Russell Watson
Dr. Boese
English 102 100
September 15, 1998
Genetic Research and Engineering
The complete decoding of the human DNA and the refining of genetic
engineering are feasible projections for the future of mankind. However,
these breakthroughs cause concerns that any potential benefit to humanity,
and its societies, would be accompanied by just as much of a threat to
its spirituality and even existence. The questions, “What are we
trying to do?” and “Are we able to do it?,” with respect to genetic research
have seemingly been answered by the scientific community. As Dr.
Weinberg states in his essay, The Dark Side of the Genome, “By the
end of the 1990’s, routine tests will detect predispositions to dozens
of diseases as well as indicate a wide range of normal human traits.”
The understanding of the basic genetic code could also lead to its designing,
or genetic engineering. So now not only those within the technical
circle of this research but anyone who finds it a potentially dangerous
issue is left to ask, “Is Genetic Research something we ought to do?” And
“To what extent should we advance our abilities in this area?” We
will find that, as with so many other topics, the answers to these questions
are not universal standards but must be found in regard to the uniqueness
of each scenario.
Before having an opinion on genetic research, we should decide how far
the results will take us. Do we intend to engineer more life like
our own or do we intend not to create at all but use genetic knowledge
as a tool to warn of and explain phenomena that have puzzled or plagued
the world for ages? The modern world, increasingly influenced by
the ideally objective scientific character, often makes anathema out of
religiously based arguments; but then some think of science as a religion
itself into which the scientific community and others put faith of objectivity.
So, in fact, both the traditionally religious and scientific arguments
are religious in nature. A truly objective point of view may come
not from the scientific but from moderates who acknowledge the need for
some sort of spiritual standards governing humanity's relentless technological
advance.
Sentience
Should we engineer life that mirrors our own, maybe not in form but in
mental capacity and awareness— in short, sentience? This includes
bringing into existence all new species and the cloning of humans.
The critical aspect is that what is genetically engineered has at least
all the capabilities of Homo sapiens’ mind. It is fully sentient.
Sentience is defined by awareness, but everything considered to be life
has some sort of awareness whether it is a pet that recognizes its name
or can be integrated into a domestic setting, or a plant that is somehow
aware of the movement of the sun each day. So every reference made
here to sentience and awareness is to the accepted superior level of mankind’s
thought. We do not consider other animals to be on the same level
as our own, but we recognize their awareness and those instinctive and
higher characteristics that we find in ourselves. A clone or
equally sentient being must be considered on the same level as man if,
no matter what it is given during creation, it has the ability to wonder
about what it is, where it came from, and to try to fathom its future,
among other things. We like to recognize those gifts given us by
nature or a Creator yet we still insist that our independent and higher
thoughts are largely self-made and developed. Such would be the same
with clones and equally sentient beings. The problem with cloning ourselves
or engineering life is that we are tempted to think of it like a hybrid
racehorse or purebred dog in that we have the right to do with it whatever
we please. But since what we have engineered would be sentient, we
must treat it so, like parents must respect the humanity and independence
of their offspring.
Artificial
intelligence
The emphasis put on sentience and mental abilities commensurate with our
own hinders our thoughts about artificial intelligence, as well.
How should we react to incorporating machines into our own bodies or identifying
human traits in machines? What does it matter how much of a person
is human and not machine as long as some part of the person is human or
was originally human? Likewise, if a creature that is mostly machine
or indeed created originally as a machine, develops even a hint of sentience
beyond purely programmed responses, we may have to redefine the conditions
we put on what we call “life” and grant it a chance to prove that it is.
The great problem that the concepts of sentience and life cause arises
from the difference of how we treat what is alive and what is not, what
is sentient and what is not. This is the difference between what
we share our dinner table with and what we eat as dinner, what we work
along with and what we force to do the work. The programmable sentience
for a machine has not yet been achieved by human beings, and at the present,
artificial body parts that make their user so resemble a cyborg as to raise
the questions of the user’s remaining humanity do not exist . Current
technological advances, however, lead us to believe that there is relatively
short time before these are the issues at hand.
Genetic
Engineering
Can mankind create life on its scale and stay within moral bounds? Morality,
of course, varies from person to person and culture to culture, but even
so, some religions seem to close the door on the subject unambiguously.
From the spiritually objective forum, however, the reason against is this:
Why would we need to engineer humans or human-like life? We have
already seen the evil-mindedness and resulting horror of attempting to
manufacture the “perfect race” such as in Nazi Germany. And
even though it has been somewhat dismissed as exaggerated science fiction,
there is always the chance that such a super race would turn against us.
