Prospective parents will now be able to screen embryos for almost any known genetic disease using a new technique called "genetic Mot". Currently only about 2% of the genetic diseases known to man can be screened in this way.
This "universal test" developed by a team of British scientists led by Professor Alan Handyside should be available sometime this year. The test which will cost around $3000 involves a process called karyomapping which consists of detecting almost any genetic condition by using a cell from a two day old embryo. Not only can it test for muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease, but it can be used for testing for the risk of developing heart disease, cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer's in later life. Furthermore it also gives information about eye color, height and weight.
While researching for the essay about Jesse Gelsinger, I came across an interesting article by J Savulescu titled Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best children. Savulescu argues that we have a “moral obligation” to “use all the available information and choose the option most likely to bring about the best outcome”.
He also argues “we have a moral obligation to test for genetic contribution to non-disease states such as intelligence and to use this information in reproductive decision-making.” According to Savalescu, happiness is measured by our experiences in life and a person with asthma, or a less intelligent person won’t have the fulfilling experiences that a person without asthma or a more intelligent person will have.
Once again, this new development raises ethical concerns and a whole new debate emerges. On one side, ethicists are concerned that this is just like the Nazi society where the weak were weeded out of the society. One the other hand some are arguing that as a parent one has a moral obligation to select an embryo with the best chance of the best life.
But the reality of this situation is sort of scary. As parents we will get the chance to eliminate the ‘least best’ embryos. We will attain a new kind of power, but are we ready to deal with such power?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/oct/24/embryo-research-development
2 comments:
I think that this situation is less "scary" than it first appears, and that the power that it gives is actually far from new. Yes, it is true that parents cannot currently select their children's traits before they are born. However, once the children are born, our society does everything possible to give them a better life than their genes have naturally predisposed them to. Asthma and other diseases whose effects can be mitigated are treated; children who struggle academically because of learning disabilities are tutored.
The easy objection to this argument is that these treatments are far less effective than simply making sure that a child is born with the best possible genes. However, this only means that we are not entirely effective in what we already do, and that our power is limited. It is not a new kind of power that genetic enhancement offers, but rather an extension of the power we already possess. As such, this new development is only "scary" if the treatments that we already have are scary.
This new development is, in fact, simply a continuation of the progress of humanity throughout its existence. As a species, we have always tried to get more than simply what nature has given us. Tools and modern medicine are generally seen as good things, ways in which human beings have managed to improve, and this new development falls under that very category. It is scary only in the sense that progress is always scary: fear of the unknown makes the new and good seem frightening.
The fact that such a cheap and encompassing genetic test will be available in the near future is I think a great step towards taking our faith as a species in our own hands. Devorah certainly makes a good argument in pointing out that choosing the best embryo is simply a more effective way of doing what we already do – try to better ourselves in any way possible. It does indeed seem that our ability to genetically engineer humans is a natural step of our evolution. As our intelligence grows we are bound to start understanding the “miracle” of life from a scientific point of view and eventually be able to control it. When one looks at the history of our scientific progress it is easily seen that our goal was always to understand more and more of nature and eventually be able to control it.
Understanding of something does not necessarily imply control over it, but it is in our nature to try to change things around us to suit our needs or desires. Thus if we understand life why not change it to what we regard better, as we are doing with everything else we have control over?
The problem comes exactly from the fact that it is near impossible to determine what is better when the life of a human being is concerned. As Fatema pointed out Savulescu claims that that we do have the “moral obligation” to choose what is better and it is definitely our desire to do so. But how can anyone measure happiness in a person’s life based on what genes he possesses. Intelligence is I think a really bad example for Savulescu to give since it is not in any way a measure of how happy a person is. What makes a person happy in life is far from our understanding for now, but we might reach a point where that will also be in our grasp to scientifically master. The truth is for now, if we possess the power to genetically alter our children we would do what we regard better for them and there is nothing wrong with that. Questionable as this may seem according to our currents ethical principles it is the ethics that will change, as they always have, because in a world where life is no longer a mystery why should it be regarded as something so “sacred” that people should not change it.
Post a Comment