Summary
When it comes to introducing the possible social ramifications that commercialized genetic engineering could have on society no example does it best than the movie “Gattaca”. In the film, we can see that instead of society being divided along with gender, ethnicity or race it has instead turned towards the quality of a person’s genetics as the primary means of determining an individual’s worth and place in society. A person’s future is no longer dictated by the desire or ambition to make something of their life but rather they are evaluated based on their genetic predispositions for intelligence, athleticism or potential temperament in the workplace. In essence, a person’s future is in effect dictated not by fate, chance, ambition, desire or intelligence but rather on the choices his/her parents have made before he/she was already conceived. While it may be true that such a future leads to the creation of a genetically “superior” human species, it is questionable whether such superiority comes at the cost of what makes us human.
For example, today all parents tell their children that they can be who they choose to be, that through hard work and perseverance they can achieve their dreams. While such words lie in the realm of optimism it is true that the desire to make something of oneself has been the driving force behind many of today’s successful entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs, Sir Richard Branson, Michael Dell, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Now suppose you take away this desire or better yet implement the means in which it can never be fulfilled, what then would have happened to the companies, innovations and investments that these men have created? Their effect on the world and the advancements they put into practice would never have impacted the world resulting in a considerable loss for humanity. On the other hand, it can be argued that such innovations would have come about anyway as a result of the supposed brilliance of a genetically superior mind. If this were true though, why is it that a majority of those we consider to be “intellectuals” such as professors in colleges and universities haven’t achieved even a small percentage of the successes the men mentioned have achieved? In this regard this paper will attempt to explore the positive and negative aspects related to genetic engineering and will attempt to answer the question “is superior genetics truly necessary?”
Effect on Children
One of the problems with genetic engineering is its potential to turn children into mere commodities with society ignoring the ethical ramifications of creating a generation of adults that had their lives planned since birth. One of the best modern-day examples of what could happen should genetic engineering become a commercialized process can be seen in the case of India and the sheer rate of infanticide within the country. Based on the study of Verma (2005) which examined the discrepancy between males and females within India it was noted that up to 40 million girls had effectively been eradicated from India’s population as a direct result of infanticide or illegal abortion (Verma, 2005). The reason behind this is twofold: the first is that boys are valued more than girls since they are able to work more and bring more money home to the family while the second reason is the fact that India continues to have the cultural predilection of having dowries attached to marriages wherein the family of the bride has to pay a considerable sum in order to marry her off. The end result of such actions is the horrifying number of infants that are illegally killed on a yearly basis as well as the resulting imbalanced gender ratio within India wherein there are more men than women. Should genetic engineering become a commercialized venture within the country where the sex of a baby can be changed at a whim this gender discrepancy will increase even more resulting in the possibility of a population collapse in India once the male to female ratio becomes hopelessly skewed (Gerdes, 2004)?
Another factor that should be taken into consideration is how children will be viewed by their parents. If a child’s future can be decided based on the types of genetic traits a doctor can include in his/her overall genetic makeup, parents could in effect decide whether their child will be a doctor, athlete, underwear model or whatever career they desire. This in effect takes away a child’s choice to determine what their future will be and in effect turns them into a commodity rather than a unique individual with any number of potential futures ahead of them (Gerdes, 2004). In fact, it is based on this that it must be questioned whether this form of genetic “improvement” in effect takes away a person’s freedom of choice. It is everyone’s basic human right to have the freedom of choice, the freedom to choose their life and as such, this is an indelible and irrevocable aspect of any person’s basic human rights. If genetic engineering creates a trend of predetermined futures for individuals then this is a direct violation of their human rights since they have the right to choose and not be unilaterally placed on a career path, not of their own choosing.
Inequality
Another factor to take into consideration is the concept of inequality and how it will no longer be limited to wealth or social standing but to the type of genetics, a person possesses. Should genetic potential become a commodity attained through commercialized processes there will obviously be discrepancies in the type of genetic “upgrades” available based on price. Even if the technology itself could become cheap to implement that fact remains that control over a child’s potential future is a very viable resource and corporations would be quick to exponentially increase the price beyond what it would normally be worth. Examples of this in recent history can be seen in the control of the DeBeers group over the sale of diamonds around the world labeling their products as being “rare and valuable” despite the fact that the only reason diamonds are rare is because DeBeers hoards all the diamonds produced and controls the means of supply.
Other examples include the markups seen for luxury brands which are often priced 300 times what they should be worth yet are bought by consumers anyway due to the level of “exclusivity and luxury” attached to owning such products. The very same practice will likely be implemented in commercialized genetic engineering wherein having a child that has the absolute best genetic material will come at an exorbitantly high cost. This will create a society that is not only divided along lines of wealth but genetics as well with only those capable of affording genetic modification being able to achieve high positions in companies, governments or athletic teams. Human effort will continue to mean less and less with such a concept being replaced by the principle of “genetic right” wherein a person is entitled to a better job and future based on the level of genetic “perfection” they were modeled into before they were born.
