According to National Geographic, Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University “successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs.” The story also reports that in Minnesota, researchers at the Mayo Clinic “created pigs with human blood flowing through their bodies,” while at Stanford University an experiment is being contemplated “to create mice with human brains.”
These are the sorts of developments that make many people worry about the ethical implications of genetic engineering. They read about cloning or “harvesting” embryos for genetic material, about fusing human with rabbit cells, and they wonder whether we have not started firmly down the path described by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World. Today we cull certain biological material from so-called “dispensable” embryos; tomorrow might we not have factories for the production of children carefully segregated according to genetic endowment?
But if many people worry about what genetic engineering portends, others worry primarily about what misplaced public anxiety about such scientific research will mean for the progress of science. Such people are not necessarily insensitive to ethical issues; but for them the search for scientific truth is ineluctable. Public opinion might delay the march of progress. It will never entirely derail it. So (they argue) it behooves us to pursue science wherever it leads. If we don’t, someone else will, and we in the West are better equipped than anyone to deploy new technologies wisely and humanely. To oppose the application of genetic engineering (the argument goes) is to be a latter-day Luddite, railing impotently against a technology whose effects might be painful at first but are ultimately liberating.
It is a mistake to dismiss out of hand either side of the argument: those who worry about genetic engineering, or those who worry about the worriers. Consider the plus side. The therapeutic promise of genetic engineering is more than enormous: it is staggering. No one who has seen somebody suffer from cancer or Parkinson’s disease or any of the many other horrific ills that the flesh is heir to can be deaf to that promise. Of course, any powerful technology can be put to evil purposes as well as good ones. In this sense, one might say that technology is like fire. It is neither good nor bad in itself. It is good when used appropriately for good purposes, bad when used inappropriately or for evil purposes.
It would be pleasing to think that we could apply some such calculus to determine the moral complexion of a particular application of genetic engineering. It is not at all clear, however, that the moral quandaries with which genetic engineering confronts us can be solved by such a calculus.
Part of the problem is that the creed — familiar to us from Marxism — that “the end justifies the means” seems particularly barbarous when applied directly to human reality, as it is in genetic engineering. True, the end often does justify the means. But not always. Knowing when it does and when it does involves not moral formulas but sound judgment, a much subtler commodity. Are all embryos potential candidates for “harvesting,” or only certain embryos? And what about newborns, another good source of genetic material? Are certain infants to be regarded as potential “raw material” for genetic experimentation? Which infants?
It is easy to conjure up a nightmare world in which some human beings are raised for spare parts. Already in certain parts of the world, the bodies of executed criminals are raided for kidneys, corneas and other body parts. Why not extend the practice?
My own belief is that humanity is on the threshold of an awesome moral divide. Recent advances in the technologies of genetic engineering — cloning, stem-cell research, and the like — confront us with moral problems for which we have no solution. Perhaps the biggest problem concerns the nature of the technologies involved.
When we look back over the course of technological development, especially in the last couple hundred years, it is easy to be a technological optimist. Science and technology have brought us so many extraordinary advances that one is tempted to close one’s eyes take a leap of faith when it comes to technology. No doubt science and technology have brought us many destructive things, but who except the hermits among us would willing do without the conveniences — including life-saving conveniences — they have bequeathed us? It is impossible, I think, for any rational person to say “No” to science and technology. The benefits are simply too compelling.
I think pursuing knowledge is good, but we should be take our time in widespread implementation. I think Bush made exactly the right decision with regard to funding embryonic stem cell research. He gave us time to escape the hype that Christopher Reeves would walk again, directed interest to similar research with adult stem cells, and yet didn’t close the door to privately funded research. Scientists sometimes forget that stunning beakthroughs in the lab need to be accompanied by a social consensus on how these are used. Who would have thought that smartphones would have led to texting addiction?
The quotation from Lord Acton is actually “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” A small point, but it makes the dictum subtler and more persuasive when couched as a direction or drift rather than a donnee.
