Genetic Engineering Proponents Arguments - Essay Example

GENETIC ENGINEERING Introduction Also known as genetic modification, genetic engineering refers to the process of adding DNA to an organism using biotechnology with a goal to augment desirable new traits that are already unavailable in that organism (Brown 2015). There are many arguments for and against genetic engineering with different people commenting it for character enhancement among children while those against it have emphatically questioned the technology’s ethics and morality. This is an issue that for many years, has disturbed conservatives and liberals equally. Michael Sandel is among those against this technology for its insensitivity to ethics and moral values. He has written a book, The Case against Perfection; Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, expressing his concerns. To this effect, this assignment will explore the arguments of pro-genetic engineering group as well as those of Michael Sandel’s so as to determine whether genetic engineering exhibits a lack of virtue and a strong desire to control life. Further discussion will illustrate whether or not genetic engineering is immoral. Genetic engineering proponents’ arguments To objectively state whether genetic engineering exhibits lack of virtue as Sandel laments, it is noble to understand the motivation for pro-genetic engineering first. The argument is that a world without this practice in itself breeds inequality. For instance, genetically fir persons can aspire to be astronauts while a genetically unfit person will not as they are limited by their natural characteristics (Hall 2016). In a real world as they continue to argue, only a minority have what it takes (genetic configuration-perfect eyesight and physical fitness) for one to be an astronaut. Therefore, genetic engineering will afford more people a chance to become astronauts through genetic re-configuration to suit the desired genes, more or less enabling them to realize their dreams. Further arguments by the pro-genetic engineering group is that people in the real world are only polite in describing an individual’s unpleasant reality. They content that conservatives of genetic engineering covertly discriminate in a much more polite way. For instance, one would say that this person (referring to a short person) will find it difficulty playing basketball due to their height as compared to his competitors. The point is that genetic engineering provides an opportunity to eliminate challenging genetic configurations to many people as compared to the natural genetic privilege. To validate their argument, the proponents pose a question as to whether natural genetic inequalities are erratically and fraudulently doled out by nature in an expansive manner as compared to the engineered ones that may be earned through hard work. The pro-genetic engineering group is again sure that with a basis that is purely decentralized and only comprising free personalities and couples, is less likely to lead to eugenics as was observed with Nazi in 1930s where disabled babies and unfit individuals were killed. The argument is that they cure disabilities but the outstanding concern from their counterparts would be how they undertake the curing so referred? Following the individual’s free-will argument, pro-genetic engineering group in principle permits the conversion of all unfit genes to considerably the highest genetic level. This therefore explains why women will abort babies once their pre-natal tests reveal that they have Down syndrome or such other ailments. Further justification for this biotechnological development is that it helps in converting babies who would otherwise be disabled into healthy and normal ones thus reducing abortion rates. The pro-genetic engineers also explain that this biotechnological development potentially helps nations to transcend racism as for instance, being blond-haired and with blue eyes can be made to lose the racial discriminatory tinge since these traits are available in the genetic supermarket. The color of eye, skin and hair through genetic modification has turned out to be a subjective choice. In other words, the proponents argue that genetic engineering more or less encourages rather than discourages diversity and racial harmony. While admitting that genetic engineering could limit a child’s autonomy to shape their own destiny, proponents contend that all people’s destinies have already been limited by the virtue of their natural genetic configuration, one that they are born with and is unfortunately permanent. Example in support to this claim is that a short person may not be able to join a basketball team owing to their height limitation as they will not successfully compete against their taller peers and the same goes for a myopic child who wears glasses and has a dream of becoming a pilot. Arguably in this sense according to the proponents, in order to arrive at a common ground, genetic engineering is fundamental. This is because it has the ability to afford people a greater intrinsic propensity to follow their own happiness and realize their dreams through hard work, determination and effort. They continue to argue that people should be given the capability to become whatever they want to, rather than letting their choices be restricted by their genetic makeup. This is because everyone looks forward to a society where people are judged by their character’s content and not by the genes they have inherited. Genetic engineering according to Michael Sandel Michael Sandel argues that that genetic engineering shows a lack of virtue, through its ability to control people’s life and is indeed very immoral. His arguments are embedded on speaking to people’s gut-level doubts about genetic enhancement (Yeager 2016). . His endeavour is to give these doubts a coherent moral basis. Throughout the contents of his book, he gives a sentimental plea for reverence and humility rather than the typical lawyers’ watertight-case-against kind of criticism. His urge is for people to imagine and think of the thin line between health and enhancement. Further, he poses the challenge to the audience to examine where re-engineering our natures will ultimately lead in such a wild competitive world. First and foremost, Michael in his book states that this biotechnological advancement restricts the autonomy of a child to form their own destiny. The ability of parents through genetic engineering to remake the genetic makeup of a child is like writing down the genetic instructions that will outline that child’s entire life. For instance, parents will choose blue over brown eyes for their child, instead of medium height they choose tall, or a passive over an aggressive personality. These are changes that will permanently and directly affect the child throughout his life; it is denying a child the gift of naturally being who they were supposed to be (Yeager 2016). . This therefore renders genetic engineering immoral as it artificially shapes people’s lives, more than often, directing their destinies into directions that they freely would not have chosen. It greatly violates their fundamental human rights. Sandel expresses a concern that our culture is consumer-driven and too competitive. He goes on to state that children are being treated as commodities by modification of their DNA to suit what we prefer against natural cause. Sandel not only warns of the future’s shape, but also makes a call for the examination of our moral lives as well