Future Crime Scenario - Essay Example

Genetic engineering generates much debate. There are, to be sure, many benefits. Diseases such as Leukemia can be cured. On the other hand, there are those that feel uncomfortable with genetic engineering for scientific and ethical reasons. A doctor's creation of a new organism to use for human organ growth and transplant raises many significant issues. The first issue concerns possible victims. This, however, is mostly a speculative concern. A technology screening process can be implemented to ensure that the technology is safely conceived, tested, and implemented. This screening process will include strict risk assessments and bioethical considerations. Finally, the general public must be made to understand that they can benefit from this technology. There must be equal access to the technology. Future Crime Scenario Genetic engineering is a field that excites many passions. To be sure, it also instills many fears. One of the doctor's main objectives in this scenario is to genetically create and improve an organism for use in human organ growth and transplant. On a superficial level, this sounds reasonable. The potential benefits of human organ growth and transplant are substantial and, potentially, far-reaching. It has been noted that "the human diseases treatable by transplantation are diverse" (Fouda, nd), such as leukemia, sickle cell anemia, cirrhosis, familial hypercholesterolemia, cystic fibrosis, emphysema, diabetes, and Parkinson's disease. These are noble aims. It must be noted, however that there are fierce objections to genetic engineering. The overarching significance of the issues involved have been summed up by one leading commentator in bioethics thusly, [Biotechnology] is not simply another type of mechanical or chemical creation aimed at making the world better for us. In this instance, we are not simply reshaping matter, but are harnessing life. By manipulating life and natural evolution, we are taking the process that shaped our existence and that of every other living organism on the planet and restructuring it for our own benefit (Thompson, 1992, p. 32). These fears are reflected frequently in public policy debates (Koehler, nd), and often codified in specific legislative schemes. These issues affect all of us in one way or another. Genetic engineering is a public health issue as well as a criminal justice issue. It is a religious issue as well as an ethical issue. This essay will discuss whether there are victims of this type of crime, advocate a technology screening procedure for innovations of this sort, and suggest a few strategies to allow society a breathing time to evaluate these types of innovations prior to implementation. Victims: A Speculative Consideration The identification of victims in this scenario is complicated. It is complicated because people approach the issue from different points of view. As a preliminary matter, there are certainly potential victims. Whether these potential victims will ever become actual victims is unknown. These potential victims can be broken down into the following categories: (1) the organism itself, (2) animals subjected to testing, (3)humans subjected to testing, (4) the environment, and (5) the human being receiving the transplant. Initially, there is debate as to whether the organism created is entitled to the status of a human being. Is the organism, in short, a victim To the extant that the organism is engineered for a very specific purpose, human organ growth, attempts to characterize the organism as a victim are not persuasive. Animals subjected to testing are clearly victims. They suffer physical and emotional pain. That said, animal suffering can be minimized through a careful technology screening process. Human test is a different situation. To that degree that human beings volunteer for testing they are not really victims. This assumes, however, that they are well-informed of all possible risks at the outset and not suffering from any duress which might affect their judgment. The same is true for the humans receiving the transplant. It is true that these people assume the risks associated with the procedure. They might be pioneers in science, but they are not victims. The most complicated issue is the effects of these genetically created organisms on the environment. How will these new organisms affect our environment These are very important questions, but they remain speculative. You cannot have a victim in a hypothetical situation. This issue is better resolved by incorporating environmental concerns into the technology screening process and by implementing special strategic procedures to conduct testing. In short, a discussion of victims is in large part a speculative exercise. To the extant that there may be victims, such as animals, the victimization is quite insignificant when compared to the potential benefits. This doctor's research should be allowed, but it should be subjected to a rigid technology screening process and continuous oversight. Technology Screening: Risk Assessment and Bioethics Technology screening must be mandatory and strict. It should address both risk assessment issues and bioethical issues. While our knowledge of the world is improving, and while we are beginning to understand genetics more generally, there is no question that our knowledge is incomplete. The technology screening process should begin with the premise that this is a potentially dangerous technology. The presumption ought to be that less is better; more specifically, the technology should be tailored very particularly to attain narrowly-defined objectives. First, risk assessment must be included as an essential feature of the technology screening procedure. In the fields of biotechnology and bioindustry, "Risk assessments analyze the relative risks posed by possible toxic, pathogenic, and ecological effects of biotechnology and bioindustry" (Koehler, nd). Because of the significance of this issue, risk assessment should be comprehensive. It should incorporate all types of risk assessment rather than following one particular risk assessment philosophy. Risk assessment should first provide for an examination of the processes which underlie the design and the development of the new organism as well as the organism's effect on the environment. Second, risk assessment should approach the screening from a bioethical point of view; more specifically, there should be an examination and determination as to whether the specific organism being created or manipulated has inherent rights. Pre-Implementation Considerations: Special Technologies This is not a new computer chip. This is not a new brand of bread. This technology involves the creation of a new life form and the deliberate manipulation of that life form. In addition, although the effects of the organism are unknown, the potential dangers affect the entire world. Because of this special nature of the technology, there should be some additional guarantees for the public before this technology is implemented. The first guarantee is a wholesale ban on commercial sales. If this research is to be allowed, it must be allowed not in the name of profits, but in the name of public welfare. The second guarantee is that, to the extant possible, there is a sense of equality in terms of access to this technology. The costs associated with organ transplants are staggering, The development and use of technology related to organ and tissue transplants or artificial substitutes is expensive. For example, estimates of the costs of transplant procedures, without complications, "range from $20,000-$30,000 for a kidney, $60,000-$80,000 for a heart, and $120,000-$150,000 for a liver(Goddard, p. 43). The most important way to sooth public opinion is to make assurances that this technology is for their benefit. All the risk assessments and bioethical debates in the world will mean very little to people whom feel excluded from the benefits of the technology. Thus, the doctor's research should be allowed and it should be governmentally funded. A scheme for equal access should be formulated, presented to the public, commented upon, and then implemented. A poor person must be entitled to benefit on the same terms as a rich person. In short, the technology screening should be supplemented by strategies and programs which guarantee, to the extant possible, that the public in its entirety, benefits from the doctor's technology. Conclusion In the final analysis, the doctor in this scenario should be allowed to conduct his research. There are extraordinary benefits associated with his research. The quality of life of millions of people can be improved and previously incomprehensible diseases and afflictions understood and defeated. That said, the doctor cannot be allowed to begin his research without first being subjected to a rigid technology screening process. This technology screening process should apply risk analysis assessment and bioethical considerations to the doctor's proposed course of action. Particular attention should be paid to the scope of the doctor's work. Under no circumstance should he be allowed to engage in ancillary research which exceeds the scope of the technology screening. Equal access and strict governmental oversight must also be guaranteed. Special conditions are required for such an extraordinary type of technology. References Fouda, A. What is Biotechnology Cloning and Stem Cell Research. http://www.obgyn.net/english/pubs/features/presentations/fouda05/cloning.ppt Goddard, Hans (1992). No Easy Way to Figure Costs of Transplants. The Medical Post, 7 July 1992, 43. Koehler, Gus A. ETHICAL ISSUES AND RISK ASSESSMENT IN BIOTECHNOLOGY. Bioindustry: A Description of California's Bioindustry and Summary of the Public Issues Affecting Its Development. http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/96/07/BIOT_CH4.html Thompson, P. (1992). Animal Welfare and Animal Rights: An Overview. Discussion Paper CBPE 92-1, (College Station, Texas: Center for Biotechnology Policy and Ethics, Texas A&M University, 1992). Read More