Self-deification and the libido dominandi agree as well as bacon and eggs. An understanding of the power of that libido was known to the ancients, known to St. Augustine, known to Machiavelli, known to Lord Acton. Then 20th century political science comes along with its dream of “scientific” credibility. Fundamentally irrationals impulses can’t be properly quantified. The possibility that Shakespeare’s tragedies might tell us more about politics than all the PS survey’s ever analyzed is too embarrassing.
So the libido dominandi is almost entirely excluded from discussion of politics.
Obama as Hamlet ?
No, Obama is a full Ham. No mere Hamlet is he.
Fire is bad when it gets out of control all by itself, regardless of whether evil is involved or not.
You shouldn’t put quotation marks around a paraphrased quote. “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
While I tend to be a technophile and a believer that technology is the answer to most of humanity’s troubles, little deviations from the rules when it comes to the new technologies, could lead to more serious problems than misquoting. Jurassic Park anyone?
Mice with 100 percent human brains! O Lucky Man! Much better than a man’s head on a sheep’s body.
Shouldn’t that be a sheep’s head on a man’s body? A man’s head on a sheep’s body would lead to, as Monty Python alluded, “…that most dangerous of animals, a clever sheep…”
Technological development proceeds apace with moral degeneration.
It will not end well.
The supporters of this kind of research are acting as though they never saw the science fiction movies of the 1950s (which exposed the dangers of this sort of thing).
Also, the SF writer Larry Niven extensively covered this concept in a number of stories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organlegging
One need only look at Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan, to see where scince and technology for their sake alone can lead. man is inheirently evil. . . leaving God out of the equation, and glorifying man as the ultimate power can only lead to death and tragedy.
We have a White House and Congress full of “men without chests”, and legislators saying things like “healthcare is a matter of national security” while trying to shut down any attempt to maintain our oil reserves and capacity. This is same activity the current administration is involved in with sanctions against Iran, Lybia, N. Korea, which just happen to be our staunchest enemies and on the top of the state sponsors of terrorism list. Our government is imposing sanctions against itself!
Our universities are creating genetically altered intellects that cannot wipe their own butts without contaminating themselves.
We have rampant insanity reigning at the highest levels of the United States government, and the rest of the world sees this in action every day.
Do you think they might not notice?
My father was a carpenter. In his hands, a hammer was a tool that he used to build houses, stores, public buildings and a host of other things. In the hands of a thug, a hammer can be used to destroy property and life. The hammer didn’t change, just the intent on the person using it.
Most technology is like that, neither good nor bad in and of itself. Sometimes, we need to question whether we should do something just because we can. For example, recent news articles have discussed genetic researchers who’ve manipulated non-dangerous viral strains into very deadly forms. Under very tight controls, that can be valuable research. In the wrong hands, it can create bioterror weapons that could kill millions like the Spanish Flu did in 1918.
A truism in science is most scientific experiments fail, that is give negative results. It is therefore entirely appropriate to view scientific results with sceptism, as the experiment may yet fail. Real scientists know, respect and try mightily to control for these conditions. We have had stunning failures of technology the largest that we know of so far is Chernobyl, no one knows how long that area will be uninhabitable for humans. Just recently we saw the result of scientists/engineers in Japan placing a known hazzard right next to an unknown possibly unknowable threat. Are those who ask, “What is the value of a mouse with a human brain?” phobic? Are they phobic if they ask, “What would be the result of such a mouse escaping and reproducing?” Technophiliacs, seem unable to ask these questions, and certainly unwilling to answer them.
Robert,
Your observations play directly into the Rule of Unintended Consequences, i.e. producing outcomes that are not the outcomes intended in the initial action. I think the writings of novelist Michael Crichton best described the thin line between control and chaos. By definition, I think conservatives always have this concept rooted in the back of their minds regarding innovation. In contrast, the Left tends to over-estimate the doomsday scenario in terms of technology, but appears to be oblivious to it in the socio-political sphere.
Is it really a “mouse with a Human brain” (which actally seems impossible, given the size of a Human brain and a mouse head) or is it rather a mouse with Human brain CELLS? Two very different things. A mouse with Human brain cells — but still a mouse brain, structurally — would be very useful in testing how various drugs and treatments interact with the specific metabolism of Human cells. But it still wouldn’t do well at Jeopardy.
lemme know when someone successfully cultures a nice, tasty ribeye.