as our contemporary social values (Yeager 2016). Supporters of genetic enhancement practice have argued that this technology is not fundamentally dissimilar from other forms of enhancement used for the improvement of lives and those of our children. Sandel is in agreement, however, he does not base his contentions on a particular distinction in reference to any enhancement means. His profound concern rather, is the core push for mastery and dominion (Van Niekerk 2014). Genetic manipulation of embryos is expected to in the future, go beyond just diseases’ treatment but also to improvements such as making children taller, become more athletic, have higher IQs et cetera. But Sandel observes that there is a basis in reason considering the unease that people feel about such influences. People who readily accept genetic engineering to influence the character and personality of their children are seemingly insensitive to the values of acceptance and solidarity. Sandel’s arguments in his book provides a guide in the intellectual homily about parenting. Another illustration for lack of moral values in genetic engineering according to Sandel is the supposition that genetic engineering could lead to eugenics (possible improvement of human species via controlled breeding with the intention of amassing desired heritable characteristics). The idea of eugenics is to discourage reproduction by individuals with genetic defects or people presumed to have inheritable undesirable characteristics or, to encourage reproduction among people with presumed inheritable desirable traits (Yeager 2016). For instance, a British medical research team announced their plans to use what they considered cutting-edge science to eradicate autism condition. Apparently, their plan is neither to cure autism nor help autistic people by making their lives better. Rather, their hopeful plan is to eliminate autism by means of eliminating autistic people. It is a similar situation as for Down syndrome children whereby pre-natal tests are done to establish the foetus’s health status following which abortion-on-demand may be done if the child is affected. This has made people with Down syndrome an endangered population. Such a utilitarian interpretation of life portrays the creation of a master race as was observed with the Nazi. In other words, with such an attitude, genetic engineering essentially maintains discernment of the genetically unfit individual in the society, which is an indication of moral decay and loss of respect for humans’ right to life. Thirdly, vast social inequalities are likely to result from genetic engineering. Gattaca, a 1997 cult film portrays a certain group of individuals (the rich), as the ones capable of enjoying genetic enhancements i.e. as relates to desirable height, higher IQ, and impeccable eyesight among others, that only the rich can afford. In that movie, Vincent the main character is from a poor background and wishes to be an astronaut. However, his goal only remains a dream for he is short-sighted and has a weak heart. This is contrary to his brother who is modified genetically and has perfect health therefore is better placed to achieve his goals. The social inequality is clear in this case. It can therefore be deduced that genetic engineering widens the gap between the haves and have nots due to not only material possessions, but also genetic inequalities. This explains why Sandel states that genetic engineering aimed to advance advantage for ourselves as well as our children is extremely disempowering as it diverts from the communal good, towards a striving that is self-centred (Yeager 2016). No one single person is perfect and no one should be (Lanphier & Urnov 2015). Sandel wonders why the available genetic technologies should and have been creating feelings on uneasiness among people. He contends that a good starting point for bioethics should be about the kind of society that we want and the kind of people that we are, rather than a what-should-we-do attitude. His emphasis is on the fact that parents have formulated a mastery and domination drive for life by creating ideal children through the adoption of genetic engineering. His overall concern is that genetic engineering largely risks people’s loss of appreciation for life as a gift. According to Sandel, it is this perception that will bring a negative moral effect to the whole social structure, because our moral understanding has been overtaken by science. Conclusion As to whether Michael Sandel was correct in stating that genetic engineering exhibits a lack of virtue, and that it demonstrates a hubristic desire to control life, it cannot conclusively be argued that he was wrong or right. He raised concerns of inequality, non-respect for human life and deprivation of a child’s autonomy to naturally obtain genes to live as they would gave wished. Perhaps, genetic engineering has raised issues of immorality. However, proponents of genetic engineering also express justifiable reasons for the adoption of this biotechnological advancement. Arguments from either sides have raised questions worth responding to and just like any other scientific development, genetic engineering may have a share of its downfalls for which measures should be taken to redress them. For example, there are possible ways to address the issue of disparity creation due to inaccessibility of genetic engineering services by the poor as Sandel argued. This is by taxing the rich when they access the service and using the revenue so raised to cater for genetic engineering services among the poor in the society. One way or another, this will help amend the inequalities that result from genetic engineering sanctioning for a more equitable distribution of the service (Patra & Andrew 2015). In reverence to respect for human life, caution must always be taken to ensure that human life is preserved and esteemed at all times. Pro-lifer groups may take a lead-role in awareness creation to the society to safeguard moral ethics from scientific advances (Powell 2015). We should not be timid of change, and neither should we thwart the society from exploring this new scientific development especially for its potential medical and social concerns and benefits. Scientific developments often outdo strategies that define against them. For this reason, we should rather connect with genetic engineering due to its positive benefits while cautiously taking the steps necessary to perfect the concomitant effects. References Brown, M., 2015. Genetics, science fiction, and the ethics of athletic enhancement. The routledge handbook of the philosophy of sport. New York, NY: Routledge. Hall, M., 2016. The Bioethics of Enhancement: Transhumanism, Disability, and Biopolitics. Lexington Books. Lanphier, E. and Urnov, F., 2015. Don't edit the human germ line. Nature, 519(7544), p.410. Patra, S. and Andrew, A.A., 2015. Human, Social, and Environmental Impacts of Human Genetic Engineering. Biomedical Sciences. Powell, R., 2015. The Disvalue of Genetic Diversity, or: How (Not) to Treat a Sandelian Ethos on Steroids. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15(6), pp.29-32. Van Niekerk, A.A., 2014. Biomedical enhancement and the pursuit of mastery and perfection: a critique of the views of Michael Sandel. South African Journal of Philosophy= Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Wysbegeerte, 33(2), pp.155-165. Yeager, A., 2016. The Ethics of CRISPR: Using Human Germline Gene Modification to Prevent Genetic Disease. Read More