And certainly there is no sense in creating sentient life more flawed than
our own. To genetically engineer fully sentient life is nothing more
than a challenge overcome, a brilliant scientific paper with ultimately
unnecessary applications; and at the end of the task we would be confronted
with the question of what to do with what we have made. Similarly,
our creation would be confronted with the question of what to do and think
of itself—questions that mankind have struggled with endlessly. Ethically,
both the religious and non religious branches of thought must know the
malice in creating an entire species with our sentience and an added superior
physique for unbearable or undesirable labor, for at least a slave has
reason to believe he was created for something more.
It may be ironic that the engineering of so-called lower life forms
would prove more a benefit to mankind than the image of himself.
“Lower” life-forms include the plants and animals we employ to meet our
needs—food, clothing, labor, medicine, as well as amenities. The
use of genetic engineering to provide these needs for the world seems to
escape ethical condemnation if the creations are not considered aware.
As Dr. Weinberg points out, genetic research has given us the ability “to
produce great quantities of valuable medical and agricultural products
cheaply.” Hybrid plants and livestock are common, and who cannot
be tempted by the cloning of plants and animals to eliminate the world’s
food shortage? A step down from this is the engineering of more efficient
organs or the cloning of organs such as eyes or livers or hearts to relieve
the pressures currently on donor systems.
DNA
Screening
Another highly controversial aspect of genetic research does not directly
involve creation at all. It is the knowledge of genes and the predetermination
of traits using this knowledge. Within this realm are situations
so varied and emotionally charged that the same concrete judgment cannot
be imposed on each and every one. For example, how much do we want
to know about the traits of our offspring, and if we discovered that they
would suffer from an untreatable and debilitating disease, would we wish
to spare them a painful life? Abortion on the basis of a miserable
future has already been introduced albeit without so many arguments from
the genetic forum. The traditionally religious circle will most likely
find that the prospect of mankind taking it upon himself to decide who
should be born and who should not conflicts with the accepted doctrine.
Indeed to some, mankind’s mortality is a redeeming gift from his Maker
and to tamper with nature an affront to the Creator. Yet even in
the light of some sort of religious faith, it is often more difficult
to imagine letting a baby live to suffer than to abort it before you can
even imagine what kind of person it will be. Cancelled pregnancies
are certainly too severe in some cases, but for the more difficult diseases
to even endure watching others endure, the thought of allowing a child
to be born with such a fate may come to be, as Dr. Weinberg puts it, “negligence
of the parents” in a genetically capable society. It may even be
call for societal condemnation on the parents rather than a commendation
of courage.
Some argue that genetic pre-knowledge of undesirable and dangerous traits
may prevent couples from marrying or having children. This we have
to leave in the hands of those involved. What should not evolve is
a series of laws prohibiting carriers of genetic disorders from marrying
or having children. Marriage is not the threat that genetic testing
is designed to eliminate. A couple whose children are almost certain
to be afflicted by a disorder or disease should seriously consider
not having them. Adoption is an alternative, and the point is that
they would be sparing a child from a life of pain. If the determining
objective of a couple is to have children and they place whatever else
is binding them together below that goal, then they should seek other partners
in order to spare their offspring. Admittedly, a plan to not have
children can seem malicious if we consider that those involved would be
denying life to their offspring; but this practice is already very common
in the form of birth control and in areas of the world where having children
is discouraged due to an overwhelming population as in China.
A gross misuse of genetic knowledge is putting emphasis on basic traits
like eye color and height, as well as special ones such as athletic, academic,
or musical ability and workmanship. Exploitation naturally
follows and the purpose of genetic screening, to increase the chances of
a painless, independent life, is lost when we are screened and then forced
to perform those tasks at which we have the greatest ability or denied
a chance to develop those skills we by nature lack.
No matter how tempting it is to know the things at which we are inherently
skilled or what we are by nature prone to do, we must be careful not to
trivialize or even capitalize on the power of genetic knowledge.
Its foremost function is the improvement of life. Prevention of the
diseases that cause us the most grief represents the most promising aspect
of our future and is anxiously awaited. Genetic engineering can,
despite all other fascinating options, best serve mankind by making more
efficient the processes we already go through to obtain food, clothing,
and shelter. The engineering of other sentient life and cloning of
our own are most likely to cause more turmoil and threats than benefits
from any practical use. Also, as the world grows to incorporate technologies
that challenge our perceived line between man and machine, we must remind
ourselves of what makes us human, so that we will not lose the humanity
in those relying heavily on machines, or overlook or exaggerate the humanity
in machines that become so advanced. Genetic knowledge may
some day fuse with machine technology, and we may need to develop new standards,
ethics, and universal morals that are just as tolerant yet, likely, more
restricting than the ones that have overseen our progress to date.