Tweet
This site is fascinating. This is a portion of a paper on biotechnology (the full paper is 300 pages long and no I have not read all of it yet!).
Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness
www.bioethics.gov
The possibility of using genetic knowledge and genetic engineering to improve the human race and its individual members has been discussed for many years, especially in the heady decades immediately following Watson and Crick’s discovery, in 1953, of the structure of DNA. New life was breathed into old eugenic dreams, which had been temporarily discredited by the Nazi pursuits of a “superior race.” As late as the early 1970s, serious scientists talked optimistically about humankind’s new opportunity to take the reins of its own evolution, thanks to the predicted confluence of genetic engineering and reproductive technologies.1 But as scientists have learned just how difficult it is to engineer precise genetic change—even to treat individuals with genetic diseases caused by a simple one-gene mutation—explicit talk about improving the species has largely faded. Instead recent years have seen, in its place, much talk about coming prospects for “designer babies,” children born with improved genetic endowments, the result either of careful screening and selecting of embryos carrying desirable genes, or of directed genetic change (“genetic engineering”) in gametes or embryos.
Interest in such possibilities has been fueled by recent developments in a number of related disciplines, beginning with the completion of the Human Genome Project. Knowledge of the complete chemical sequence of all human genes promises greatly increased powers for genetic screening of individuals and embryos. Numerous studies are already seeking to correlate phenotypic traits (and not only those connected with disease) with the presence or absence of certain genetic markers. Scientists have reported early success with directed genetic change in embryos of non-human animals (including primates2 ), though many more attempts have failed. And we are witnessing large increases in the use of assisted reproductive technologies, including for purposes that go beyond the mere treatment of infertility.3 Extrapolating from these developments, some scientists have predicted that parents, in the not-too-distant future, will be able to exert precise genetic control over many characteristics of their offspring.4 These predictions have been greeted both with enthusiasm—“At last, we can escape from the tyranny of fortune and bring our inheritance under rational control!”—and with alarm—“What hubris! Scientists are trying to play God!” It is difficult to know what to make of these predictions, based as they are largely on speculation. In this enormously fertile and rapidly developing field, the future is unknowable. Thus, anyone can claim to be a prophet, and no one should confidently bet against any form of scientific and technological progress. Yet in our view, for reasons that we shall elaborate below, prophecies and predictions of a “new (positive) eugenics” seem greatly exaggerated. In consequence, much of the public disquiet created by loose talk of genetically engineered “designer babies” seems unwarranted. Nevertheless, the public’s misgivings may contain a partial wisdom regarding practices in this area that are not far-fetched, indeed, that are already with us, including prenatal and preimplantation genetic screening. For, as we shall see, there is some reason to be concerned both about negative eugenics and about the practice of genetic selection of “better” children. Therefore, even as we try to calm down fears about genetic engineering of children, it behooves us to pay careful attention to the reasons behind them and to the human goods at stake. By this means, we may shed light on the meaning not only of things we might be doing in the future but also of things we are already doing in the present.
This report raises some very interesting questions."What is biotechnology for?" Improving the lot of humankind? What exactly is a "good" or "better" child? "What exactly is it about the lot of humankind that needs improving?" What are we seeking relief from? Just suffering, death, decay, and illness or such things as nastiness and despair? Should improvemnt be limited to eliminating the evils or should it also encompass the postive; improving beauty, intelligence, and happiness?
Ok. Philosophy class is over for tonight. Homework is due Wednesday.
Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness
www.bioethics.gov
The possibility of using genetic knowledge and genetic engineering to improve the human race and its individual members has been discussed for many years, especially in the heady decades immediately following Watson and Crick’s discovery, in 1953, of the structure of DNA. New life was breathed into old eugenic dreams, which had been temporarily discredited by the Nazi pursuits of a “superior race.” As late as the early 1970s, serious scientists talked optimistically about humankind’s new opportunity to take the reins of its own evolution, thanks to the predicted confluence of genetic engineering and reproductive technologies.1 But as scientists have learned just how difficult it is to engineer precise genetic change—even to treat individuals with genetic diseases caused by a simple one-gene mutation—explicit talk about improving the species has largely faded. Instead recent years have seen, in its place, much talk about coming prospects for “designer babies,” children born with improved genetic endowments, the result either of careful screening and selecting of embryos carrying desirable genes, or of directed genetic change (“genetic engineering”) in gametes or embryos.
Interest in such possibilities has been fueled by recent developments in a number of related disciplines, beginning with the completion of the Human Genome Project. Knowledge of the complete chemical sequence of all human genes promises greatly increased powers for genetic screening of individuals and embryos. Numerous studies are already seeking to correlate phenotypic traits (and not only those connected with disease) with the presence or absence of certain genetic markers. Scientists have reported early success with directed genetic change in embryos of non-human animals (including primates2 ), though many more attempts have failed. And we are witnessing large increases in the use of assisted reproductive technologies, including for purposes that go beyond the mere treatment of infertility.3 Extrapolating from these developments, some scientists have predicted that parents, in the not-too-distant future, will be able to exert precise genetic control over many characteristics of their offspring.4 These predictions have been greeted both with enthusiasm—“At last, we can escape from the tyranny of fortune and bring our inheritance under rational control!”—and with alarm—“What hubris! Scientists are trying to play God!” It is difficult to know what to make of these predictions, based as they are largely on speculation. In this enormously fertile and rapidly developing field, the future is unknowable. Thus, anyone can claim to be a prophet, and no one should confidently bet against any form of scientific and technological progress. Yet in our view, for reasons that we shall elaborate below, prophecies and predictions of a “new (positive) eugenics” seem greatly exaggerated. In consequence, much of the public disquiet created by loose talk of genetically engineered “designer babies” seems unwarranted. Nevertheless, the public’s misgivings may contain a partial wisdom regarding practices in this area that are not far-fetched, indeed, that are already with us, including prenatal and preimplantation genetic screening. For, as we shall see, there is some reason to be concerned both about negative eugenics and about the practice of genetic selection of “better” children. Therefore, even as we try to calm down fears about genetic engineering of children, it behooves us to pay careful attention to the reasons behind them and to the human goods at stake. By this means, we may shed light on the meaning not only of things we might be doing in the future but also of things we are already doing in the present.
This report raises some very interesting questions."What is biotechnology for?" Improving the lot of humankind? What exactly is a "good" or "better" child? "What exactly is it about the lot of humankind that needs improving?" What are we seeking relief from? Just suffering, death, decay, and illness or such things as nastiness and despair? Should improvemnt be limited to eliminating the evils or should it also encompass the postive; improving beauty, intelligence, and happiness?
Ok. Philosophy class is over for tonight. Homework is due Wednesday.
(Me)
to get all those women
Comment