-Your
Guide to the Cultural Impact of Emerging Technologies.
Eudoxa Comment June 2003
Why would you use gene technology?
Anders Sandberg, text and illustration
Lene Johansen, translation
In the Dutch fairytale the 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 gene technology. 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 frightened politicians, bio-ethicists and opinion makers. They wante50%d to plug the leak with prohibitions through 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 scientists Zavos and Antorini failed in cloning humans. New controversial breakthroughs in gene technology can be expected soon. It could be children with genes from several mums and dads (where abilities have been fortified or suppressed), humans with abilities from other species or newly invented biological abilities. We are already using gene testing in healthcare to find inherited diseases and as a foundation for many new pharmaceutical products.
Even if we don't se a big market for cloned children or legal opportunities to modify humans genetically today, this is where we seem to be heading. If there is a practical feasibility for any of these options, there is a probability that children will be borne as clones or with modified genes. The questions we ought to ask ourselves are: What is good bioethics after the modifications have been done? What do we want to achieve by using this technology?
Gene technology 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 weather or not gene technology 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 just disappeared without being answered. We are limited to a discussion on autonomy, instrumental use, justice and precautionary principle.
The questions posed by gene technology can not be answered by this list of easy measurable universal values. 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 bio ethicist debaters closely tied to legislators and administration.
By separating out these questions as bioethics, rather than ethics in general, they have been removed from the broad public discourse where intellectuals, philosophers and scientists can participate. New questions posed by gene technology 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 gene testing turned out to be about insurance, while the big question on what they where trying to achieve with 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 in the debate, no matter what the contents of the regulation. This narrows the discourse at the same time as the technology demands answers to questions 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 to come to harm in the widest sense of the world. There are objections based on purely medical risks, and there are objections that against social, ethical and philosophical. But in order to protect the narrow discourse you are limited to only discuss the technology, not what you want to achieve by implementing it. The regulation aims to prevent techniques instead of the negative consequences of its implementation.
The narrow discourse claims there will be genetic anarchy if you let the dam burst; it automatically leads to acceptance of any modification and reproductive techniques. One example of this way of thinking is Francis Fukuyama's book "Our Posthuman Future" (Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2002). He sees the only option as being global prohibition and international control organs.
But is really a prohibition against individual technologies the way to go? One example that this is not a smart 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 get children on their own. 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 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 will 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 argument that is frequently posed 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 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 technique instead of its implementation. In any event, prejudice would be preferable to growing up in a society where laws and regulations was made with the explicit intent to prevent your birth
There seems to be an assumption that certain techniques and technologies automatically leads to negative social consequences and should be prevented. This is a fatalistic world view and very typical for the narrow discourse. There is no controversy around discussion what regulations to put in place as genetically modified or cloned children is still a philosophical and legal abstraction.
How can we make the discourse more constructive? The debate should be moved into the broader arena where people from the whole spectrum of 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 gene technology? 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 gene technology. We should create a network of many little dams; this way we can create institutions and regulations as needed. We do not have to pre-regulate perceived dangers, but 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 unproductive instead of regulation techniques and technologies.