DEBATE: Is Genetic Engineering a Threat to Humanity?

The development of technology to alter human genetics is well underway, but will it do more harm than good? Bioethicists Françoise Baylis and Michael Mehta debate the possibilities.

Related link: Ask astrophysicist Robert Mann how humanity will meet its end.

VOTE 77

Françoise Baylis
Canada Research Chair, bioethics and philosophy, Dalhousie University.

VOTE 250

Michael Mehta

Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Thompson Rivers University.

Françoise Baylis

Posted: 26-10-2010 09:59 AM

We need to embrace the inevitability of human genetic enhancement. I recognize that this is a controversial claim. Why do I make it? It's not because I have some deep-seated commitment to transhumanism, I don't. It is simply that I worry about us wasting our limited energy and talent in the misguided belief that we can put a stop to the enhancement project. What I would like instead is for us to invest our time, our energy, and our talent in trying to direct this project.

Humans have a long history of trying to better their own and their children's physical, intellectual, emotional, and moral capacities. Consider, for example, good nutrition to enhance physical development; basic (and enriched) education to enhance intellectual, social, and other abilities; music lessons to enhance manual dexterity and mathematical ability; and sports training (and/or steroids) to enhance athletic ability, build muscle mass and strength. More recently, we might think of cosmetic surgery to enhance physical appearance; and psychopharmacology to enhance cognition and mood.

On the one hand, it is reasonable to think that human genetic enhancement is but one more step along this well worn path. On the other hand, human genetic enhancement is radically different insofar as resulting changes will not only affect enhanced individuals, but will ultimately affect the species. We therefore need to critically reflect on how to expand the individual goals of "health, happiness, and success" to include communal goals such as "survival of the species, elimination of misery, and improved quality of life."

Michael Mehta

Posted: 26-10-2010 10:04 AM

I disagree vehemently with the assertion that human genetic enhancement is inevitable and that it can be directed. This belief doesn't come from a religious or ethical standpoint, but it is based on my assertion that so-called "human flaws" or deficiencies cannot be repaired or enhanced through genetic technology. I prefer to believe that the most likely form of "human engineering" will come from educational and social initiatives.

In many ways the very belief that humans as biological constructs are flawed most likely comes from an early religious perspective dating back to the concept of original sin. Instead of praying for forgiveness, us moderns often look to science for absolution.

The fundamental mistake behind the argument that human genetic engineering can weed out undesirables, and simultaneously reproduce "good traits," is an old eugenic trick of logic. We've seen this before with the sterilization movements and in the Nazi regime during World War II. I would prefer to see societal resources dedicated to improving education, strengthening wellness initiatives, building more life-long learning opportunities, and teaching people better conflict resolution skills, coping skills, and valuing collectively things like intuition, compassion, and empathy. There is no way that these things can be constructed through any form of genetic manipulation.

Françoise Baylis

Posted: 27-10-2010 09:48 AM

I have some sympathy for the worry about weeding out undesirables, but this is not my focus. I am interested in thinking about the positive ways in which we can use genetic enhancement technologies for our communal benefit, and for the benefit of subsequent generations with whom we will not co-exist.

War is an immediate threat to our survival and the cause of considerable misery. Here, I agree with the British philosopher Jonathan Glover that although war may appear to be the result of particular economic, social, and political arrangements, our failure to eliminate war suggests that psychological changes may be required in addition to political and social reforms. These changes may require direct intervention so that genes we value, such as those that contribute to our capacity for altruism and human sympathy, not only survive but are genetically and environmentally enhanced.

Next, consider the risk that climate change will cause our environment to deteriorate so significantly that our survival on the planet is threatened. Enhancement of human capacities and traits might then be an important element of a survival strategy for the species. At the same time that efforts were made to stabilize the deteriorating environment, individuals could be genetically enhanced in an effort to increase the probability of survival.

