~Today I conclude my discussion of germ line modification, an inheritable form of genetic enhancement/engineering (G.E.), from the audio course Creating Humans: Ethical Questions Where Reproduction and Science Collide. Previously, I’ve discussed some of the scientific, legal, and social consequences of this technology. Now, I come to some philosophical thoughts about the implications of genetic enhancement.
What I find most interesting of all about germ line modification, the thing that makes it the most interesting reproductive technology from the course, is that it forces us to confront some of the deepest questions of human existence. We all want what’s best for our children, but if we choose to make use of this technology, we must ask what exactly that means. What do people really want out of life? Why are we here? Can direct genetic changes make life “better” for our children and humanity as a whole?
The answers, if there are answers, are more complex (and interesting) that you might think. As with all of the technologies I’ve discussed so far, the question is the same: where do we draw the line? Most of us would likely not have a problem with engineering out fatal genetic disorders (e.g. Tay-Sachs). But what about nonfatal but crippling genetic diseases (e.g. Lou Gehrig’s Disease)? Again, I think most people would think it’s ok to prevent those. Going farther, is it ok to remove obviously “bad” but not necessarily fatal or disabling problems, such as an increased likelihood of Alzheimer’s or breast cancer? …again, I think most people would not really have a problem with altering the DNA of their unborn children to prevent them from suffering this, even if the fix in question concerns one’s mental capabilities (again, such as Alzheimer’s), rather than purely physical problems.
It’s when we move from the realm of “cure” or “prevention” to “enhancement” that people get squeamish. While I think many of us are rightly uncomfortable with allowing parents to use genetic engineering to create specific physical traits such as height or hair and eye color, can we really object to parents altering an embryo’s DNA to be, say, resistant to HIV or other diseases? Or to have less likelihood of developing diabetes? Or to have teeth that won’t require braces? Or to not develop severe acne? Or to be less likely to have poor eyesight? To have more balanced cholesterol levels? Or, if we colonize the Moon or Mars, to be more resistant to radiation?
I could go on and on, of course, but you get the idea. Personally, I don’t really have a fundamental ethical problem with genetic enhancements like the ones I describe; the problem as I see it is societal, as I discussed previously. I think people see germ line engineering, rightly or not, as an unavoidable slippery slope from small changes (removing the chance of a fatal genetic diseases) to overwhelmingly bad changes (creation of an oppressive genetic “master race” that will enslave us all!). Genetic engineering, like the other technologies examined in the course, is merely a tool, one we would be foolish to outright ban or ignore. Instead, making decisions about what can and can’t be done, what is and isn’t morally, ethically, and legally allowed, will be a long, complicated, and international effort.
But where use of this technology veers into the realm of mind-bending philosophical speculation is when we consider its power (not yet, but in the future), to affect not only our descendant’s physical traits, but their mental ones. It’s from these that we recoil (consider my discussion of genetics vs. mind control from the previous post), but if that’s also your reaction, take a moment to ask yourself exactly why you find the idea so disturbing (“from the gut” is not an acceptable answer). For example, consider the list of physical genetic alterations I listed two paragraphs ago. Now ask yourself, is it ok for parents to genetically engineer their offspring to be less likely to develop severe depression? Why or why not? What about ensuring that one’s child is not born with severe retardation? What about making sure the child is, in fact, highly intelligent? Or has a perfect sense of musical pitch? Or, for that matter, has a cheerful disposition? I mean, we all want our children to be happy, right? Right??
Consider the extremely disturbing implications of this research paper. Here’s the abstract (colors added for emphasis):
- “Happiness or subjective wellbeing was measured on a birth-record based sample of several thousand middle-aged twins using the Well Being (WB) scale of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ). Neither socioeconomic status (SES), educational attainment, family income, marital status, nor an indicant of religious commitment could account for more than about 3% of the variance in WB. From 44% to 53% of the variance in WB, however, is associated with genetic variation. Based on the retest of smaller samples of twins after intervals of 4.5 and 10 years, we estimate that the heritability of the stable component of subjective wellbeing approaches 80%.”
In other words, whether or not one is “happy” most of the time is, believe it or not, largely a matter of genetics. Now, I’m sure that many people, perhaps almost all people, are uncomfortable with the idea of altering the genetic code of their unborn children to ensure that said children are happy. But why, exactly? Because the child should be able to make their own choices? But…what if they’re genetically predisposed towards being unhappy (or worse, severely depressed)? We might say that civilization is built on unhappy people wanting to improve their lot in life, or expound on the brilliant art, etc. created by “tortured genius” types. But is that enough of a reason to leave “sad” genes intact? I mean, the whole point of civilization and so forth is to make us happier…right? Can you really fault parents for not wanting their children to start life with this sort of genetically predetermined burden?
That’s why I find the philosophical dimensions of germ line modification so fascinating. It makes us ask what we (speaking through our unborn descendants) really want out of this life that we’ve all been thrust into without our consent. Why are we here? What’s the point? Is it to suffer, endure our lot, and take what we can get? To worship and praise a deity? To free ourselves from suffering? To find meaning in suffering? Is it to enjoy each moment as best we can? To learn things? To help others (…to enjoy themselves?)? To uncover the secrets of the universe? To perpetuate our genes by having children? To rebuild a shattered God? To find True Love? To just make it to the weekend??