Diminished Respect for Human Life
Based on the examples provided, it can be seen that the end result of the commercialization of genetic engineering is the commoditization of humanity into different class sects based on their inherent genetic potential. It will become possible that people will no longer be given the right to move up in society, that their place is with their own genetic cast and as such they should not aspire to greater heights since they lack the “genetic right” to do so. This potential future could possibly occur since the same event has repeated itself numerous times throughout human history as seen in the cast system of India which existed for thousands of years or the class separation which endured in China hundreds of years before and after the Ming Dynasty. In fact, throughout human history segregation based on ethnicity, class, gender and distinction are all too rampant and as such it is quite likely that based on past examples of society’s predilection towards segregation and classification that should genetic engineering become a commercialized process the same type of segregation will happen once again.
What must be understood is that should this be put into effect it would greatly diminish respect for individual human life since it would limit the freedoms, rights and even potential happiness for potentially billions of people around the world. Hope for the future is one of the main driving forces behind the “human spirit” so to speak, it enables people to endure and overcome adversity in order to become what they choose to be. It is the defining characteristic of our species and as such has helped humanity as a whole to advance in leaps and bounds. By removing this aspect, by removing a person’s hope for a better future you in effect remove a part of their humanity. This in itself is highly unethical and calls into question a practice that would divide society along such lines. It must also be noted that another potential result of the commercialization of genetic engineering is in its potential to further deteriorate the rights of a fetus within a woman’s womb. For example, if a fetus is seen to be a male yet the parents want a girl one of the potential applications of genetic engineering is to apply a series of genetic modifications while the fetus is still maturing in order to slowly transform it into a girl. This practice though takes away the right of the unborn child to decide how they will live since in effect their parents decided they wanted a girl instead of a boy. The result is that the potential future as a man that this fetus could have lived is in effect taken away from it (Nuenke, 2001). If human life could be so arbitrarily changed as a result of parental preference how does this in any way support the rights of a human yet to be born since its potential future was in effect “killed”? Based on these examples it is questionable whether the practice of genetic engineering, in order to conform with parental preference, is nothing more than an unethical abuse of a child before it is even born.
The moral behind it All
When examining the various facts presented it can be seen that the moral question that is at the heart of the matter is “should the lives of people be arbitrarily decided by others?” Should practices related to genetic enhancement be put into effect in order to engineer people into certain “molds” for their planned careers the lives of such individuals are in effect dictated from the start (Nuenke, 2001). Not only that, those who can’t afford to genetically modify their own children ensure that the lives of their children will never be as successful as those who have been genetically modified. It is based on this that preplanned futures are created based on whether or not a person has been genetically modified. The moral question stated earlier thus evolves into a question of “is it right to fix futures not only for the genetically modified but those who weren’t?” In the movie “Gattaca” it can be seen that people who have no genetic modifications from birth are inevitably looked down upon by society and as such, the very same thing can happen in the future. This wouldn’t be right at all since a person should be responsible for their own life and not have it dictated to them as a result of a societal construct created on the basis of genetic potential.
Occurrence of Genetic Defects and Disease
One of the main arguments for the implementation of genetic engineering in order to improve the genetic quality of human fetuses is the current prevalence of a variety of genetic defects and diseases in millions of people around the world. Ranging from Parkinson’s, Asperger’s, Alzheimer’s, Crohn’s disease and a variety of other genetic diseases; millions of people around the world suffer from these types of diseases with no potential cure. Not only that, they have the potential to pass such undesirable genetic traits onto their offspring resulting in the spread of such genetic diseases in the general population. If their origin can be traced and subsequently removed from the gene pool this would in effect save millions of people the potential suffering they would inevitably endure as these diseases continue to progress and haunt them throughout their lives (Anderson, 2000).
Another potential application is in the correction of genetic defects such as nearsightedness, far-sightedness or even problems related to heart and lung defects. If one or both parents has a family history of genetic defects genetic engineers could potentially target the DNA strands responsible for such problems occurring and correct them in their child thus resulting in far lesser susceptibility to potential genetic defects (Fox, 2007). The end result of this would be a human genetic pool that would be “cleansed” of potential carriers of genetic diseases and defects which would make the occurrence of such problems nonexistent in the future. This would greatly reduce problems in relation to taking potentially debilitating medication or having to rely on a caregiver once such disease reaches a certain stage of progression wherein a person would no longer be able to take care of themselves.
Evidence of the positive effects of genetic engineering can be seen in one of the latest discoveries of genetic engineers who have in effect created a cure to HIV (still tentative). This shows genetic engineering can enable us to not only cure diseases that have plagued humanity for hundreds of years but it could also result in making humans immune to viruses, bacteria and miscellaneous diseases altogether. By genetically increasing the strength of the human immune system people could potentially never get sick, will always be healthy (depending on their lifestyle of course) and would be able to live fuller lives without worrying about catching some disease such as HIV.
