It is not often that another blogger takes me to task on any of my entries. (I think Mary Meets Dolly may intimidate people just a bit.) So when I saw this entry from the Speculative Catholic, I said, "Bravo!" It is well written, and I am very happy that Steve took the time to really think about my post on the NIH grant for the development of ethical guidelines for human genetic enhancements and then tackle this very difficult issue. Steve thinks I was being alarmist and he asserts that "enhancement" is a good idea.
His reasoning I think is predicated on a mistake that many people make when thinking about human genetic enhancments and I realized I probably didn't make a clear distinction between gene therapy and genetic enhancement. Steve writes:
While the historical evils of eugenics programs are a true historical fact, they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand, and seem simply intended to instill a sense of fear in readers, similarly the Gattaca reference. The issue of genetic-enhancement-eugenics is different, as indeed MMD mentions: 'Eugenics isn't just about aborting babies with genetic defects anymore.'
I say, 'thank God!' Won't it be a good thing if babies with genetic defects are no longer aborted, but cured?
I agree. Curing babies with genetic defects would be a good thing. But that is gene therapy not genetic enhancement. This NIH grant was for looking into "enhancement" which isn't about "curing" anything but normalcy. "Enhancement" is taking a normal human being and making then "more than human" by adding genes for strength, or intelligence, or height etc.
Gene expression is a very complex dance. Introducing artifical "enhancing" genes may affect the expression of other critical genes. The effect of these "extra" or "enhanced" genes may have some vary dire side effects that we may not think about or know about until it is too late, like aggression, or dementia or a shortened life span. The human body is very complex and it will respond to an change in the status quo in unusual and sometimes very undesired ways. Taking a normal, healthy human being and doing "genetic enhancement" experiments on them, I do not think could ever be ethical.
Also, this discussion is very much about eugenics which simply means "good genes." The focused has simply shifted from getting rid of bad genes to making already good genes "gooder" (as my 4-year-old would say.)
Steve continues:
One issue MMD raises is an interesting one: when genetic enhancements are passed on to children without their consent, either through inheritance or embryonic modification. This seems hard for me to criticise: parents have always had the right to make decisions for the wellbeing of their children. Isn't that a natural-law right as a parent? It seems to me that conservatives would have a hard time arguing against this.
I think this would apply if a parent's child was ill with a genetic disorder, but once again, "genetic enhancements" are not about fixing disease. Enhancement about taking a normal child and giving them an extra chromosome with "enhancing genes" of the parent's choosing. This makes children "man-made products" not gifts as the Catholic Church clearly states that they are. I contend that parents who would genetic enhance their children are far from looking out for the well-being of their offspring.
And finally:
Finally, MMD says: 'I have to ask the obvious question about all this. What happens when a "genetic enhancement" isn't an enhancement? How do you fix that? Answer: you can't, without more "genetic enhancing."'
This sounds like a pithy finish to the article, but on examination doesn't really make sense. It's just using the words genetic enhancing as a boogieman in scare quotes.
Try this 'What happens if a "surgeon" leaves something inside their patient? How can you fix that? Answer: you can't, without more "surgery"' The statement basically says: 'How do you fix that? Answer: you can.'
If genetic enhancement is reversible in case of something going wrong, there's even less reason to oppose it. The surgery analogy I use is apt because as I see it, genetic enhancement on a micro scale is no more inherently immoral than surgery on a macro scale.
Steve is right, if we were talking about gene therapy. But I don't think the surgery analogy applies if there is nothing wrong with the patient to begin with. It would be immoral to do major surgery on a patient who didn't need it, and the tragedy would be compounded if something went wrong and more surgery was needed as a result. This would be the case with enhancements. It would be immoral to genetically modifiy a normal healthy person, and even worse if the "enhancement" turned out to be a disaster requiring more "enhancing" to fix the problem. It would be even more tragic if the "enhancement" couldn't be "fixed" and subsequent generations would be forced to endure the "enhancement" as well.
So a big "Thank-you" to the Speculative Catholic for that very interesting entry which gave me a chance to clarify my view!
