Introduction
People have known since time immemorial that it is possible to breed animals and plants to enhance their desirable characteristics and to ‘breed out’ their undesirable traits. Moreover, they have argued that, since it is possible to breed horses for speed or stamina, it ought to be possible to breed human beings for specifically human qualities such as intelligence and kindness, and sociability. With the advent of genetics after the discovery of DNA and the subsequent development of recombinant DNA techniques, the vision reemerged in a new guise.
Genetic research proposes great opportunities for humanity to treat incurable diseases and change their negative features, thus it hides many threats because of unexpected and non-predictable results, ethical and moral dilemmas.
Main body
The new techniques provided a way of isolating specific genes and of inserting them in the cells of gene-caused diseases such as sickle cell anemia. The inserted gene would then take over from the defective genes. More than 4000 diseases are thought to result from the defective functioning of a gene or a set of genes and if it were possible to identify the location or site of each gene on a chromosome, it might also be possible to replace the defective gene by gene therapy or gene manipulation (Watson 547). At present scientists have identified some specific gene defects or abnormalities: some of these defects increase the risk of diabetes, others are linked to the risk of manic-depression and schizophrenia, others again result in dwarfism, or the terrible disability (Baird 15). Many of the so-called monogenic diseases–those caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene–can now be detected while the embryo is in the womb. At present, the only alternatives for a woman carrying an embryo with a severe genetic disorder are either to go through with the pregnancy or to have it terminated. But it has become possible to detect genetic abnormalities from single cells taken from IVF embryos before they are implanted and a woman likely to have a genetically defective child can now select genetically normal embryos before they are implanted (Baird 12). This obviates any need for the termination of pregnancy. In the past anti-abortion groups have opposed genetic screening because if a fetus were diagnosed as having a severe genetic disorder such as cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy, abortion was the only alternative for the mother. Now, however, it is possible for some women at least to avoid having an abortion. In any case, genetic screening probably saves more fetal lives by enabling couples with a high risk of transmitting a genetic disorder to continue pregnancies. Without testing and screening, they would have in many cases decided to abort the fetus or not to have children at all (Baird 13).
Some people argue that this kind of genetic intervention is motivated by the desire of parents to have a ‘perfect child and an unwillingness to accept what nature and the genetic lottery come up with. It is hard to understand this kind of objection. Anyone who knows something about the terrible, dehumanizing, effects of some genetic diseases would want their children to escape them if it were possible (Watson 547). It’s not a matter of wanting to have a ‘perfect child made to order; it’s simply wanting to have a child who is not going to develop into a human vegetable, or suffer total paralysis, or have gross deformities. In my view, parents likely to have children with such genetically caused diseases have a moral obligation to take what means are at hand to avoid passing on those genetic defects to their offspring. Remedying genetic defects in this way is sometimes called ‘negative’ eugenics in that we are using our knowledge of human genetics to get rid of certain defects and are not directly attempting to improve or enhance the human stock. This latter is called ‘positive eugenics’ and is more or less identical with the program of the old eugenics movement (Baird 15).
In spite of positive and promising outcomes of the genetic research and testing, all the most recent work in genetics has shown how extraordinarily complex the genetic control and regulation of human characteristics and functions are, and how impractical it is to manipulate most of the genetic mechanisms in any direct way (Watson 547). Some human characteristics and pathological conditions are controlled by a single gene and these are mostly manipulable, but many others are regulated by a number of genes interacting with each other in very complex ways. Some genes directly determine specific human characteristics, but others provide conditions or dispositions for human traits and functions (Krauthammer 22). Again, there is a continual reaction between genetic factors and external environmental factors. What this means is that, while it is quite feasible to predict that a number of single gene-based diseases will be able to be remedied by genetic manipulation, positive eugenics or the reshaping of human beings is, scientifically speaking, likely to remain an idle dream (Harmon 1).
Quite apart from the scientific impracticability of any kind of large-scale eugenics program, there are fundamental philosophical problems about the idea that specifically human characteristics such as intelligence or sociability can be genetically engineered. The eugenicist assumes that because we can genetically engineer changes in the physical or bodily makeup of animals (size, weight, stamina, et cetera) we can also engineer changes in our mental and emotional, and moral makeup. In other words, because researchers can breed cattle with larger frames and more flesh, they can breed human beings who are intelligent or kind, or aggressive. But intelligence and kindness and aggressiveness are dispositions quite unlike physical or bodily traits (Harmon 1). First, they are non-specific: think of the multitude of different ways of being intelligent or kind. Second, they are contextual since they can only be defined in particular contexts. Being aggressive, for example, maybe undesirable in certain contexts (for instance, in fostering social relationships), but wholly desirable in another context (for instance, in resisting an enemy). In themselves aggressive feelings or dispositions are neither desirable nor undesirable: it is what we do with them, how we employ them, that makes them morally desirable or undesirable (Krauthammer 21).
While genetic factors have an important influence upon human beings, the properly human realm comes into play only when those genetic factors are endowed with meaning. They provide the raw material, so to speak, out of which a multiplicity of human meanings are constructed (Watson 547). The dream then of genetically programming or designing human beings to have certain specific human traits (intelligence, courage, docility et cetera) is totally misconceived. Apart from the scientific unfeasibility of any program of positive eugenics and the philosophical objections to any such programs, there is the brute fact that genetic manipulation will be available for the foreseeable future only to a minute proportion of people in affluent societies (Krauthammer 20).
Conclusion
In sum, society must be aware of the possible uses and misuses that may be made of biotechnology in the future, but it distorts our thinking about the moral or human implications of gene therapy and other forms of genetic engineering if critics are always discussing them in terms of extreme and unreal possibilities. It also diverts us from attending to the social and ethical problems brought up by the less spectacular but nevertheless important forms of genetic therapy.
Works Cited
Baird, S. L. Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options? Technology Teacher. 2007 66 (7), pp. 12-16.
Harmon, A. My Genome, Myself: Seeking Clues in DNA. The New York Times. 2007. p. 1.
Krauthammer, Ch. Crossing Lines: A Secular Argument Against Research Cloning. New Republic 20. 2002, pp. 20-23.
Watson, J. Genome Ethics in Kress, A. Winkle, S. Next Text: Making Connections Across and Beyond the Disciplines. p. 547.