Ethics and genetic engineering

[suryaz]

Genetic engineering has been around for thousands of years. "Arranged marriage" is a socio-cultural form of genetic engineering yet it is accepted as ethically profound by some - it is even described as a first class marriage -

 

 

Can we say that that which takes the freedom of the individual's choice is profound? Can we say that it is done for the betterment of society and therfore OK? If so, then why not genetically engineer offspring in what ever way it can be done to create betterment?

 

Suryaz confused:

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-15-2001).]

[Gauracandra]

Genetic engineering can become a very slippery slope ethically. You are right, that to some degree there is already a subtle form of natural genetic engineering. Beautiful people tend to marry other beautiful people, and in turn have beautiful kids.

 

I personally am of the opinion that a number of characteristics, including intelligence, are strongly correlated with genetics. The problem will come when we start to view certain characteristics as "obviously" more beneficial than others. What we will see is a reduction in genetic diversity. As society becomes closer and closer genetically, there will be less diversity. Everyone will go for the standard notion of beauty, and the standards for creativity.

 

A REAL good movie to watch in this regard is Gattaca. Some people will find it to be very slow. I really loved the movie. Its very sad and melancholy. I tend to relate the movie as a sci-fi adaptation of the story (I think it was Bilvamangala, but I might be wrong) where a man visits a prostitute. The man goes through so much pain and suffering to reach the prostitute. And in the end she simply provides him buckets of blood, hair, urine etc... Some critics didn't like this aspect of Gattaca. But to me it was key.

 

The tag line for the movie as I recall was someting like "There is no cell for the human spirit". This was a play on words as a cell (or prison) cannot hold back a person (in this case society holding back others), as well as a cell (genetically) cannot give a person spirit. One character is genetically perfect, but has no spirit. He seeks to commit suicide. Another was born imperfect, but strives because he has dreams. I would really recommend renting this film. It is one of my favorites.

 

Gauracandra

[Gauracandra]

Let religion and morality temper our steps into human genetics

 

By The Rev. Kevin T. FitzGerald

 

Mahatma Gandhi once remarked, "It is a mark of wisdom not to kick away the very step from which we have risen higher. The removal of one step from a staircase brings down the whole of it."

 

Though no significant health benefits have yet been obtained through human genetic engineering, recent developments may provide the technology needed to achieve this success and do provide further evidence of the rapidly expanding knowledge of human genetics. Faced with the option of human genetic engineering, the question of how this knowledge will be applied to health care (and possibly beyond health care) looms large before our society. Will our answers be wise and build upon traditional sources of knowledge about health and the human condition, or will we settle for expedient or short-sighted solutions that ignore or remove steps that have previously served us well?

 

Much of the excitement surrounding the prospect of human genetic interventions stems from the fact that many diseases are primarily, or at least partially, the result of one's genetic constitution. Using genetic interventions, the hope is to add, delete from or alter a person's genetic constitution in order to ameliorate, cure or prevent disease or undesirable conditions.

 

Our rapidly expanding knowledge of human genetics, however, also indicates some difficulties we may have in deciding how we will determine what is health and what is disease. Genetic technology now allows for a treatment of children with significantly short stature.

 

But how short is too short? Is there such a thing as being too tall? How about too intelligent? Knowledge of genetics can tell us only some of the reasons a person may have certain characteristics. We decide, both individually and as a community, which characteristics are desirable or not.

 

If our rapidly developing genetic technologies allow us to pick and choose the characteristics we want on a genetic level (for some characteristics, such as the gender of a child-to-be, we already have this ability) how will we make such decisions?

 

Though the promises and potentials of genetic technology may seem radically new and unimaginable, the challenge of making wise decisions in complex situations is not. Throughout history people have faced this challenge, and our history records both the successes and the all-too-many failures.

 

Much of what people have learned about themselves and our shared human condition in facing these difficult decisions has been woven into the rich tapestry of our religious and moral traditions. When we ignore the wisdom of religion and morality, we run the risk of repeating our worst mistakes. In fact, the last century is replete with examples of how innocent people suffered in the name of scientific advancement.

 

How do we approach the new science with our age-old moral and religious traditions to make wise decisions? Our religious and moral traditions include methods for making wise decisions, or for distinguishing between means that lead to good ends and those that lead to evil ends, or for choosing even among various good ends. These methods are the result of centuries of accumulated reflection on moral decision-making.

 

As such, these methods, derived from religious and moral traditions, can be placed alongside the methods more recently derived from philosophy and the social sciences.

 

When the methods of decision-making for human genetic engineering are derived solely from philosophy and the social sciences, much of the wisdom contained within our religious and moral traditions is lost or passed over. As a consequence, some of the proposed uses of human genetic engineering that are defended solely by philosophical, legal or political arguments run counter to our commonsense view of right and wrong.

 

Are we, therefore, not to trust our commonsense view of right and wrong? The better option is to weigh both our common sense and the arguments of philosophy and social science against the wisdom of our religious and moral traditions. Then we will be more likely to build upon the solid steps we have used in the past and utilize the amazing new knowledge of genetic science wisely.

 

------

The Rev. Kevin T. FitzGerald is an assistant professor in the department of medicine at the Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago.

[This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 11-18-2001).]

[Gauracandra]

Will genetic engineering lead to the perfection of man? That has been a quest that has gone on for thousands of years. Will we find a gene for crime? Intelligence? Beauty? Depression? Will man become "perfect"? But then where is free will? I don't think genes determine free will, so it is still possible that a "crime" gene removal, will not prevent a person from commiting crime. So many questions.... We may very well just open up great possibilities, or take mankind down to its own destruction. We'll see... technology in and of itself isn't bad, only the people who use it.

