Transcript Playing God? The Ethics of Genetic Manipulation

Playing God?
Part One: The Ethics of Genetic Manipulation
Phil. 321:
Social Ethics
Spring 2009
Lawrence M. Hinman
Co-Director,
Center for Ethics in Science & Technology
Professor of Philosophy
University of San Diego
7/17/2015
Lawrence M. Hinman
1
Overview
•
•
•
•
The Current State of Affairs
Points of Intervention
The Arguments for Genetic Manipulation
The Arguments against Genetic
Manipulation
• Case Studies
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
2
The Human Genome Project
The completion of the
Human Genome Project
provides a scientific
foundation for genetic
manipulation. For the first
time, scientists had a map
of (most of the) human
genome.
http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/HGP/
7/17/2015
Lawrence M. Hinman
3
Points of Intervention
Points of Intervention
Active
killing?
Consent?
Active extermination Nazi extermination of Jews,
of a population
Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally
and physically disabled
Yes
No/
DNA
Infanticide after birth
Killing female first born in China
Yes
Yes/
No
Abortion
Killing embryo in utero after genetic
testing
Yes
Yes/
No
Forced Sterilization
Involuntary sterilization of poor
women
No
No/
DNA
IVF embryo
selection (PGD)
Only implanting selected embryos
No
Yes/
No
In vitro genetic
manipulation
Correcting “abnormalities” through
in utero intervention
No
Yes/
No
Genetic7/17/2015
manipulation
Gene therapy
& stem M.
cell
therapy
©Lawrence
Hinman
in children and adults
No
Yes/
4
Maybe
Action
Example
Parent/child
Arguments in support of genetic
manipulation
Utilitarian:
• produces overall a better group of
people (eugenics)
Libertarian:

It is a matter of individual
liberty to decide what
genetic enhancements one
wants.
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
5
Arguments Against Genetic Manipulation
The Safety Argument
• Too risky at this time—we simply don’t know enough to do this safely
The Slippery Slope Argument
• Leads to possible abuses, especially eugenics
The Respect for Autonomy Argument
• Violates child’s autonomy by choosing a future for him/her, sometimes using
the child as a mere means
The Hubris Argument
• Playing God—takes on privileged more appropriate for God than human
beings
• The “giftedness” argument (Sandel)
The Natural Law Argument
• Genetic manipulation involves going against the natural
order, violating natural law.
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
6
The Safety Argument
There is much that we do not understand about human genes. Altering genes may result in changes that
we do not expect.
Germline Engineering:
•
If these changes can be passed down to future generations, there is a possibility of
catastrophic results.
We may create pressure for people to use these techniques.
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
7
The Slippery Slope to Eugenics:
Some History: Galton
In the late 19th and early 20th century,
a number of groups—most notably
later in the twentieth century, the
Nazis—tried to control the
development of the human race
through organized breeding
programs: eugenics.
Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) read
his paper “Eugenics: Its Definition,
Scope and Aims” to a meeting of the
Sociological Society at the London
School of Economics on May 16th,
1904,
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
8
Eugenics and G. B. Shaw
Eugenics gained
favor with many,
including George
Bernard Shaw, the
famous English
playwright.
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
9
Herbert Spencer
Herbert Spencer (18201903) was an English
philosopher who
developed the notion of
“survival of the fittest”
as a doctrine describing
human evolution.
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
10
Eugenics and Birth Control
The rise of the birth control movement,
championed by Margaret Sanger,
derived primarily from a desire to
free women from unwanted
pregnancies. In itself, it was not
primarily a eugenics movement.
However, the birth control movement
became intertwined with the
eugenics movement, sharing both
advocates and critics.
G. K. Chesterton
G. K Chesterton
(1874-1936) was
one of the most
outspoken critics
of the eugenics
movement in
Great Britain.
Eugenics in California
The Nazis looked to the California eugenics programs
as a model.
The Respect for Autonomy Argument
Genetic manipulation, performed
either in utero or during childhood,
would seem to threaten the right to
make one’s own choices.
The President’s Council on Bioethics
has focused on issues of human
dignity and respect for autonomy.
7/17/2015
Lawrence M. Hinman
14
The Hubris Argument:
Playing God?
Some critics maintain that altering
genes is “playing God.”
This version of the argument is not
primarily consequentialist but
rather either deontological or
character-based.
Michael Sandel, for example,
argues that we should accepted
the “gifted” character of
existence and not try to control
everything. The attempt at such
control is an example of
overreaching the bounds of the
properly human.
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
Michael J. Sandel is the Anne T.
and Robert M. Bass Professor
of Government at Harvard
University,
15
The Natural Law Argument
Genetic manipulation strikes many people as profoundly
unnatural, against the natural order and (sometimes)
against God’s order.
Is this merely a subjective feeling, shared by some but not
all, or does it have some stronger foundation?
This argument seems in danger of proving either too much or
too little;
• Many things which seem unnatural, such as surgery,
are commonly accepted today.
• What allows us to single out this particular thing as
morally wrong?
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
16
Three Questions about Restrictions
In considering the issue of genetic manipulation, we are
faced with three distinct but closely related questions:
• What restrictions, if any, are appropriate in regard to
the use of genetic manipulation?
• To whom should these restrictions apply?
• Individuals
• Professionals
• Who, if anyone, is responsible for enforcing these
restrictions?
• Individual
• Professional organizations
• The government
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
17
What Kind of Restrictions?
What regulation should apply to genetic manipulation?
The free market/individual liberty model