…because if any of the above reasons sounds like a good, or even acceptable, meaning for life, I think it’s intellectually dishonest to dismiss germ line engineering, even for…no, especially when it comes to influencing the mental and personality traits of our descendants. If you think we’re here to enjoy life & control our suffering, and have the capability via G.E. to make it even a little bit more likely that your children, grandchildren, etc. are more likely (and remember, this is all tinkering with probability, not certainty) to enjoy their lives regardless of external circumstances, is it your duty to do so? Should it not, in fact, be one of your top priorities if you could do it? And if you think we’re here to learn more about the world, then shouldn’t you ensure that your child is smart? But if you increase your child’s intelligence, are you possibly decreasing their happiness? Does making them more likely to be happy make them less likely to be productive/ambitious? Should we strive for ambitious children? …I could go on for hours!
Honestly, the only real objection I can ultimately see (assuming we actually acquire a reliable, non-experimental understanding of this technology) is religious: that we shouldn’t mess around with human DNA because God, etc. etc. And I think that’s the position that a lot of people will take, but not for the same reasons. Some people that feel this way will, I hope, actually take the time to think about why their religious/philosophical beliefs prohibit such alterations. But I think that a lot of people will retreat into religious objections (not only for G.E. but for many of the other reproductive technologies from the course), simply because it’s easy to do so. Although I find these sorts of ethical dilemmas fascinating, I know that most people don’t; they just want simple, easy-to-understand solutions to challenging ethical problems.
With it’s strong, almost overwhelming religiosity (especially in politics), the United States is especially prone to this, and I think that will make it difficult for us to have a real, national dialog to decide on these and other important bioethical issues. It will make it even more difficult to involve America in an international framework to regulate and enforce the decisions we are able to make. Because, like all the other reproductive technologies, regulation of them is useless without international conventions; otherwise, those with the means to do so will simply travel to genetic clinics in nations or other areas (or perhaps hospital ships in international waters?) where G.E. and so forth is legal or uncontrolled.
As for myself, I’m terribly torn on the issue of germ line engineering. Part of me sees this technology as one of the great hopes for humanity’s future, bringing with it the eventual promise of freeing humanity from a great deal of painful evolutionary baggage that we’ve accumulated over millions of years, but which now weighs us down. It’s a vision of a world in which people don’t die from fatal genetic diseases, or are born with diabetes, or get Alzheimer’s and thousands of other health issues, and where people don’t need to get braces for their teeth or backs or legs, or wear eyeglasses, or get zits (…but would that be considered beautification?), or die from cancer in their 30s, or take drugs for genetically-induced depression, anxiety, blood problems, and so forth. A world where people are healthier, happier, and live longer even without expensive pharmaceuticals or therapies, even if we all went back to living in caves. Such modifications to the human genome are certainly “unnatural”, but is the world I describe really so bad?
However, with so many emerging technologies, science fiction has a half-century advantage on us. Genetic engineering is a time-tested staple of speculative fiction. In general, owing to the need to create dramatic plotlines, it’s generally depicted as a bad thing. Star Trek, for example, postulated “Eugenics Wars” in the near future (i.e. the 1990s) led by genetically engineered “Augments” such as KHAAAAAAAN!, leading the outlawing of genetic enhancement in the Federation. S.M. Stirling’s Domination novels take the use of G.E. to create a “master race” to a horrifying conclusion, with humanity divided between the “Draka” rulers and their “Servus” slaves. The Japanese show Gundam Seed depicts a world divided between genetically-enhanced “Coordinators” and unaltered “Naturals” mostly on Earth, with massively destructive wars (which, naturally, involve giant robots) waged between the two groups. I think these scenarios speak from our visceral fear against altering the fundamental nature of humanity.
Although the worlds they depict are extreme, I think they make some good points about the social and legal dimensions of G.E. If we allow free, or even limited use of this technology, will we have to keep track of who’s been enhanced? Should people whose physical capabilities (such as strength, speed, etc.) have been genetically enhanced be barred from the Olympics? What about the Tour de France? What about professional sports? College sports? High school swim teams?
And what of those whose brains have been enhanced, giving them, say, a better memory or savant-level math skills? Should they be forced to disclose this on college applications? What about job applications? Should there be a box that you have to check if you’ve received G.E. (whether in the germ line or in a somatic cell line sense), and if so, disclose exactly how? Will non-enhanced people need some sort of affirmative action law? Or is that too much government intervention? Should those who can afford it be free to use G.E. on themselves or their children?
As you can see, the ethical, legal, social, and even philosophical implications of genetic enhancement are mind-boggling. But the genetic genie may very well have already left the bottle. As a society, we can’t simply stick our heads in the sand and pretend this technology doesn’t exist; nor, I believe, will we be able to effectively ban it entirely even if we wanted to. It’s going to be used, one way or another, but exactly how we decide to use it will be one of the most important issues facing humanity over the next century.
So what do you think about all this? Should we allow G.E. or not? To what degree? Would you use it if it were available? Why or why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment