and I am a man of my word.)
Alright, alright, you win. It's spectacular. And Adam, this forum is supposed to be for discussions, so stop posting facetiously.
I suppose answering Adam’s question about where the line should be drawn in regards to the definition of disease would answer the slew of questions that followed, so here I go: a disease is something that negatively affects one's wellbeing from an internal source. Thus, to take one of Adam’s examples, females would not be considered a disease, for the only inherently negative effect of being a female in China, the one that he stated, is that the child's parents might not want you and you would therefore be at a higher risk of death. However, that comes from an external force unduly acting upon its own values to violate one's right to life, not an internal force, whether physical or mental, that damages your health, like a virus or cancer.
However, I would fall into the category of those who believe that moderating genetic engineering is the best solution. I know that there are those who would accuse me of preventing possible good to our society, but in my defense and in defense of moderation, I would have to say that not all progress is good. Diana Schaub, member of the President's Council of Bioethics, summed it up well. She essentially said at her talk earlier in Princeton, in paraphrased words, that not all progress is good. For example, Portugal's role in the Maritime Revolution led to the beginning of the slave trade. And Eli Whitney's cotton gin, while benefitting the US economy, ensured that the slave trade would continue in America.
So it might be a good idea to examine what negative implications might ensue from unchecked and unregulated genetic engineering. Though there are quite a few, I’ll only address a couple. First of all, it needs to be understood that using genetics as a method of human “improvement” is essentially eugenics. If used in the context of eradicating diseases, then it might not be a problem, but once it takes the initiative to add to what a human is, then certain ethical issues need to be addressed. Adam’s reason for regulating genetic engineering is definitely true, but I’ll add something to that – a lack of diversity presents a practical problem as well. A population containing individuals with an identical genetic makeup are extremely susceptible to diseases. One disease can wipe out the entire population due to the lack of robustness in the genes. Another significant problem is the issue of trait desirability. Though it definitely does create a problem with individuality, as Adam stated earlier, another is the inappropriate transfer of value. What I mean by this is that once people are given the opportunity to pick and choose their physical characteristics, identity becomes an issue of physical aesthetics. As humans mature, most realize that there is no inherent worth in physical characteristics when they see that beautiful people can make the same mistakes, have the same problems, and be just as immoral as people who are not as attractive. In other words, they understand that the way one looks is not determinant of one’s value. However, by allowing genetic engineering to continue without moderation, that step is eliminated in the process of human development and maturation, creating a society in which the new generations will be in perpetual confusion as to the derivation of their importance.
So would the use of genetic engineering as a method of “improvement” really be progress? Or would it be one step forward, two steps back? Could we afford to risk the moral health of our society in the name of progress?
Post a Comment