Individuals should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as
they do not infringe on the liberty of others.
The government regulation model
•
•
Genetic manipulation should not be permitted unless explicitly
approved by the government.
The government should ban all attempts at genetic manipulation.
The professional regulation model

Genetic manipulation should be monitored and controlled by
appropriate professional organizations of scientists, physicians, and
others.
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
18
Choosing Between Life Paths
Genetic manipulation is very different from abortion:
• Abortion is a matter of life or death, of deciding
whether a fetus lives or dies.
• Genetic manipulation is a matter of deciding which
life an individual may have by altering the individual’s
genes; It is a matter of which future the fetus is going
to have.
• Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is in
between these two, allowing the choice of which
embryo should be implanted.
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
19
Scenario #1:
Designer Babies
Imagine that it is possible to decide height, skin
color, hair color, eye color, sex and other
physical characteristics of a newly-conceived
child.
Should parents be allowed to change these
characteristics if they choose?
Will this lead to designer babies? To uniformity?
Will this deplete the gene pool?
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
20
Scenario #2:
Sexual Orientation
Imagine that:
• Scientists have isolated the genes that predispose sexual
orientation;
• You are going to have a child;
• Tests have determined that your child will probably be gay.
Your doctor asks you: would you like us to alter the genes
that predispose toward sexual orientation so that the
child will not be gay?
Further assume that you “have nothing against gays,” but
know that overall a gay person will face more
discrimination and suffering—all other things being
equal—than someone who is heterosexual.
What should you do?
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
21
Scenario #3:
Sexual Orientation
Imagine scenario #2 with the following changes:
• Doctors have determined that your child will have a
heterosexual orientation;
• You are gay.
If the doctor offered to alter the genes so that your child
would be gay as well, what should you do?
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
22
Scenario #4:
Achondroplasia
You are pregnant, and a routine
test reveals that your child
has a particular gene that
results in achondroplasia, a
form of dwarfism. The doctor
asks you whether you want to
have the gene altered so that
the child’s height is “normal.”
What should you do?
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
23
Scenario #5:
Achondroplasia
Imagine the scenario is similar to that
given in #4, except that you and your
spouse are both dwarfs and the
doctor tells you, after a routine test,
that your baby will be “normal”
height.
A friend, aware that it may be difficult if
both parents are dwarfs and the child
is not, suggests that you ask that the
child’s genes be altered so that the
child too will be a dwarf.
What should you do?
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
24
Scenario #6:
A Savior Baby
“A boy has been born to a British couple who want to use
stem cells from his umbilical cord to treat an older
brother with a life threatening blood disorder.
Michelle and Jayson Whitaker's baby, Jamie, was
genetically selected while he was still an embryo to be
a near perfect match to four-year-old Charlie.
The couple went to an American clinic for test tube baby
treatment because the selection procedure is not
allowed in the UK.”
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/issues/designer_babies/
Also see Jodi Picoult, My Sister’s Keeper
Kazuo Ishiguro, Never Let Me Go
7/17/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
25