Roger Kimball says, “the book of Genesis warns us about hubris with the story of the serpent’s promise to Eve: “Ye shall be as gods.” We all know how that story ended.”
Kimball does not know how the story ended. The serpent was telling the truth – Adam and Eve would be like gods, knowing good and evil, if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And they would not surely die that day. They were driven out of the Garden of Eden by God to prevent them from eating of the tree of life, for then they would be gods – not only knowing good and evil but also living forever, since living eternally is the defining trait of divinity.
November 30, 2011 Europe Bans X-Ray Body Scanners By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/tsa_backscatter_ban_europe_union_cancer_study_body_scan_airport_205817-1.html
“And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”
-Genesis 11:6 KJV
It’s interesting that G-d intervened at a point in civilization where people were able to do all “which they have imagined to do.”
I know that evil begins when you treat people as things.
This question always brings James Patrick Kelly’s story “Mr Boy” to mind. When one looks around the world at the astonishing variety of interests, it’s not that far fetched to believe that a parent might keep a child a permanent child as in that story. The super high-tech folks like Mr Boy himself were one aspect of the culture in the story, while the pure naturals were the other. I dislike both ends of the spectrum. Balance is the best way in almost every situation, but it’s very difficult to achieve and maintain, and extremely difficult to sell. ‘Moderation in all things’ was a Stoic belief, and Stoicism never really sold well among non-philosophers. Extremes are so much more exciting!
Off the topic, but what wouldn’t I give for a candidate who would say “it took 100 years to remove these many freedoms from the American people, here’s my plan for restoring a and b freedoms in the next 4 years, and if relected for another 4 yers, freedoms c and d will follow.” Unfortunately it might be hard to gather much support for somebody dedicated to federalist balance. Oh well.
Technology is a tool, nothing more. Any biotechnological advance that allows me to live an indefinitely long youthful life span, makes me more intelligent, and increases other capabilities; is always welcomed. My ability to become more is the only moral issue that matters to me. Everything else is irrelevant and a complete waste of my time.
To follow up on my previous post, I believe in self-empowerment and being able to have the complete power to craft my future. This is literally the only value or thing I believe in.
Ahhh, Thanks Roger ,good read…
One of the examples points to a line of research specifically designed to avoid what Mr. Kimball and Mr. Huxley fear. Pigs with human blood mean an end to blood shortages. Instead of relying on donations from volunteers herds of O negative pigs can be kept and harvested, plus at the end you get bacon and pork chops. There is long-running research in developing pigs, whose organs are of a similar size and structure to our own, that can serve as organ donors. Never again would we have to let someone die of organ failure because a donor could not be found. Why would we harvest organs from children farms when we could do it from pig farms?
Another point that needs to be made is that the source embryos for this research are surplus from IVF treatments. Their ultimate fate is to be discarded, at least this way we develop knowledge from their sacrifice.
They have found a way to make pluropotent stem cells without using embryos. Is it therefor not likely that the ethical issues surrounding biotechnology have been resolved? This issue is about beating a dead horse.
Good read – provocative. Martin Luther said, “the human heart is an idol factory”. I agree with that and ponder, to what end are all of our technological efforts? Eternal life? Absolute power? absolute control? Who decides?
This is a compelling article, but I think that it oversimplifies the conflict between being a “technical optimist” and “retreating from science.”
When one talks of experimenting with the human genome, we are no longer talking about finite effects such as ‘video game thumb’ or ‘ obsessive texting disorder’. We are now talking about absolutely unpredictable consequences that may affect the fate of the entire human species for all time. We may be temporary and experimental subjects of our own technological progress but our ultimate destiny is decided by our biological evolution.
Tampering with a finely honed evolutionary mechanism, that took millions of years to build a stable platform, is a far cry from creating simple alterations to our normal daily activities. There is a fundamental difference between going to the moon and playing God. We are now at the point where we need to define that difference.