Human Genetic Enhancement - Essay Example

Human Genetic Enhancement The following article is an attempt to critically investigate into the issue of genetic enhancement of human beings. One of the most controversial issues of present times, the topic inspired huge number of literature over the years and the weight in favor and against the topic is almost the same. This vast issue has been structured by using United States of America as our point of concern and it has been investigated through this article that whether a restructuring of the society through genetic enhancement would be a feasible option or not. Introduction: The advancement of science over the years made human beings more and more explorative and adventurous in thoughts and actions. His indomitable spirit refuses to be bounded by the natural law and human being, as mortal as anyone else is even searching for immortality. When Leonardo De Vinci drew the first diagram of human wings, even he perhaps did not think that one day his fellow specie would even think of having his own wings and that is not mechanical (Slater 57), rather a separate extension of his body just like his god’s gifted hands. But is that everything? Is it desirable to go against the natural law? Is it desirable to create a world for super humans more genetically enhanced and perhaps quite different from what we are today? Genetic enhancement even speaks about trans species, i.e. a culmination of several species into one. The philosophers, the economists, sociologists and people from different arena of our society are expressing their views on the issue. If some are quite hopeful about the outcome of the genetic enhancement, then some have also focused on its evil sides. While the philosophers’ main debate is on the selection of natural law, the sociologists express their concern over the complicacies that may arise from genetic enhancement into our cultural identity. The economists has often expressed their doubt that his process of genetic enhancement may increase socio-economic inequality and our world quite skewed even without genetic enhancement might become a home only for the ‘haves’. Literature review: The topic genetic enhancement comprises of huge number of literature coming from all spheres of intellect. On one hand, some people belonging to the medical professions are dreaming about providing a human being with some added features that belong to some other specie like Slater (2001) and some have tried to justify human genetic enhancement on utilitarian ground like Allhoff (2005). However the vote against genetic enhancement through the literature are by no means feebler than those in favors. Theorists like Richard A. Epstein (1994), Francis Fukuyama (2003), Posner and Posner (1999) all seem to explain the evils of genetic enhancement and the complexities that may arise without regulations of genetic enhancement and a proper understanding and building consensus against the same. This article is mainly a culmination of the good and evils that may arise from genetic enhancement and an effort to explore some new horizons regarding genetic modifications. The above intellectuals who are vocal against genetic enhancement from different aspects have been taken into a single cocoon in the following article with some modifications of their thoughts, logics and ideologies. Thesis: Human genetic enhancement should not be allowed to ultimately transform the American family. Genetic enhancement vs. Genetic therapy: A popular debate is whether genetic enhancement is the other name of genetic therapy or they two are different issues (Walters and Palmer 55, 99). In bioethics these two terms are mutually exclusive. The difference between therapy and enhancement can be portrayed through this example that when a person faces a problem and needs it to be corrected through medical intervention, then it is therapy. The problem can be anything like cancer treatment or something else. On the other hand if a person is opting for cosmetic surgery to make some modifications in the body then it is enhancement. This distinction is somewhat a very vague one. Its boundaries are not clearly specified and can easily be mixed in critical situations. Though intellectuals like Fukuyama accepts this distinction when he says, “Even in the cases where the border line between sickness and health, therapy and enhancement, is murkier, regulatory agencies are routinely able to make these distinctions in practice.” (Fukuyama 209-10) The problem with Fukuyama is that he always assumed that statistical distribution is even (normal) and used standard bell-curved graph to represent that. His popular example with height goes somewhat like this: If the mean height of a man is five feet ten inches, then a standard bell curve will represent the normal distribution of men’s height. Then we have to take a certain number from the mean which will represent an area such that if the height enhancement measure lies within this, then this will be called ‘enhancement’ and the measure lying outside this boundary will be called therapy. The problem with Fukuyama is that he always considered a standard bell curve and considered the distribution of human height to be normal. This problem mainly follows from his consideration of binary (normal and abnormal) rather than a fuzzy logic, which would have been more appropriate. Another distinction, diverse from normal/abnormal classification, states that disease/non-disease distinction to mark therapy and enhancement would have been more appropriate. So, question arises which one is right. The following box- diagram culminates both the distinction process: Trait is: Normal Abnormal Disease 1. Susceptibility to Disease (Intervention: genetic vaccines = Therapy) 2. Cancer (Intervention: genetic cancer treatment = Therapy) Non-Disease 3. Eye Color (Intervention: changing eye color genetically = Enhancement) 4. Genetic Deformity that Garners Stares on Street (Intervention: genetic modification for next generation = Therapy) Actually normality and disease distinction are both complementary to each other and neither is sufficient alone to distinguish between therapy and