I don't think this was a final, final draft, but it shows you what the paper should look like. There were major formatting issues when I copied into this blog, so disregard those. I fixed it the best I could. Use this primarily to see how this kind of paper should be set up.
The Case Against Human Genetic Enhancement
With the Advent of many technological advancements in the late twentieth century, many moral and ethical questions have arisen as to how technology should affect humanity. One of the mostcontroversial issues that has come about, is the question as to whether or not humanity should permititself to, through the use of technology, genetically manipulate and alter the human genome. While this issue is broad, and the arguments are many, genetic enhancement and cloning of Humans should be
prohibited because it destroys the individuality of a person, it is scientifically not feasible, and it is ethically wrong to do so.
DESTRUCTION OF INDIVIDUALITY THROUGH ENHANCEMENT OR CLONING
Support
In the 1920's, a book was published that raised several questions as to the possible future of selective genetics, specifically, the topic that will be focused on is the issue of individuality. This book was called “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley. It is set in the twenty-sixth century where at this point in time, technology has allowed for the continuation of the human race to be done completely through the genetic creation of human beings. Natural procreation is regarded as a cultural taboo, and not spoken of in public. Individuals are trained from the beginning of their life to accept one style of living. They are bred and expected to occupy only one type of job in the workforce.
Humanity is also divided into five castes in this time, with the lower castes being purposely manipulated to have inferior traits, thus ensuring domination by the higher castes. While this is entirely a work of fiction, it raises some very crucial questions that must be answered if we as a society are to pursue genetic modification of the human race. One of those questions, should be for example, in the issue of cloning, how such an act would affect an individual's identity. According to a paper published
by bioethicists David Resnik and Daniel Vorhaus in the journal of Philosophy, Ethics, and the Humanities in Medicine, in which they quote the President's Council On Bioethics regarding cloning, “Cloning-to-produce-children could create serious problems of identity and individuality…Personal identity is, we would emphasize, a complex and subtle psychological phenomenon, shaped ultimately by the interaction of many diverse factors. But it does seem reasonably clear that cloning would at the
very least present a unique and possibly disabling challenge to the formation of individual identity…our genetic uniqueness is an important source of our sense of who we are and how we regard ourselves.
It is an emblem of independence and individuality. It endows us with a sense of life as a never-before-enacted possibility.” (Resnik, Vorhaus 25) The individuality of who we are in the human race, helps define us. The process of directly changing an individual's basic genetic traits, irrevocably alters their uniqueness and individuality. Clearly, genetic modification changes a person's sense of identity.
Opposition
With regard to Aldous Huxley's book “Brave New World” and the ensuing roles that
individuals are almost destined to play in life, bioethicists refer to this as the “Puppet critique” regarding genetic enhancement. The idea that individuals will be expected to fulfill a certain type of
lifestyle, simply because they are genetically gifted in those areas is viewed as problematic by some critics. Referencing this theory known as the “Puppet Critique,” which is the idea that a geneticallyenhanced individual could be pulled or coerced into living a certain lifestyle due simply to their genetics, Doctors Resnik and Vorhaus assert in their paper that “ The most genetically gifted musician might nevertheless forgo a career as a musician or composer, favoring life as an accountant, or an attorney instead... At its most basic level, the puppet critique relies on misstatements of scientific reality, and plays on the public's worst fears about the powers of genetics.” (Resnik, Vorhaus 16)Proponents of Genetic Enhancement believe that an individual's identity will not be adversely affected by the genetic gifts he or she has if they are designed in such a fashion.
On the underlying issue of the implications of cloning, Fritz Allhoff in an article published in The American Journal of Bioethics, debates a key point of cloning. “So, we could ask, does cloning harm the clone? If so, the clone would have to have been better off had cloning not taken place. However, this condition can obviously not be met; had cloning not taken place, the clone would not exist at all, much less have a higher level of overall welfare. Therefore, cloning cannot harm the clone.” (Allhoff, 5, 6) This idea basically states that it would be better to clone an individual, who could liveat least, than it would to simply have not granted him life in the first place. If society does not pursue cloning, then we will have to ask some questions as to if we are denying potential individuals a chance at life by prohibiting the practice of cloning.
