« Said about Eudoxa | Main | Är Kyoto-avtalet rimligt? »
June 01, 2003
How should we use biotechnology?
By Anders Sandberg.
Translated by Lene Johansen
In a Dutch fairytale a little boy saved the day by stopping the leak in the dam with his finger. This is the way we have viewed new breakthroughs in biotechnology. It is a crack in an otherwise well organized view on humanity and our own biology. Recent media stunts made the issue of human cloning current overnight, it starteled and frightened politicians, bio-ethicists and opinion makers. They immediately tried to plug the leak with prohibitions through the UN and research moratoriums. But what will happen when we run out of fingers?
It doesn't really matter if the sect leader Rael was bluffing, or if the researchers Zavos and Antinori have failed in cloning humans. New controversial breakthroughs in biotechnology can soon be expected anyhow. It could be children with genes from several parents, children whose abilities have been fortified or suppressed, humans with abilities from other species or newly invented biological abilities. We are already using genetic tests in healthcare to find inherited diseases and as a foundation for many new pharmaceutical products.
Even if we don't see a big market for cloned children nor many medical or legal opportunities for human genetic modification today, this is where we seem to be heading. If there is a feasability for any of these options, there is a clear probability that children will be born as clones or with modified genes. The questions we ought to ask ourselves are: what constitutes good bioethics after the genetic modifications have been done? What do we want to achieve by using this technology?
Biotechnology has increased our need to discuss the relationship between technology, nature and humans. But these questions are not relevant, or even possible in today's discourse. The sociologist John H. Evans addresses this in his new book "Playing God" (University of Chicago Press, 2002). At some point the discourse included questions like whether or not biotechnology served God's purpose, if it was relevant for the ideal human or would help us achieve the good life. These threads of discussion have disappeared without being answered. We are limited to a discussion on autonomy, instrumental use, justice and precaution.
The questions posed by biotechnology can not be answered by this list of easily quantifiable terms. Autonomy for example, implies that "children" not yet conceived should give an informed consent to having their genes modified.
Why has the discourse taken this turn? Why are there so few legitimate values that are pro-implementation left? One of the reasons pointed out by Evans is that the discussion has been captured by a league of professional bioethicists closely tied to legislators and administrators.
By separating out these issues as bioethics, rather than ethics in general, they have been removed from a broader public debate where intellectuals, philosophers and scientists can participate. New ethical issues posed by biotechnology are not addressed, especially not if they have to be put in a context containing other disciplines. For example in Sweden, the big issue concerning genetic testing turned out to be about insurance issues, while the more important question on what we are trying to achieve by introducing this technology was left out.
The bioethical studies that have been done have strived towards consensus; conflicts of values have been avoided at all costs and they have been focused towards goals that have been shared by all parties involved. The mere existence of regulation has had a tranquilizing effect on the debate, no matter the actual content of the regulations. This narrows down the discussion at the same time as the technology demands answers to new issues that are becoming more and more radical.
The motivation behind many of the proposed regulations that prevents cloning and genetic modification is to protect humans from harm in the widest sense of the word. There are objections based on purely medical risks, and there are objections on social, ethical and philosophical grounds. But in order to protect the narrow discussion you are limited to only discuss the technology in itself, not what you want to achieve by implementing it. The regulations aim to ban techniques, instead of the negative consequences of their implementation.
The narrow discussion claims that genetic anarchy will follow if you let the dam of bioethics burst; it automatically leads to acceptance of all types of modifications and reproductive techniques, no matter their consequences. One example of this way of thinking is Francis Fukuyama's book "Our Posthuman Future" (Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2002). He sees as the only option being prohibition on a global scale and international control bodies.
But is a prohibition against individual technologies really the way to go? One example that this is not a good bioethical strategy is the attempt to remove the alleged Raelian clone from the care of its parents in Florida.
Another interesting question is if children with modified genes should be allowed to reproduce themselves? Many of the arguments are based on the premise that it is wrong to spread modified genes in the human gene pool. The consequence of this stance is that children with modified genes should not be allowed to reproduce. Luckily there is hardly any democracy in the world today that would try to deem any of its citizens unfit to have children. So how do we solve the dilemma? If a nation would allow genetically modified humans to reproduce, could it simultaneously deny other parents to select their offspring's genetic makeup?
Another statement that is frequently made is that cloned children would have a hard time growing up due to expectations from their parents and prejudice in their surroundings. But if this is regarded as a valid argument to prevent human cloning, should it not also apply to other children that are expected to have a hard time during their childhood? That some parents see their children as extensions of their own aspirations happens even today. Again the focus has been on the technology itself, instead of the effects of its implementation. In any case, prejudice from one's surroundings would be preferable to growing up in a society where laws and regulations have made with the explicit intent to prevent your birth
The assumption that certain techniques and technologies automatically lead to negative social consequences, and thus should be prevented, is a fatalistic world view and very typical for today's narrow discourse. There is no controversy surrounding the discussion on what regulations to put in place, since genetically modified or cloned children are still perceived as philosophical and legal abstractions. This is a very dangerous assumption.
How could we make the discussion about biotechnology and its societal impact more constructive? The debate should be moved into the broader arena where people from the whole spectrum of scientific disciplines can participate. Our view on humanity is vital to a constructive debate, but we should not assume that we all share the same view of humanity's role in this world. Our individual goals and aspirations are closely tied to the culture and society we grow up in and it is not likely that we all share the same aspirations. The question we have to pose is what each and every one of us wants to achieve with biotechnology. What should it be used for? And what should it not be used for?
We should not put all of our faith in one impenetrable dam when it comes to biotechnology. We should create a network of many little dams; this way we can create institutions and regulations as needed and adapt to new situations, instead of falling head-over-heels whenever a new technological breakthrough appears. We should not pre-regulate perceived dangers, thus we will be able to focus on current issues and advantages. Regulations are a costly affair for both individuals and society, thus we ought to focus them on implementations that we feel are unethical instead of regulating technologies in themselves.
Posted by Waldemar at June 1, 2003 11:01 AM