The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement - Book Report/Review Example

The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement Body Risks and Dangers of BME A. Ethical Issues Surrounding Sex Selection During or Prior to Conception Whenever technological progress throws up great new possibilities there are also attendant ethical dilemmas relating to such possibilities. Such is the case with genetic engineering in general and human biomedical enhancement in particular. Allan Buchanan is well aware of some immediate pitfalls for society if BME is allowed unregulatedi. One of the issues he raises is that of sex selection during pregnancy. In many parts of the world, especially in the developing world, there is a cultural and traditional bias toward male babies. From a sociological perspective a balance of equal population of male and female individuals is essential for the survival of the species. An unfettered BME system would totally skewer the sociological balance and may inadvertently set the species on a self-destructive spiral. Currently, at least as far as advanced industrial nations are concerned, there are laws that protect foetuses at advanced stages of pregnancy. But with advanced BME the sex of a baby could be preconfigured using sophisticated techniques during the conception stage itself. Some feminists are even claiming that a mother has the ‘right’ to select the sex of the baby. But such extreme views border on the nonsensical and infringe on natural reproductive processes. Hence, there are a lot of questions pertaining to ethics which BME advocates will have to answer. B. Permissibility of Measured Risks Although Agar warns of the dire dangers associated with radical genetic enhancements, he is not averse to therapeutic interventions. Indeed, in his earlier book Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement, Agar actually speaks in favor of enhancement. Allen Buchanan’s position on the debate is already the one favoring selective enhancements. Hence there is a concurrence between the two authors, at least, with respect to high-risk or competitive biomedical enhancements. It is fair to claim that both Agar and Buchanan only promote their viewpoints with necessary caution. Hence, if policy makers in leading governments across the world would heed to their measured advice, there is unlikely to be a scenario of post-humansii dominating those left unenhanced. Nicholas Agar raises another important objection to the dangers of radical biomedical enhancementiii. He posits a future society where genetically enhanced post-human species would dominate (or eliminate altogether the species homo sapiens as we know it)iv. Since it is technologically advanced societies of the First World that would be able to afford enhancement procedures, those in the under-developed world, already languishing in povertyv and political instability, who would soon become second-rate humansvi. Body 2: The Essence of Humanity and the Ethics of Enhancement A. Effects of BME on the Conventional Idea of Humanity, Human Relations, Intimacy and Reproductive Methods In Agar’s well researched book he articulates an important reason why radical enhancements should be forbidden. He argues that the very idea of humanity is intrinsically linked to certain species-specific values and perspectives. These are contained in our culture, art, relationships and understanding of morality. For example a hallmark of good theatre is the apt combination of logos, pathos and ethos. The radical enhancement project aims to reduce or eliminate human capacity or necessity for all the three qualities. A human being’s range of expression in these areas is likely to be reduced after radical enhancement. Moreover, it is imperfections in human behavior and thought that give merit to the near-perfect accomplishments of high art and high culturevii. By attempting to make humans ‘perfect’ something essential to humanity – something most valuable and cherished - is also lost. Another unsavory result of a future culture of radical enhancement is the nature of reproduction itselfviii. All the time-tested and finely attuned rules of natural evolution would be tossed aside, including the ever-interesting courtship rituals, romance and sex. In fact much of our culture and art is based upon love and romance. In the high-tech future world that practices radical enhancement, science laboratories would replace bedrooms. Natural pregnancy and child-birth would be made redundant. In its place would emerge an assembly line for specially engineered babiesix. In light of this eerie and depressing possibility, one can sympathize with Agar’s concerns. B. Implications of BME for Cherished Human Values While Agar seems to be concerned about the loss of human heritage that has been acquired so millennia of civilization, Buchanan tends to disagree. The latter claims that though we need to be proud of what our ancestors have achieved in intellectual and artistic pursuits, the evolution of our species has not reached an endpoint. In other words, while there are many admirable qualities and traits that define human beings they are nowhere near perfect. The current state of geo-politics and inter-communal relations stand testimony to this assessment. Buchanan thus dismisses biomedical enhancements on the grounds of ‘character’ and ‘human nature’x. In effect, those who resort to arguments on the basis of these vague and high sounding terms are actually undermining their own position. Critics of Agar have censured him for being a ‘speciesist’, implying a current of discrimination in his positionxi. But as Agar has logically rebutted, one cannot discriminate against something that is not in existence yetxii. Agar’s condemnation is through the method of a scientific hypothesis. Body 3: The Soundness of Selective BMEs A. Enhancements are Integral to the Evolutionary Process Buchanan raises a few valid points in support of selective enhancements. He argues that enhancement is an integral feature of human existencexiii. For example, there are over-the-counter memory enhancement pills that many use. Nobody blinks an eye, let alone bring ethical considerations, in this case. Likewise, one could even argue that basic education (literacy and numeracy) in itself endows an individual a marked advantage over someone who cannot read or count. This advantage is so profound that it has a bearing on critical parameters like life expectancy or quality of life. Such ‘enhancements’ are no different from those that are likely to be accomplished through the modern scientific methods of genetic engineeringxiv. Moreover, as Buchanan cogently states, even the natural process of evolution through natural selection is one of continuous enhancements. These enhancements, though, are not intended to produce ‘better’ human beings, but merely to equip them with best chances for survival and further reproductionxv. Notwithstanding this biological objective of evolutionary processes, ‘enhancements’ are central to how they work. In other words, it is unfair to accept co-evolutions and natural genetic change but condemn artificial scientific methods for deserving cases. B. Positive Networking Effects of BME Allan Buchanan has been a staunch proponent of the synergistic effects that would ensue BME practices. He contends that just as group selection theory is found to be robust in species evolution, there would be similar ‘networking’ effects associated with legalized and standardized BME practices. For example, a person who is literate cannot use his language skill unless he has ‘others’ who are equally well versed in it. In this fashion, those seeking to benefit through enhancement cannot do so in isolation. If, say, someone develops an exceptional capacity to hear very-low frequency sounds. He will not be able to communicate or share his experience with those unenhanced. The same applies for any enhancement that is markedly superior to the prevailing human capacities. In such a scenario the enhanced individual would more likely become a curiosity or a mutant than a virtuoso in any walk of life. What Buchanan essentially reiterates is the conventional wisdom that ‘no man is an island’. Having made it clear that enhancements on isolated individuals would serve no purpose, Buchanan offers the best arrangement for availing BME in the futurexvi. He contends that only under positive network effects does BME prove effective at all. He thus alleviates fears of unfair advantages acquired by select individuals. C. Caution about Polarization within Humanity In this vein some of the apprehensions raised by Agar are answered as well. For example, Agar expresses concern about the polarizing effects of radical enhancement, whereby a subtle form of racism or homophobia is instilled in society. Those naturally endowed with dark skin complexion or genetically predisposed to homosexuality might be forced to ‘remedy’ their condition through radical enhancement procedures. Such an outcome is quite tragic, for it dampens diversity in social demography and in consequence results in ‘homogenization’ of the population. One need only to imagine a world where all individuals are white skinned and have the same sexual orientation to sympathize with Agar’s concern. Hence, Agar advocates consideration of all possible ethical conundrums before introducing radical enhancement into mainstream medicinexvii. He quite rightly argues that the burden of proof lies heavily upon the promoters of radical enhancement. Although Agar raises alarm with respect to radical BME, he is not against scientific progress and its real world applications. As he aptly analogizes, one cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Hence prudence and measured risk-taking are warranted. However, given the great number of unknown factors and consequences of BME, he is not in favor of radical experiments on human subjects. When it comes to radical BME, even the stage of running trials is highly controversialxviii. Body 4: Consensus and Divergence Among Scholars A. Two Categories of Biomedical Enhancement (BME) Even within the field of human biomedical enhancement (which is as yet at a theoretical stage) there are two categories. The first are common or corrective enhancements which aim to set right a deficiency (acquired congenitally or through life events) in a human individual. The second are radical or strategic enhancements which are aimed to give a competitive advantage to the individual undergoing the procedure. Both Allen Buchanan and Nicholas Agar reject radical enhancements. Whereas Agar’s thesis is somewhat accommodative of benign and remedial forms of enhancement, Buchanan’s is more pessimistic. Hence the subject lends itself to numerous dimensions of ethical inquiryxix. As is often the case with major debates within science, the community of scientists are divided into two camps. The two camps are not necessarily antagonistic and in sharp opposition to each other’s positions. Rather, the degree of optimism or pessimism toward the human biomedical enhancement project is what separates the two. The two books perused for this essay represent the two dominant viewpoints in this debate. B. The Predominance of Rationality in the BME Discourse What both the books have in common is their emphasis on ethics over all other matters surrounding the debate. Often in the biomedical enhancement discourse, passions run high among debaters. The topic being so sensitive and having wide ranging implications, often draws out emotional responses from debaters. But what both Buchanan and Agar have brought to table is a cool and analytical method. They lay out logical arguments one after the other in a comprehensive and in-depth coverage to all angles of the topic. At the same time, the language and terminology they use are not too esoteric – they are accessible to the general reader. This is important because the questions surrounding BME (radical or otherwise) are not an academic concern, far removed from the general citizenryxx. To the contrary, their application and consequences are most affective on the real world. In this light, the two authors have done a stellar job of synthesizing specialist science and socio-culture. References: Allen Buchanan. Beyond Humanity? The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement. Oxford University Press. 2013. Nicholas Agar, Humanity’s End. Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement. MIT Press. 2010. Endnotes: Read More