Rebuttal
While there is a point to be made in Mr. Parfit’s claim, the evidence and research conducted by many in the field of medicine and biotechnology clearly show that the damage of cloning outweighs the benefits. The technology to clone currently exists, but many countries have decided not to utilize it due to, among its many ethical implications, the effect it would have on the individual, possibly prompting an identity crisis in their lifetime. A report done by the American Medical Association that was published in 1999, explores the potential identity problems of cloning. “Foregoing choice in learning one’s genetic predispositions may seem trivial compared to the concerns about identity raised with human cloning… Having insight into one’s potential may cause enormous pressures to live up to expectations (or inappropriately relieve pressure to do so) even more than those generally experienced by children” (AMA Ethics Of Cloning, 5) The American Medical Association’s ultimate recommendation to the professional medical field was to abandon the effort or practice of human cloning, because of the multiple scientific, societal, and ethical concerns.
In response to the argument that not pursuing the practice of cloning, or otherwise prohibiting it leads to a denial of life for cloned individuals, this point has almost a paradoxical quality to it. In the same paper, Allhoff references bioethicist Laura Purdy, who’s views on cloning are that it is immoral if the individual does not lead a minimum standard of life. Due to the current inadequacies of technology in the field of cloning, a cloned individual would age at a much faster rate than normal humans. While there is validity in Allhoff’s claims that it would be better to live a shortened life, than no life at all, it is impossible to argue from this point, as the individual never existed, and even though the technology exists to create a clone, there are many facets of the human mind and, it may be said,soul that we do not understand. So, while a cloned individual should have the same chance and right to life that we do, it would be dangerous, and irresponsible to pursue cloning from the standpoint that we should grant individuals who would, through no natural means exist, a life because there are many potential ramifications that researchers cannot possibly understand about cloning.
SCIENTIFIC DIFFICULTIES OF GENETIC ENGINEERING AND ENHANCEMENT
Support
There are several types of research in the genetics field that have developed recently. The main point that will be discussed will be the topic of stem cell research. There are at least two major types of stem cell research. embryonic, and adult. Embryonic research is a very controversial method of acquiring stem cells, and the evidence presented here will prove that not only is it more ethically problematic, but it is also scientifically inferior to adult stem cell efforts.
Recently, there have been several breakthroughs in the field of adult stem cell research. Recently,an article was published on Providence College's website, by a student reporting another article. Researchers at the University of Kyoto and the University of Wisconsin have developed what are called “Induced pluripotent stem cells” that can “...take on a variety of tissue types. Like embryonic and adult stem cells, these reprogrammed skin cells can be used to regenerate heart tissue, brain cells,
and could even treat spinal injuries.” (Sparks, par. 1) These cells are reprogrammed skin cells taken from the individual who needs the cells in question. They can be changed to take on as shown above, a variety of tissue types. Since these cells are from the donor, there is no chance of rejection, as there could be with embryonic stem cells. Furthermore, by using adult stem cells, as opposed to embryonic stem cells in this scenario, the cost effectiveness of the treatment is much better, than using embryonic tem cells, and there are no ethical complications with that treatment.
A separate paper written by former director of the National Institutes of Health Dr. Bernadine Healy, who was once a proud supporter of embryonic stem cell research, even more ardently argues the case against the research.. Dr. Healy references a report published by Israeli medical researchers, in which a young boy with a fatal neuromuscular disease received embryonic stem cell treatment. The following is a quote from her article. “The report describes a young boy with a fatal neuromuscular disease called ataxia telangiectasia, who was treated with embryonic stem cells. Within four years, he developed headaches and was found to have multiple tumors in his brain and spinal cord that genetically matched the female embryos used in his therapy.” (Healy, par. 2) In these cases, Dr. Healy continues to say that many doctors fear this type of reaction from embryonic stem cell treatments, due to the nature of embryonic stem cells in that they are cells in a rapid state of growth and therefore unreliable and unpredictable.
