Relationship between Science and Society - Essay Example

Mohannad Alsaikhan Prof. Frank Smith English W-131 03/09 The relationship between science and society has been one that is characterized by high friction. Every society is made up of beliefs and taboos that define what is moral and what is immoral in the society. Every society has cultures that they perceive superior than other cultures and are unchallengeable. Most societal values appear to be at risk of being phased out by scientific processes, thus objection by most people in the society. The idea of step up evolution has always been a centre of focus, with scientist advocating for the creation of technologies that will ensure the production of resilient population amidst numerous health challenges in future. On the other hand, critics of science assert that technologies such as genetic engineering are threat to humanity and contravene societal values and morality, thus creating a tussle between science and society. In Trusting the Future? Ethics of Human Genetic Modification (Op-Ed), Stephanie Saulter explores the extent to which the modern society can trust the future for making the right decision about human genetic modification (Saulter 1). The implication is that the current society attaches too many ethical concerns for genetic engineering of humans though there has been a tremendous success in assisted reproduction and Mitochondria replacements. Saulter argues that the current taboo-driven objection to using technology to promote diversity is unjustified because of the possibility of the human race depending on this technology to maintain its existence and avoid extinction of certain genetic attributes. The topic is about genetic modification of altering human genes to improve our fragile health. The article focused on reproductive and genetic medicine whereby mothers with high risk of genetic disorder through natural conception are given invitro fertilization or pre-implantation tissue to address the defect. This eradicates mitochondrial diseases by replacing the mothers faulty mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) with healthy mDNA from a donor egg and in effect having a third DNA in the reproduction which cause a debate for its propriety. Even though many societies are resistant to technological advancements in the field of medicine, the technologies remain crucial part of survival technique of the human race. This paper explores Saulter’s arguments and delves further to offer response to the main ideas discussed by the author. The article provides enough arguments to address the rhetorical question of what the modern society should consider ethical or not ethical. Central to the argument is that the evolution is the basis for human existence and continued civilization. The author, therefore, argues that at no point, the modern society should not refuse technologies that are poised to make life better and continue their existence on earth. In this case, Saulter uses Aristotle’s pathos to appeal to the emotions of his audience so that the society can focus more on the benefits of genetic engineering rather than remaining stuck with traditions that are posed to throw the human race into preventable deaths. To persuade the audience, Saulter first refers to a case of preventing disability in children. Though it takes proper pre-natal and post-natal care to prevent some conditions, genetically inherited conditions still manifest themselves despite good care and precautions during pregnancy (Saulter 1). Here, the author adeptly gets into the readers’ minds of reasoning and attempts to convince the audience that genetic engineering is aimed at ensuring a healthy society in the future. The article takes its audience to an explanation of how genetic engineering technologies like mitochondria replacement are changing the new face of genetic diversity. Though societal beliefs and taboos might be against artificial enhancement of parents’ DNAs to produce desirable genes and characteristics among children, Saunter believes that this is the only of maintaining human genetic diversity. Saulter tries to win the readers over to share her feelings by strongly appealing to their emotions. For example, when she questions why the society objects what is beneficial to its continued existence. Saulter effectively appeals to the emotion of her audience when she says “save many thousands of people from disease-wracked lives and early deaths.” The author also appeals to the readers that some people are not viable to produce children though there is technology to incorporate their genes in the reproduction process. In this case, technology is useful for continuing human diversity and should not be considered as unethical by the society. This is a classic application of pathos to manipulate the feelings of the audience to share the same feelings with the writer. Saulter also uses Aristotle’s ethos to persuade her audience to share her point of view. According to the article, the society is ever changing, and evolution of the human race has been accommodating diversity (Saulter 1). Therefore, the author appeals to traditions and taboos that are still based on the perception of the previous centuries that human existence is natural and that technology should not be a means of changing and modifying the human race. Furthermore, the article appeals to people who are not viable for childbearing to reconsider how best they can contribute to the diversity of mankind. The author carefully chooses her vocabulary in order to ensure that her argument is well understood by the readers. She diligently mixes easy vocabulary with medical terms, creating an excellent flow of ideas put at the readers’ disposal to digest. Saulter convinces her audience that technology is the only way the human race can avoid the extinction of certain genetic characteristics and is the foundation for the future generation. Saulter acknowledges that genetic engineering technology will “produce children carrying the genes of three people, not two.” She proceeds to question if this is a reason enough to object the process. Here, Saulter displays artistic application of ethos when she gives a balanced approach to her argument by acknowledging the reason of objections raised against genetic engineering then diligently presenting the importance of the technology, which seems to override the objections, thus appealing to conscious minds. Her rhetorical tone or language creates monologue among the audience so that they can debate amongst themselves on the implication of genetic engineering on continued existence and diversity of the human race. There are portions in the article that I agree and there are also others that I do not agree. I agree with the part where Saulter discusses mitochondrial replacement and other successful medical processes. She sums up her argument that even though medical technologies may not be 100 percent successful and surrounded by much uncertainty, it is not a reason enough to stop genetic engineering. I agree with the paragraph because it reflects the reality that mitochondrial replacement is artificial but so are other treatments that we have. Just because it is unnatural, it does not mean that it is bad. It is in fact beneficial to us because it repairs defective DNA which could potentially bring diseases to the baby. In effect, it allows the baby to live a healthier and fuller life. This procedure in not only limited to the mitochondria that we replace but also on other things such as organ transplants that save lives. In essence is the same with mitochondrial replacement and we do not object to it. Advances in science and medicine should be made use of to improve our health and protect our fragile bodies. Of course none of this is 100 percent sure to work but the likelihood that we will benefit from it is tremendous and its uncertainty should not discourage us from trying it. I also agree with Saulter’s assertion that we should not object genetic engineering technology on the basis of ethics founded on traditional taboos that only predispose the human race to extinct in the future. The world is presently facing many challenges from pollution to global climate change, which are taking a toll on human health. The aim of genetic engineering is to ensure that human race is resilient the adverse changes in the environment and also to eliminate deadly health defects. Therefore, concur with the author on the fact that people should not disown a potentially crucial technology that would ensure the survival of human race into the future because of unfounded reasons. Ethical standards should give way to genetic engineering technology because it is best for ensuring continuation of human diversity, which has now taken the center stage of the modern society. I disagree with the author’s support for the creation of designer babies. I disagree with the author’s stance because this is where I draw the line in science and medicine. Even though Saulter sees this as no reason enough to object genetic engineering technology, it surely raises questions whether the technology is meant to make life better or wipe out the existing generation and replace it with artificial generation. We can strive modify or cure what is defective, but we should not create entirely new sets of human beings. Just because we have the technology and know-how to improve our health and body through the manipulation of our genes, it does not give us a license to become God and create our own designer baby. Creation is a job for God and as humans; we can only address whatever defect we have so that we can live a fuller life. Therefore, Saulter’s argument that this is not reason enough for objection of the technology seems inadequate. To sum up, Saulter’s article is a classic presentation of the antagonism that exists between the societal ethics and science. While some people acknowledge changes taking place in the society and embrace developments in medical technology, others have remained pessimistic. The author brings out the reasons why people object genetic engineering technology. She attempts to convince the audience that the importance of the technology far much outweigh the disadvantages that make people resist it. Despite the fact that people are pessimistic about genetic engineering, the technology remains crucial for the survival of mankind amidst pilling challenges, which are health hazards. Read More