My thanks to Rabyah and Hannah whose work forms the basis of this unit

Genetic Engineering

 Scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism.  It involves the production and use of   DNA and has been employed to create bacteria that synthesize insulin and other human proteins.

Scientists over the past decade have done research into helping the sick and injured have come across ways to help genetically enhance healthy animals.  These changes include making them stronger, faster, smarter, longer living and even connecting their minds with robots and computers.  But now this research is ready to go on and scientists are ready to apply their knowledge to healthy men and women.  This research uses information that could cure Alzheimer’s but is now leading to drugs and techniques that could boost a humans intelligence.  Also techniques which were in the beginning developed to prevent heart disease and cancer now have potential to stop and possibly reverse aging.  Genetic Engineering is potentially catastrophic for the environment and all processes of life, and is profoundly unethical.  Bio democracy would lead to an immediate moratorium on such practices.

Engineering is the technological manipulation of the objects of the natural world in a way that is perceived to be beneficial to people. Traditionally we used the word in the context of inanimate nature: bridges, railways and machines etc. But the term can be used and is used in the context of biology, namely for bioengineering, i.e. modifying or manipulating living organisms. Another term used in place of the term 'genetic engineering' is 'biotechnology'. Some people think that 'biotechnology' sounds less emotive, less fearful. How is genetic engineering defined then? As with the term 'gene', it depends upon who is using it and in what context. In the UK, experimentation upon human embryos is permitted up to 15 days' gestation after which the embryo must be destroyed.

Basic Ethical and Theological Questions

Are we playing God with nature – how far may we intervene?

Should we be swapping Genes between species?

Is genetic technology the right way to relate to our fellow creatures and the environment?

Are the human embryos used in genetic engineering full persons?

How would the knowledge that you have been 'created' to have characteristics that your parents find desirable (and not to have characteristics that your parents find undesirable) make you feel about your identity and individuality?

What benefits and what dangers accrue to society when it employs technology which can not only improve health but also, potentially, encourage skills and even behaviour which society/governments would find desirable.  Are we entering the 'Brave New World' where humans are 'produced to order' in order to service the various needs of society?

Ethical systems

 Kant – deontological

 Kant might ask whether there is a universal maxim which we could apply to the question "Should we use technology to (a) prevent humans suffering from physical and mental disease (b) enhance the attributes of individual human beings?"

 Kant argues in his Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals that as a universal maxim, humans should be viewed as an end in themselves and NOT as a means to an end. This can be seen to argue against genetic engineering as an embryo is a potential person which if not used for genetic engineering purposes can develop into a human being. Therefore it should be allowed to develop and not used as a means to an end. This interpretation would depend upon whether the embryo was viewed as a 'person'.  It is unclear whether Kant would have viewed the embryo in this fashion.

In this case, we could devise a universal maxim which said that genetic research was allowable in order to improve human health up to, say 15 days.

 Weakness

The main difficulty with applying Kant’s theory to genetic engineering is that it is unclear whether he would consider the embryo as a person.   This makes the formulation of a universal maxim difficult.  If we assume that he DID view the embryo as a person then some weaknesses of his argument could be:

• he fails to take into consideration the possible positive outcome of genetic engineering  e.g. helping to treat diseases such as Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimers, and manipulating genes in embryos so that people are not born with life-limiting diseases.
• Not a flexible theory
• Takes decision away from people.
• Little room for compassion when deciding whether research should take place

Strength

•  It protects the innocent, embryo recognising it’s potential of being a human. (Could be the next Einstein or Aristotle)
• Ensures no chance of genetic engineering being abused i.e.in terms of cloning.
• People are not used as means to an end, treated uniquely as individuals.
• Deontological, offers simple and quick solution to complex question.
• Easy and applicable, not too much debate.

 Natural Moral Law/Roman Catholic Approach – teleological/deontological

 We can class Natural law with the Roman Catholic view.  According to this view, the main end of humanity is to glorify God and prepare for eternity with God.  Natural Law he five primary precepts, which is seen to followwas the purpose of living.  The primary precepts ‘continuation of the species through reproduction’ can be argued to argue against genetic engine.  Secondary precepts include do not murder and defend the defenseless.

 However the same precept can be used to argue for the use of genetic engineering which will ensure continuation of the species for those partners unable to have children.

Weakness

• Arguments appeal to Gods will and many people don't accept God's existence
• Maintain conception onward embryo has full human status, allowing no research that isn’t to the benefit to the embryo.
• Would prevent research and therapeutic cloning which could save the lives of humans
• By putting obedience to God before treating human illness, this system can appear uncompassionate.
• Removes autonomy from humanity and places it in God and his representatives. 