enhancement. Actually they are two aspects of answering the same question. If we consider box 1 its therapy though it falls under normal circumstances for medical intervention. Box 2 is unambiguously therapy as it is abnormal as well as disease. Box 4 is the reverse case of box 1 it is abnormal and non-disease and considered as therapy. Box 3 is a clear case of enhancement. Genetic screening and directed genetic change Directed genetic changes and Genetic screening are two phenomena that differ in the very fundament. Genetic screening updates us with what gene forms are existent. The screening is carried out on cells that have been removed from an embryo, child, fetus or an adult or, it uses techniques of gene analysis in order to render information regarding the presence and absence of specific human gene forms. These forms refer to those that are commonly associated with genetic diseases. On the other hand, human directed genetic change extends beyond the boundaries of screening and even incorporates attempts to bring about heritable alterations in the genes of human cells. All stages of human development, from embryos to adult individuals could find applications of these directed genetic changes. Some future prospects: As mentioned by Professor Lee Sweeney (September 2002), the introduction of the gene IGF-1 into muscle cells increases muscle health, strength, and efficiency. These techniques are used to treat human diseases such as many kinds of muscular dystrophy. Interestingly these techniques can also be used for non-medical enhancement of human muscle power. Athletes, the elderly, and young people interested in increasing their physical attractiveness and their performance level are the main demanders of such techniques (Genetics-and-Society). In near future genes those are capable of increasing the red blood corpuscles and production of erythropoietin will be at a high demand, mainly from the athletes as they will be capable of enhancing their endurance and performance by using these. Again if a gene that will be capable of secreting more growth hormone were introduced to increase height, it will receive phenomenal response from the market. Another aspect in near future will be the introduction of new form of genes those will be capable of building resistance into human body against certain pathogens (may be anthrax or small pox) those may be used for biological warfare. The benefits of genetic enhancement: It is a known fact now that certain diseases are related to genes such thalasemia and even cancer (onchogene). Genetic enhancement can get rid of these diseases. After the identification of the genes related to these diseases, proper gene therapy will lead to abolition of these diseases from the human society and in extreme cases, it might be that the new born will never be affected by these diseases. One of the serious genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs can be prevented through inheritable genetic modification that will allow couples to have safe babies. The homozygous couple both carrying defective gene can also give birth to healthy babies through IGM (Inheritable Genetic Modification). Again through genetic interference couples can have babies with more intelligence and more health. Genetic enhancement can be of great help in terms of reduction of IMR (Infant Mortality Rate) and increasing the average life span. Genetic enhancement can be a great leveler. Unlike the past when a person with special intellect could have only lived a special life, with enhancement each person can modify their genes to that extent so that they becomes intelligent enough to pursue an extra ordinary life (Genetics-and-Society). Legalizing genetic enhancement has one more explanation in its favor. With the high demand for the above, whether legal or illegal, genetic enhancement will remain in the market, as people are willing to pay for it. If it remains illegal, then it only encourages the black market. With high price and access to only a few rich people who will improve more and more and the social inequality will rise. Some people favoring genetic enhancement are even one step ahead. They say that it is better to have Mozart or Beethoven more frequently than once in our lifetime. One of the most stringent of the logic that has been extended so far in favor of genetic enhancement is that it may be capable of reducing the crime rate. If a criminal gets genetically modified where those genes which are responsible for his character gets subdued and separated, then he will become as normal as the rest. So there would be no crime and hence no tension in the law scenario (Clark and Grunstein 96, 157). A little loose logic that sometimes pops up in favor of genetic modification is extended by a group of dreamers - sometimes or the other all of us dream to be a bird or a fish so that we can satisfy our desire those will not be fulfilled due to the “specie restriction”. Imagine a man or woman having two wings or a separate extension below their waistline that may help in flying like a bird or swimming like a fish. Genetic enhancement and some moral issues Human civilization from its very beginning has been structured through natural selection. Interference with the law of nature can prove costly and in time may cause some permanent damage. Firstly, each human being is unique since genes could not be replicated previously. Now, with the advancement in science and genetic technology, if genes can be replicated, then natural selection will hold no significance. Mozart is Mozart solely because of his talent, but we recognize that talent and respect his achievement only because a Mozart comes once in a lifetime. Creative art is not always a MIB (More is Better) good. Its rarity and uniqueness is what allures us. Secondly, human society is mesmerizing due to its diversity among its mass and this diversity in each generation gets more diversified through the process of natural selection. Now, if through genetic enhancement, science starts replicating genes and genetic diversification converges into a specified standard (certain scales related to good and bad, beautiful and ugly, heavenliness and evilly), then