To ensure that the consequences of human genetic enhancement are uplifting, we need to steer the development of genetic technologies in pursuit of appropriate individual, social, cultural, political, economic, ecological, and evolutionary goals.

Michael Mehta

Posted: 27-10-2010 10:43 AM

Humanity has always faced complex challenges. In the past, plagues and natural disasters have pushed us collectively to the limit, and they will do so in the future as well. As a species we have endured these calamities and have developed ways to cope that did not require technological interventions per se, but social innovations. Consider the atomic age when the risk of obliterating the planet was real and palpable. We didn't work our way out of impending disaster by developing new weapons of mass destruction, or through mass sedation of our decision-makers or military personnel. This shift was accomplished through diplomacy, developing new institutions like the United Nations, and proactively fine-tuning democratic institutions and variations on market- driven economies.

I believe that our capacity for altruism (or sympathy) isn't something encoded by genes, but that it is a function of how well configured our current neuronal connections are to the social and cultural environments in which these values get expressed. The very notion that we can tinker with genes to enhance this expression is fool's gold at best.

The belief that we can increase our species-wide probability of survival through modifying our genomes is equally problematic. The genetic variation of humans is incredibly diverse to begin with, and when we consider all of the fine things that have come from this variety, it would be a shame to think that we don't already have enough capacity - genetic or otherwise - to survive. For goodness' sake, our best and brightest medical minds can't even predict most years the variant of seasonal flu coming down the pipeline! What makes anyone think that we can modify humans for survival purposes?

Françoise Baylis

Posted: 28-10-2010 09:45 AM

Genes alone do not make us who we are, and nothing I have written suggests this. All human traits involve both genetic and environmental contributions, and it is naive to think that only the environmental contributions are "up for change." Genes and environments are interdependent. Genes are not sufficient for development, and development is not unaffected by environmental changes.

Do I believe that human genetic enhancements are undeniably a good thing? No. Do I believe that we can stop the development and use of human genetic enhancements because of the risk of abuse? No.

If we take a historical look at the introduction of ethically controversial technologies (think, for example, of heart transplantation), typically we see an initial period of condemnation. Next, if the technological intervention proves safe and effective and it satisfies valued "needs" or "wants," then we enter a period of ambivalence where there is limited uptake. In time, we get accustomed to the once-controversial innovation. As we get more data, and as familiarity increases, so too does use. Eventually, we start to think about the technology as useful and in time the move to its widespread acceptance is assured.

Anticipating that the development and use of human genetic enhancement technologies will take just such a trajectory, I maintain that now is the time for us to exercise our moral imagination so that we might fruitfully direct the enhancement project in pursuit of positive communal goals.

Pollyanna? Maybe!

Michael Mehta

Posted: 29-10-2010 08:41 AM

Simply because we can do something, doesn't mean that we should do it. Because of advances in the science of genomics, we are now put in a difficult position where hard decisions need to be made on questions like: Where do we draw the line on the application of this knowledge? Is the pursuit of scientific knowledge an absolute right, or should limitations be placed on what can or should be studied?

With this technology we can do many good things. Alternatively, we could open up a real Pandora's Box that once again puts the future of humanity on notice. I would prefer that our societal resources be spent in the following ways. First, fully fund scientific and medical research on the underlying genetic causes and consequences of diseases. Second, support research on the intersection of genes and environment and understand better how factors like our diet, emotions, environmental exposures, and other lifestyle factors affect our health and well-being. Third, apply the results of well-validated research to prevent adverse outcomes and to enhance quality of life.

In my view, there is no place in this equation for modifying human genes. We can much more easily and safely modify our diets, lifestyles, and exposures to hazardous agents to maximize the probability of achieving positive outcomes for a wider swath of humanity. Genetic modification of humans is a one-way street on which there's no turning back. Once we unleash modified humans into the gene pool, we will pollute it, corrupt it, and ultimately damage our chances of survival in the long run.

tags

Technology,Debate,Bioethics

link

• 
• Retweet