Biotechnology is
advancing at a rapid pace, and it is no longer science fiction to
imagine a day when the genes of a zygote would be altered before
implantation into the mother's womb, so that the resulting child has
better intellectual capacity or enhanced muscular growth or increased
rate of metabolism. Hence, on the face of it, such genetic
enhancement seems to provide a large step forward for humanity,
because it might make humans capable of doing things that were once
deemed impossible. However, one of the concerns related to such forms
of genetic enhancement is that it might worsen the divide between the
relatively rich and the relatively poor, thereby disturbing the
delicate balance in our society and leading to a poorer quality of
life for everyone.
In general, the
qualities of any person are essentially determined by two things: the
person's genes and the person's life experiences. Some people believe
that genetic enhancement will not be able to completely modify the
traits of humans, because a large portion of these traits is
determined by how a person has been nurtured in addition to the
nature of the person's genetic material. Nonetheless, regardless of
the outcome to this nature versus nurture debate, it is clear that
the nurturing of those individuals who have undergone genetic
enhancement before birth would be tailored according to the type of
genetic enhancement the individual has undergone. For example, the
parents of an individual who has been genetically enhanced to be able
to play better basketball can be expected to tailor the food, the
physical activities, the exposure to the game of their child to make
sure that the nurturing of the child is in sync with the nature of
the child, and to make sure that the child has the best chance of
becoming a successful basketball player.
Therefore, the
greater the degree of genetic enhancement, the greater is the degree
of determinism of the enhanced individual's future. This, in itself,
this seems to be a violation of the right to be able to freely choose
a profession. But more than that, it threatens to make the relatively
rich better than the relatively poor in all different professions.
This is because the better the financial situation of a couple, the
greater is their access to novel genetic enhancements, the better is
the sync between their nurturing of their child and the genes
incorporated inside the child (because more is known about the child
before the child is born), and the better are the chances that the
child is going to be successful in his/her profession. Thus, in a
way, free availability of genetic enhancement provides a platform
where wealth can be used to buy ability, a situation which can easily
lead to a state where an individual's progress in life becomes
proportional to the financial status of the individual's parents.
Hence, according to
me, the availability of genetic enhancement procedures should either
be restricted, or be available in equal access to all people in a
society, regardless of their financial endowment. Unless this is
maintained, our society would become more and more divided with time
and a point would come when the success of an individual would no
longer be seen as the individual's doing...it would rather be seen as
the doing of individual's genetic make-up and the individual's
upbringing, both of which were determined by the financial endowment
of the individual's parents.
3 comments:
Parth makes an interesting point about genetic enhancement increasing the “degree of determinism” in a person’s life. I agree it is entirely possible that altering a child’s genes to make him or her more athletic, for instance, might influence the child’s interests in life. However, this possible outcome does not seem sufficient reason to prevent parents from choosing the traits of their children. Ultimately, all children make their own life decisions that will determine their fates, independent of their parents. Parents may try to shape the future of their children by altering a few traits, but the extent of this genetic manipulation ends after birth. After that, the child becomes the product of his choices, environment, and to a small degree, his genetic makeup. On the other hand, parents exert much more significant influence over their children’s life after birth in ways that do not involve genetics. To grant children full autonomy over their futures, one would have to also prevent parents from sending their children to special schools and signing them up for music lessons. However, justifying this would be quite difficult, as there is no evident harm, only benefit, in parents investing in their child’s future.
Although Parth mentions the concept of nature versus nurture, the potency of this argument is largely overlooked. The influence of genetics can only go so far in determining the outcome of a person’s life. Out of the more than 21,000 genes comprising the human genome, remarkably little genetic variation is observed. In fact, any two people are approximately 99.6% genetically similar. This goes to show that a person’s outcome in life is the result of much more than merely his or her genetic makeup. Also, considering the vast number of genes in the genome—most of them with poorly understood function—the portion that scientists would dare to alter makes up an insignificant percentage.
Another point brought up is the issue of wealth being used to purchase ability through genetic enhancement. The ensuing problem – a person’s success becomes directly related to his parents’ financial circumstances. Again, this argument lacks weight. In today’s society, success and wellbeing is already largely determined by social status, which has much to do with education. It is a recognized pattern that individuals with more wealth and higher education live longer and experience better social outcomes. Although the wealth of a person’s parents does not necessarily determine the person’s level of education, the two factors are clearly interrelated. Certainly this does not mean that we should not make every effort as a society to bridge the gaps in achievement. However, prohibiting genetic enhancement is hardly a solution.
While moa raises significant points in the discussion surrounding genetic enhancement, autonomy, and equality, I agree with Parth that the increase in degree of determinism should not be ignored. This determinism accompanying genetic enhancement is by itself sufficient enough to warn us against allowing parents to genetically engineer their children. Moa argues that while a child may be genetically altered to fit a certain path, the decision to follow that path is ultimately the child’s; therefore, the extent of this genetic manipulation ends after birth. However, this is simply considering the effects of genetic engineering at a superficial level. While it may be true that the ultimate choice is still the child’s, genetic enhancement completely changes the definition of destiny and our purpose in life. To be engineered, or “created,” for a purpose imposes immense pressure on us to fulfill that purpose. Not only will our environments as children be tremendously altered to fit this purpose, but to live with this knowledge that one is engineered, or restricted, to one path is burdensome.
Other than in religious contexts, this idea or concept is largely absent from our idea of life and the way in which we live daily. We imagine life to be full of choices, to be a journey in which we explore and find our path. Never have we been born with a specific path in mind, a function that has already been predetermined for us. In this sense, the extent of genetic enhancement rises above what is tangible: it is true that genetic enhancement may rob us of our autonomy to choose for ourselves our destinies.
Similarly, moa devalues the argument that genetic enhancement will widen the gap of inequality that already exists in society. Moa states that today’s society already largely determines social status with wealth and education. However, this can hardly be an argument for genetic enhancement. Given that the fact that genetic enhancement, distributed to those who have the wealth to afford it, will increase the disparity between the rich and poor, as Parth describes, it seems counterintuitive to encourage this status quo and egg it on by allowing genetic enhancement with this kind of distribution. Rather, we should be working towards closing this gap by preventing such institutions from being implemented.
I agree with moa in that prohibiting genetic enhancement is hardly a solution, and I believe that we should make it up to the society to decide. Parth and kyi brought up good points in that the society may become even more divided, and the gap between the rich and the low may be even greater. However, do the risks of this gap outweigh the benefits of genetic enhancement, or perhaps the freedom of people's choice? People seem to reject the idea of having a gap between the rich and the poor, but is there anything morally wrong about it? I think it's just how societies evolve. It is true that the riches have access to more resources and have greater advantages compared the poors, but we do have to consider that there is the middle class in between. Some poors are able to work their way into the middle, and the middle class is just as likely to become successful. Therefore, there are still transfers between these social groups regardless of how much effort it takes.
Kyi wrote that just because inequality exists in today's society, it cannot be used as an argument for the use of genetic enhancement. This is true in some sense. However, we also have to consider the advantages of genetic enhancements, other than just how the society will transform into. An analogy for this is the internet. A lot of people today have access to the internet, but there are still certain poor families who could not afford to have a computer. This creates a gap in the ability to get information and may broaden the gap of knowledge between the two groups. However, we still use the internet because it's practical and useful, and there are certainly a lot of advantages to having this network.
Now, suppose that genetic enhancement is available to most of the general public, except for a few who could not afford it. Should we prohibit its use based on the fact that it might create a greater gap between the two groups? We are now just entering a new era, as we seek to develop cheaper, more accurate, and more efficient biotechnologies. During this phase, it may not be accessible to all. However, this is true for all technologies when they were first developed, and I believe that we have to consider the potentials and the advantages of this technology before we decide to ban it.
Post a Comment