[Gauracandra]

The issue of human cloning has been brought to the fore again. It seems a company has successfully cloned human cells (though they haven't been developed beyond a small stage). This is going to cause a lot of problems in the religious community. And this is just the beginning. Wait till they actually start to tinker with the DNA of humans, to force certain changes.

 

Such changes are going to happen. One key question is how will the churches and religious institutions of the world handle such developments. Time will tell.

[Guest guest]

 

Gauracandra: (clones) This is going to cause a lot of problems in the religious community.

Satyaraj: Yes, you may be right! Clones may be quite harmful to the religious community. There are some evidences for that fact. Krsna Dvapayana has done some experiences with human clones. He took a mass of embryonic cells from Ghadari’s womb, he has divided it into one hundred pieces and he had cultivated them into a nutritive solution made of ghee into pots made of clay (not glass).

 

After a long time he got one hundred men who were very envious, hateful, and violent. They were against all religious principles and they had created a havoc in their community at that time...

 

Human clones are nothing really new. It seems that history repeats itself.

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

A REAL good movie to watch in this regard is Gattaca. Some people will find it to be very slow. I really loved the movie. Its very sad and melancholy. I tend to relate the movie as a sci-fi adaptation of the story (I think it was Bilvamangala, but I might be wrong) where a man visits a prostitute. The man goes through so much pain and suffering to reach the prostitute. And in the end she simply provides him buckets of blood, hair, urine etc... Some critics didn't like this aspect of Gattaca. But to me it was key.

 

The tag line for the movie as I recall was someting like "There is no cell for the human spirit". This was a play on words as a cell (or prison) cannot hold back a person (in this case society holding back others), as well as a cell (genetically) cannot give a person spirit. One character is genetically perfect, but has no spirit. He seeks to commit suicide. Another was born imperfect, but strives because he has dreams. I would really recommend renting this film. It is one of my favorites.

 

Gauracandra

Gauracandra,

 

Gattaca, humm yes, I finally got around to watching this movie. I agree with you Gauracandra, it is one of the most wonderful movies produced. It transcends the nature-nurture debate and brings into play a Sartrean existentialists approach Viz: “You are what you create yourself to be” (as opposed to what others (whether social or scientific) create you to be).

 

In his society, Vinny’s inherited genetic code overtly left him with not much opportunity to fulfil his desired destiny. For him society said he could only dream of his desired goal.

 

Further, the movie is based on the premise that there is no gene for “faith”; and faith in this movie, is faith in one self as the creator of one’s own destiny. I would imagine there is such a gene.

 

But what impressed me most is the last statement in the movie: “every atom in our body was once part of a star”. Yes we are stardust. –Suryaz

 

PS Some say the soul fell from the brahmajyoti, is that not stardust?

 

Are there not many ways to view this?

-- I think it is so.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-16-2001).]

[Gauracandra]

I'm glad you liked it. The line I liked best was when they were swimming and the question is asked "How are you able to do this?" and he replied "You want to know how I managed to do this? I'll tell you how, because I never saved anything for the swim back."

 

It was written/directed by the same person who wrote "The Truman Show". Unfortunately he didn't direct "The Truman Show". Peter Weir directed it (The Truman Show), and while I think he is brilliant, I think Andrew Nichols (the writer) would have made it much darker, melancholy and sad.

 

I really liked it because it combined philosophy with sci-fi. Unfortunately most sci-fi is pretty dumbed down, but this was a rare exception.

 

Gauracandra

[Gauracandra]

If you want another movie to check out rent "The Sixth Day" with Arnold Schwarzennegger (sp?). Its actually quite good, as they try not to make it just mindless action. Your (Atma) posting about cloning the dog is what reminded me of it. Thats what happens in the movie. It really is a rather intelligent action adventure movie.

 

Gauracandra

[suryaz]

Originally posted by atma:

Recently I saw in the news that a couple is spending $5 million in cloning their pet dog. How ridiculous this is getting. So attached to the animal that they want exactly the same thing.It's getting on my nerves.

 

When I was a child I was fascinated with taking a part of a plant, placing it in water and watching it grow roots. There was one particular plant I liked more so. I cloned the plant over and over again. It did not const me $5M, but then I did not need $5M to clone the plant I chose to propagate. So money was not a problem. Could it not be the same thing for the people who want to clone their dog? Obviously $5M is not a problem for them, but the personal mysterium they receive from offering affection to another (even if it is a particular other, or part of it) is worth more to them than whatever else the money can buy.

 

So what we are looking at here is personal differences.

 

For persons x the $5M can be spent differently because x place different values on the affection offered to the dog and/or its pure offspring. That is all.

 

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

I'm glad you liked it. The line I liked best was when they were swimming and the question is asked "How are you able to do this?" and he replied "You want to know how I managed to do this? I'll tell you how, because I never saved anything for the swim back."

 

 

Gauracandra

Gauracandra,

 

Yes I liked that bit too. It brings into view the elasticity of that which underpins human endeavor. Through our will we cannot only fulfill our desires, our dreams, but there is more, we can also expand on from there.

 

Thanks Gauracandra – Yes I will check the other movie out soon

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-17-2001).]

[atma]

 

Recently I saw in the news that a couple is spending $5 million in cloning their pet dog. How ridiculous this is getting. So attached to the animal that they want exactly the same thing.It's getting on my nerves.