The Concept of the Ubermensch
As mentioned earlier genetic engineering can not only correct inherent genetic diseases and defects that occur but can also help to improve a person’s genetic potential. The concept of the Ubermensch which Nietzsche described as “the goal for humanity” is an individual that is superior in every way to the average person. Such an individual would be stronger, faster, more durable, and capable of exerting himself/herself to such a degree that they would appear to be superhuman (Herring, 2005). Such a result is possible if genetic engineering can advance to such a degree that it could influence the growth of muscles and bones to be far stronger than what they normally are in the present-day version of humanity (Ho, 2005). If genetic engineering were to become a commonplace procedure for all parents that want children this would result in a population that would not only be physically stronger but smarter as well (Spier, 2002). Not only that, from an aesthetic perspective children could be modified so as to be more handsome or more beautiful as they mature thus resulting in a far better aesthetic quality for the species as a whole (Ho, 2005). Imagine, humans that will never get sick, look like supermodels, be as strong and as fast as Olympic athletes and have the potential to be as smart as Einstein. This is the possible future that genetic engineering may lead to and as such does pose a very intriguing potential for the future of our species.
Is it needed or Not?
When examining the potential benefits of genetic engineering alongside its ethical costs it becomes a question of whether humanity really needs to be perfect. While it may be true that around the world people do suffer from a variety of genetic maladies and should be treated this should not be utilized as a sufficient justification for improving the species more so than is necessary. If genetic engineering were to be utilized in the same manner as vaccination in order to prevent or cure a debilitating disease or defect then by all means it should be implemented into general commercial use (Rabino, 2003). In the case of it being utilized in order to change the sex of a fetus or adding “improvements” to the genetic makeup of a child, these actions should be considered unethical due to the potential ramifications explained earlier in this paper. Parents, corporations nor society itself should have the right or the capability to dictate a person’s future. It must also be noted that there may be unplanned genetic aberrations that may come as a result of rampant genetic modification due to the uncertainty attached to the technology (Hays, 2003). All individuals have the basic human right of free will and choice and as such, they should not be trapped into a role they themselves did not choose. Furthermore, the potential for even greater divisiveness in human society as a direct result of genetic improvements is too great a risk for it to enter into mainstream acceptability.
Human society should work towards integration and acceptance wherein barriers related to race, gender and ethnicity should be eroded in favor of working together towards a better future for humanity as a whole. Genetically modifying people just leads to the possibility of greater divisiveness in human society and could even be considered a step back in current efforts in trying to unite humanity under one community and society instead of the scattered divisiveness that is here in the present. It must also be noted that humans have achieved great things without the help of genetic engineering and it has also been seen that being genetically “superior” doesn’t immediately equate to success. At times it is the person who works that hardest towards their dreams and strives to achieve them that usually winds up successful and as such this I believe is the heart and soul of humanity which shouldn’t be erased as a result of predetermined futures based on what their genetic material says they can or cannot do.
The reaction of People in Power
For people in influential or government positions, it is important for them to not be immediately dismissive of genetic engineering due to its dangers but they shouldn’t be immediately accepting either. Genetic engineering does show potential in being able to prevent the spread of genetic defects and diseases and as such should be utilized only for this particular purpose. Thus, government legislation should be enacted which limits the application of genetic engineering only to a specific type of purpose so as to prevent it potentially developing into a trend for human enhancement (Streiffer, 2005). Furthermore, people who have the “ears” of thousands or millions of individuals (such as politicians or YouTube stars) should advocate for the ethical utilization of genetic engineering under the context of prevention instead of an enhancement. It is only through this that a safe and ethical means of utilizing genetic engineering can be assured.
Reference List
Anderson, C.E. (2000). Genetic engineering: Dangers and opportunities. The Futurist, 34(2), 20-25. Web.
Fox, D. (2007). Silver spoons and golden genes: Genetic engineering and egalitarian ethos. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33(4), 567-623. Web.
Gerdes, L.I. (2004). Genetic engineering: Opposing viewpoints. Chicago, IL: Greenhaven Press.
Hays, K. (2003). Genetic copy of cat not a copycat after all. Sun-Times. Web.
Herring, M.Y. (2005). Genetic engineering (Historical guides to controversial issues in America). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Ho, M. (2005). Genetic Engineering – Dream or Nightmare: Turning the Tide on the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business. London, England: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Nuenke, M. (2001). Improving nature: The science and ethics of genetic engineering. Mankind Quarterly, 41(3), 331-334. Web.
Rabino, I. (2003). Genetic testing and its implications: Human genetics researchers grapple with ethical issues. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 28(3), 365-402. Web.
Spier, R.E. (2002). Toward a new human species? Science, 296(5574), 1807-1808. Web.
Streiffer, R. (2005). At the edge of humanity: Human stem cells, chimeras, and moral status. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 15(4), 347-370. Web.