the genetic diversity that somewhere is responsible for advancement of the human civilization, will be destroyed and the consequences of these are unknown. Thirdly no one can guarantee that in a mixed world with both good and evil prevailing beneath the same horizon, only the good will be replicated. None of us want another Hitler or another Bin Laden to graze on the Mother Earth again and if the odds go against us, at the same time. Fourthly, as the statistics show, the cost of genetic enhancement is too high for ordinary people to take advantage of. In this skewed world, in terms of per capita income and other development index, if only riches would be capable of taking advantage of the genetic enhancement, it will raise the skew ness to a greater degree and global inequality will rise to a phenomenal level. Fifthly, the cost of genetic enhancement is not the only matter that concerns people. The advancement in technology as well as genetic enhancement research differs from one country to another. One cannot compare between United States of America and Somalia in terms of technological advancement. Again, with the presence of globalization increasing the competitiveness between the nations and hostile military environment prevailing in some part or the other of the world, it is hard to think that countries will easily share their technologies among them. So a technological advancement subject to a particular country in genetic enhancement may prove fatal to another nation. The arguments that were given in favor of genetic enhancement have their rebuttals as well. It is not only gene therapy that can prevent the couples from passing genetic diseases to their off springs. Egg and sperm donation and adoption are very commonly practiced actions that can help to reach the same goal without genetic manipulation. To enrich the life of our off spring several other ways than genetic enhancement (like good and proper food education and facilities, careful upbringing of the child) are present, hence even that logic in favor of genetic enhancement carries little strength. ‘If genetic enhancement remains illegal then it will encourage black marketing and therefore it is better to legalize the technology’ is a somewhat ridiculous idea. If this can be put as logic then someone may come forward and say that murder and abuse occurring in our society should be made legal. Formation of a strong law with proper implementation and monitoring can easily get rid of the black market and for that the market should not be legalized at any cost and under any circumstances. Regulation and Genetic enhancement Regulating genetic enhancement is one of the toughest jobs for lawmakers and implementers. The regulation has to be imposed from both demand and supply side. An individual seeking for genetic enhancement has to impose self-regulation and abstain from going forward to adopt genetic enhancement (Mehlman 690). On the professional side technologists involved in research regarding genetic enhancement should keep away from carrying research personally or in association with any institute (Mehlman 692). Organizations such as American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians have already issued ethical guidelines regarding genetic enhancement research. In general they involve: a) Meaningful benefits to child b) Equal access to all c) No trade of with characteristic or traits Genetic enhancement research involves huge funding and even that can be curbed through regulations. This will definitely put a cork on the bottle. The problem with such regulations is that it can be applied only to government funding but not third party funding (Mehlman 695, 696). Again FDA (Food and Drug Association) particularly for American Market has a lot of responsibilities regarding taming the onrush of genetic enhancement. By putting strong market monitoring on these products the buyer and seller of genetic enhancement products can easily be identified and so its flourish can be stopped (Mehlman 691). Conclusion: The positive and negative sides of genetic enhancement have been explained so far. What is in the womb of the future? Is yet to be known and only time can provide the answer. But one thing is quite clear that at present it is not conducive to allow genetic enhancement research to free flow. A proper regulatory framework has to be found at first and that is harder than what our society faced before framing the intellectual property right. One thing is there that with a proper regulatory framework the genetic enhancement research, which seems to be a curse till now, may turn into a blessing (with a clear distinction being made between genetic enhancement and genetic therapy). Future studies and research in this regard (a proper regulatory framework for genetic enhancement program) would be really interesting and helpful to human society. References: 1. Allhoff, Fritz. “Germ-Line Genetic Enhancement and Rawlsian Primary Goods.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15.1 (2005): 39–56. 2. Botkin, Jeffrey. Access to the Genome: The Challenge to Equality. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1998. 3. Clark, William R., and Michael Grunstein. Are We Hardwired? The Role of Genes in Human Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 4. Epstein Richard A. “The Legal Regulation of Genetic Discrimination: Old Responses to New Technology.” Boston University of Law Review 74.1(1994): 12-13. 5. Fukuyama Francis. Our Posthuman Future Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003. 6. Genetics-and-Society, Inheritable Genetic Modification Arguments Pro and Con. 2nd August 2007. < http://www.genetics-and-society.org/technologies/igm/arguments.html> 7. Mehlman, Maxwell J. “How Will We Regulate Genetic Enhancement?” Wake Forest Law Review 34.3 (1999): 671–714. 8. Posner Eric A. & Richard A Posner. “The Demand for Human Cloning.” Hofstra Law Review 27.3 (1999): 579-80. 9. Slater, Lauren. “Dr. Daedalus.” Harper’s Magazine 303.1814 (July 2001): 57-67 10. Walters, LeRoy, and Julie Palmer. The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy. New York: Oxford Universit-y Press, 1997. Read More