Opposition
Supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that the technology and breakthroughs of the research are current, and visible. An article published on Science Daily, a website compiling recent medical data and research, references some of those breakthroughs carried out by the I-Stem team, a group of researchers working on multiple embryonic stem cell projects. This report states the success of the team in creating an entire epidermis from embryonic stem cells. The article asserts that Human embryonic stem cells have “...a capacity for unlimited proliferation and pluripotency, i.e. the capacity to differentiate into all the cell types in the human body.” (Science Daily, par. 6) The report continues to trumpet the possibilities of embryonic stem cells in treatments. Another section from the article states “...These 'ready to use' cells will be proposed to produce epidermal cells for the treatments of third degree burn victims and also other skin diseases such as genodermatoses or ulcerations which
complicate diabetes in a very large number of patients.” (Science Daily, par. 12) Yet more evidence that embryonic stem cells carry potential is found at the National Institutes of Health website. In their site, there are several articles and links of research and studies that show the potential for embryonic stem cells. One of these pages states “ Diseases that might be treated by transplanting cells generated from human embryonic stem cells include Parkinson's disease, diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury,Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and vision and hearing loss.” (National Institutes of Health, par. 15) The capacity and promise of embryonic stem cells to cure any number of ailments and diseases has long been a hope of medical researchers, one that might have finally begun to be realized.
Rebuttal
While many medical researchers admit that embryonic stem cells have promise, adult stem cells are, on the other hand, readily available, easily created, cost effective, and ethically neutral. A revolutionary medical surgery performed by researchers and surgeons from Britain, Italy, and Spain was published in The London Times. Patient Claudia Castillo, who was thirty years old at the time of surgery, was stricken with a tuberculosis infection that destroyed her airways. Her trachea (also known as the windpipe) collapsed at the point it entered her left lung. Researchers took a donated section of trachea, stripped it of cells to the point that it was simply a brown section of cartilage, and then began work on it. This is a section of the article. “ Stem cells were taken from Ms. Castillo's bone marrow, and grown in Professor Birchall's laboratory. Stem cells can develop into different kinds of tissue, given the right chemical instructions, enabling researchers to cultivate cartilage and epithelial
cells to cover the 7 cm graft.” (Rose, par. 9) The ensuing implantation of the trachea was a complete success, and Ms. Castillo went back to living a normal life. Four months later, there were no signs of rejection. This is only one of many surgeries that have been performed successfully with adult stem cells. These and other events have led highly educated individuals like Dr. Healy to assert that “In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are
obsolete.” (Healy, par. 1) Science has shown us which method is more viable, and ethics have determined which is right. The only course left to follow in this field, is to embrace the future of adult stem cells, and endeavor without ceasing to explore the full potential of this process to cure manyof humanity's worst afflictions.
ETHICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF GENETIC ENHACEMENT
Support
So far, the issues of cloning, and stem cell research have been addressed. The next issue of human genetic enhancement will first be addressed, by providing a background of previous efforts in history to genetically enhance the human race, and create the ideal person. Forced sterilizations were a major issue in the early twentieth century. . At first, many countries welcomed the advent of some basic forms of genetic manipulation. One of the most widely used forms during this time was the sterilization of individuals who were not considered “Desirable.” In 1927, the Supreme Court case of
Buck v. Bell led to a ruling that legitimized the forced sterilization of mentally retarded patients at a Virginia home for the mentally ill. The majority opinion was written by justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and in it, he uttered the now infamous words “It is better for all the world, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent
those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” (Lombardo, par. 7) These ideas were encouraged by a theory that was published years earlier by an individual named Harry Laughlin. Laughlin's law proposed that “Socially inadequate” (Lombardo par. 2) individuals should be forcibly sterilized. This proposal led to forced sterilization laws in 12 states, and after the Supreme court case of Buck v. Bell, more than eight thousand people in the state of Virginia alone were sterilized. Nazi Germany later adopted Laughlin's law in their own format, and led for the legal basis of the sterilization of 350,000 people. Harry
Laughlin was later presented with an award by a German university for his furthering of the “science of racial cleansing.” (Lombardo par. 9) These efforts, were aimed at eliminating what was perceived as weaknesses in the human genome, and attempting to create the model human being. In our own history,attempts to genetically improve the human race have met with devastating consequences.
