Karakter givet: 12

Afleveret som terminsprøve i Engelsk B, 2. G. HTX Viborg

Summary

59% of Britons are in agreement with stem cell research. A slight majority, 51%, are in favour of genetic engineering when done so to correct physical defects in unborn children. This is a positive change in the public’s attitude towards genetic engineering and is good news for scientists working in that field. Stem search research is advancing fast. A stem cell is a cell that is capable of growing into any of the 300 different cells in one’s body. Currently, researches extract them from discarded embryos. British scientists are seeking approval to create embryos by fusing human cells with animal eggs, because it will help them combat some debilitating and untreatable neurological diseases. If they get the approval they plan to create embryos that are 99.9% human and 0.1% rabbit or cow. There is still a large resistance to creating designer babies. Only 13% are in support to parents’ rights to design their unborn child. (155)

Commentary

I am to comment on this text:

“If they get approval from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority they plan to create embryos that will be 99.9% human and 0.1% rabbit or bow by fusing human cells with animal cells.” (lines 15-18).

First I would, like any person with knowledge about biology, say that this paper is not written by an expert on the subject. No expert would ever say that an embryo was 99.9% human. They would not because there is no such thing as 99.9% human. If they mean to say that the new embryo will share 99.9% of its genes with our role model human, then they should do so. However, there would not be much point. We humans are not above the animal kingdom, for instance, we already share c. 98% of our genes with chimps. We also share about 40% of our genes with plants, what is the big deal?

The second thing is the notoriously use of the word ‘animal’. The author writes that they will fuse human cells with animals. Human cells are animal cells themselves. What the author really should be telling us is that they will fuse animal with animal cells. I’m tired of this religious nonsense of excluding humans from the animal kingdom. We’re animals – deal with it. (178)

Discussion

I am to discuss “whether genetic engineering on humans should become more commonplace.” And I must base my discussion on both texts.

It’s a quite hard job to discuss whether something should be more commonplace or not. What would it require if something should be more commonplace? It should be morally good in some way. Is genetic engineering good is some way? Yes, in multiple ways:

1. It helps treat and eradicate diseases
2. It helps to increase human potentialities

Only the most stubborn and often religious people have a problem with the first. They believe that we humans should be grateful for whatever god gives us and should not modify it in anyway, because god’s way is perfect. In other words, they say that we should not play gods. The most obvious problem with this line of thinking is that there are no gods. The best argument, as far as I know, against genetic engineering per se would be to technology pessimistic opinion towards it. A such opinion could probably be argued by saying that the consequences are unknown and may be very dire. The obvious problem with such an argument is that it can be used against any technology at time t. Before we built cars, boats, airplanes, telephones etc. we did not know the consequences because one never knows the future with complete certainty.

If they could give good reason that a morally evil thing would happen as a result of genetic engineering to combat diseases, we would have good reason not to use it. I believe that such good reason does not exist.

Somewhat related to the first is the use of genetic engineering to create embryos that share the same tissue type as a sibling and therefore can be used to treat cancer etc. The second text talks about this issue and calls it ‘unethical’ but does not say why. I think I know why. This method is (maybe) ignoring the practical imperative (hereafter PI) – treat all humans as an end per se and never only as a mean to accomplish something. (From memory. It was originally Immanuel Kant who wrote it in the 1800^th century.)

They might think that the technique is ignoring the PI because they did not get the new baby because they wanted a new baby, but because they wanted to cure their first child. But how do we know that they only want to use the second child to cure the first one? We do not. Perhaps they wanted more children all the time and also want to save their original child from some disease. If one was to choose between having a new child and having a new child and curing your fist sick child, who choose the first option?

But even if we granted the enemies of genetic engineering that this method ignores the PI, then what? When you go to the supermarket, do you see the shop assistant as an end in herself? No. It would hardly to possible to live in a modern society if we were to follow the PI as an absolute ethic rule. By absolute I mean if the PI says no, then it is definitely a no and it does not matter what other ethical principles say.

Finally, it should also be noted that all ethical judgment is subjective, there is no objective basis to form an ethical opinion on. Society should not force the inhabitants to use a specific morale code, except the ones that are strictly necessary for the society to exist. Examples of these are, murder is wrong, stealing is wrong etc.

The second point is also one I am in favour of. There are arguments against it that are worth discussing. First let us contemplate the argument from divided societies. The idea is that if we improve some embryos and not others, we will, in time, create a divided society where the new and improved humans have more rights than the old ‘natural´ humans. The proponents of such an argument envision that a society like that would be terrible to live in for the weak humans. They then employ some kind of utilitarianism to prove that positive genetic engineering would be morally wrong. Utilitarianism that is the notion should a morally correct act is one that helps us reach a situation with as much happiness for as many people as possible.

The argument seems to rest on the idea that not everyone could get their genes improved. This is probably true. Genetic engineering is very costly and therefore not everyone can afford it and no society could afford to give it to all the inhabitants, at least not at the same time.

But then what? This seems to rest on some form of equalism, the notion that everybody should be equal in some sense. In this context it is the idea that either everybody should have access to genetic engineering or no one should. Imagine if this notion was used at other things in society. Either everyone should have a large Mercedes or no one should have it. I am fairly sure that is not what they had in mind. Perhaps they mean that everyone should have to right to own a Mercedes or no one should. This seems more defensible. But then, it does nothing, the problem was not that everybody did not have the rights to genetic engineering but that not everybody can afford it.

And even if we had a split society like they envision and portray in popular culture (I am thinking of Galactica, spelling is probably wrong) then what? We already have something like this. They are called classes. Some people live in the middle class, some in the lower class and a small minority lives in the upper class. Is this not fair? We must try to remember why there are classes in the first place. People are not the same, people are different. Some people are better at making money than other people. Some people work harder than other people, have they not earned their reward?

One should earn his own place in society. It is impossible to avoid in practise. Smart parents will attempt to make their children smart too. There is a connection between wealth and happiness.

I want to make a final argument for the use of genetic engineering. It is based on freedom. It is the freedom to improve oneself and the things around one. If I want to improve my skills at English I need to practice and perhaps read a book. If I want to improve my skills at running, I should probably start exercising more and quit playing computer. But, what if I wanted to improve my intelligence? Am I not allowed to do so? Intelligent people earn more money and I want to earn more money. There is a connection between genes and intelligence, because if intelligence was not, at least partly, genetic, evolution could not have improved it, but evolution did and so it must be genetic. But, I’m already an adult, so I can not improve myself. I can, however, improve my future children. I wish the best for them, and therefore I wish for them to have more intelligence so that they can better reach their goals. Note that I do not tell them what their goals should be. I only help them reach their goals by making them more skilled. Is there any reason why I, as a future parent, should not use genetic engineering?

If humans were more intelligent, we could advance technology much faster than we do now. Technology is mostly a good for humans. It increases the overall life quality of humans, why should we not want more and better technology faster?

Lastly, I want to point out that general opinion of the society is turning. Older people are more stubborn and more religious, i.e. younger people are less religious and therefore younger people will favour genetic advancements more than old people. This is exactly what we are finding. According to the first text, only 13% of the respondents to the ICM survey said yes to genetic improvement (designer babies). However, when they asked people between 18 and 24, the number was 20%. What are we waiting for? After all, I do not live forever.