Strengths

• Clear reasoned guidance helps to make clear decisions
• Maintains the dignity of the human even in early existence.  ‘God creates life and it isn’t for humans to destroy even in its embryonic form’.
• Gives simple answer to a complex situation.
• Effectively efficient.
• Based upon reason
• In natural procreation human beings come together, male and female, to give existence to another being who is formed. Whereas a cloned human being is a form of intention and design.

Liberal protestant/Situaton Ethics – teleological/relativist

•  Some supporters of cloning argue for the use of embryos for medical research on the basis that the results will bring about benefit to people with diseases.
• They argue that as the embryo is not developed enough to survive outside of the womb it is ok.
• Some liberal protestants may state that they disagree with the concept of human cloning but instead it is better if the benefit of cloning could research into possible treatments that should be made available to sufferers of conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinsons disease, these outweigh any objections to the use of embryo’s in experimentation and research.

• In natural procreation human beings come together, male and female, to give existence to another being who is formed. Whereas a cloned human being is a form of intention and design.

Evangelical Christians

The question they would ask is "What does God have to say about genetic engineering?"  And the place they would go for the answer is - the Bible.  There they find plenty of evidence to suggest that God would disapprove of genetic engineering.  Firstly, there is the whole Sanctity of Life principle, discussed elsewhere in the Ethics section.  So they would object to any research which resulted in the death of an embryo on the grounds that life begins at conception and therefore we have no right to tinker about with it for our own benefit.  

However there are further objections.  Specifically, Evangelical Christians would object to anything which compromised the God-given soul of a human, and genetic engineering, with its claims to be able to identify and manipulate genes which control our talents and personality (even a God gene which predisposes people to believe in God) seems to play God in a literal sense.  After all, the Bible says that God has known and formed people for a purpose, and has given people talents and abilities according to His will.

Strengths

• This approach takes seriously the dignity of the individual regardless of talents, intelligence, physical conditions etc.
• It provides clear principles on which to take decisions.
• It upholds the intrinsic worth of human life.

Weaknesses

• The central premise is faith in God - which not everyone has
• It can appear uncompassionate  in that it places obedience to God before the curing of human suffering
• It takes away autonomy from the secular state and from individuals.

Utilitiarian principles

Utilitarians would not ask "Is it right to experiment on Human genetic material?"  They would want to know whether the consequences of using genetic engineering would be more pleasure and less pain than forbidding it.  Many scientists would argue that the consequence of genetic engineering will indeed be an increase of pleasure and decrease of pain.  Illness will be prevented.  Parents can protect their children from inherited diseases like cystic fibrosis, which would have the consequence of preventing not only their child developing the illness, but would mean that their children would be free of the disease.  In theory certain diseases could be wiped out entirely in this way.  Also, talents which are genetically passed on like musicality or mathematical ablity can be enhance.

However, the consequences could also be undesirable.  The genetically produced person may feel that their individuality is compromised as they consider their parents' choice of blue eyes, blonde hair and prowess at art.  Society could be divided and undermined as people pay to have their children designed.  Certain characteristics might also be 'cleansed' from the embryo - homosexuality, perhaps - a person inclined to put on weight ....  Do we want to stigmatise certain characteristics in the name of political correctness or personal vanity?  And what of those characteristics which could be identified but not altered with genetic engineering?  Would that information be used to identify embryos for abortion?

Rule Utilitarianism could be a useful tool for drafting laws about genetic engineering.  

• Using the principle of the Hedonic Calculus and established norms on the specialness of human life, a Rule Utilitarian could make rules about societal use of Genetic Engineering which would permit medical research to benefit humans but outlaw its use to compromise the individuality of the embryo's talents and predispositions.

• On the other hand, Utilitarianism is a secular system which does not subscribe to the intrinsic sanctity of human life.  Many people would criticise any system which did not recognise the embryo as a person from conception and permitted scientists to experiment upon and then dispose of the unborn human.  

• These people would argue that Act Utility in particular encourages people to concentrate upon what would give them maximum pleasure and least pain, at the expense of the embryo's pain and pleasure, or even the implications of their action upon society as a whole.  
• Followers of Kantian principles might well see genetic engineering as a compromise to the intrinsic dignity and worth of being human.  You could argue that it constitutes using a human being as a means to an end.  
• Even if the child is born without the predisposition to genetic illness which it might have had, can we really argue that this has been done entirely for the child's benefit?  Is it not also very convenient for the parents that they have not to care for the sick child?  Or for society which will not have to expend valuable resources on paying for the child's treatment?

Return to Ethics Base Page