In Science, there are two major types of genetic manipulation that are dominant in theory and discussion. There is what is called “Positive Genetic Enhancement” which seeks to improve the human genome, and there is “Negative genetic enhancement” which aims to eliminate debilitating diseases such as Down Syndrome, or other forms of Muscular Dystrophy. Negative genetic enhancement could provide a great deal of promise to individuals who live an otherwise compromised lifestyle. While any kind of genetic modification opens up a veritable Pandora's box of ethical issues, gene therapy would be far more preferable to how most other babies with down syndrome are treated.
According to an article published on Newsweek, ninety percent of all fetuses that are detected with Down Syndrome are aborted. Negative Genetic Enhancement could hold the key to removing the set of genes responsible for the development of these disorders. While this is not a simple ethical issue by any standard, it is far more preferable that ethical questions should be raised by changing the human genome, rather than the ethical tsunami of concerns about preventing these individuals from ever existing. Positive genetic enhancements seek to improve the human genome, and create a superior
being. This type of engineering should be completely banned, as in history, these attempts have always resulted in tragedy and will continue to do so.
Opposition
Several groups and individuals have argued in favor of positive genetic enhancement. One of the movements that supports this trend is referred to as “Trans-humanism.” Essentially, these groups believe that humanity is something to be surpassed, and that we should embrace technology to further advance the human race physically, and mentally. In an extensive article published on USA Today, Bernard Gert asserts that “No one has yet provided a strong argument demonstrating that genetic engineering to produce enhanced size, strength, intelligence, or increased resistance to toxic substances is morally problematic.” (Gert, par. 6) Another example of transhumanistic thought could be expressed, by Doctor Max More, is a clear definition of trans-humanism. “Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a post human condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life, rather than in some supernatural 'afterlife.' Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies such as neuroscience neuropharmacology, life extension, nanotechnology, artificial ultraintelligence, and space habitation, combing with a rational philosophy and value system.” (more, par. 4) This system of thought seeks to cast down the limiting factors of values or morality, in favor of completely embracing
technological advancements to improve the human race. These groups view, among other things, positive genetic enhancement as something to be embraced to completely explore the potential of human capabilities. They argue that human life can be dramatically improved by the use of these new technologies.
Rebuttal
Doctor Francis Fukuyama stated about transhumanism, that it is one of the world's most
dangerous ideas. He argues that “The first victim of transhumanism might be equality.”
(Fukuyama, par. 5) Dr. Fukuyama continues in his article, warning about the dangers of
transhumanism, and the desire to alter the human race. He compares the environmental movement,which aims to present a sense of humility and preservation about the environment, to the preservationof the status of the human race. He states “We need to have a similar humility concerning our human nature. If we do not develop it soon, we may unwittingly invite the transhumanists to deface humanity with their genetic bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls.” (Fukuyama, par. 8) Clearly, transhumanism not only seeks to redefine human abilities, but irrevocably alter human nature as well.
The movement of transhumanism is one of reckless, disturbing proportions that threatens to destroy not only unique individuality through genetic manipulation, but to change what it is to be human.
Conclusion.
The issue of genetics in humanity is one that has only recently developed. However, it
represents an issue that can have far lasting effects on how we define our lives. Genetically altering the human race to change the definition of what it is to be human has been tried before, and it led to the deaths of millions in German concentration camps, and the sterilization of thousands of individuals in America. While negative engineering could hold some keys to creating a life for those who would not have one, we must be cautious. All too soon, we could be traveling down the path of defining what we view as a model human. If society becomes complacent, and accepts such an ideology, then the question we will have to ask ourselves, is not if we will recognize Hitler’s disturbing,twisted dream of a master race. The question we will have to ask ourselves, is when.
No comments:
Post a Comment