Below is my most recent bioethics essay. The articles I had to read for it angered me because they were so knee-jerk. I think it reflects here. Sorry the read is so long!!
The sad fact is that too often the irrational fears of the cultural majority hinder progress. This is particularly true when it comes to bio-technological advances. Their fear is that from the top of the mountain, cell biology is a downhill slide of solid granite, wet and covered in moss, that leads to a crevasse of ruin. Participants in the cultural debate bemoan that scientists are “playing God” or that their research will lead to “moral decay” - yet they fail to objectively define either ‘God’ or ‘morality’ so it is impossible to know how to actually satisfy either task.
Indeed, the anti-science movement is old. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s A Discourse on the Moral Effects of the Arts and Sciences is largely a criticism of the burgeoning scientific movement. In it he argues that science corrupts and leads to immorality. In contemporary times, stem-cell research, cloning and genetic engineering are the bogeymen who will drag us into the darkness. Threats of dispensable cloned slaves, eugenics, and fetuses aborted for their stem cells color the discourse. Even popular media plays into the scaremongering. The 2005 film The Island describes a world where the hedonistic wealthy can have fully developed clones made of themselves to be used as spare parts when their organs fail. And more poetic, but no less critical of the biologic future, the 1997 film Gattaca presents a dystopia where genetic discrimination is rampant and those who are not products of genetic engineering are relegated to the bottom caste.
I am not saying that there is not need for concern, only that the concerns that dominate the conversation are unfounded and hyperbolic. Biological science has certainly caused harm. Biological weapons have killed and destroyed the lives of many - one need only to look at the victims of Agent Orange as evidence. But this is the rare exception, and is wrought with near universal condemnation. The vast majority of biological advancements have greatly benefited the species - clean drinking water, vaccines, antibiotics, organ transplants, and synthetic hormones just to name a few. The future of biological advancement promises tailor-made organs, more effective drugs, treatments for congenital diseases, healthier foods, and ways for the infertile to have children - not Stormtroopers, super-AIDS and grey goo. Of course those things may happen, but if the history of biological science is evidence of its direction, the clear trend is toward benefit.
Woven into the issue of the future of biology is the evolution of healthcare - in particular the commoditization (or commodification) of human tissue. The fear is that commoditization of tissues will lead to tissue slave industries or that the poor will be exploited. An example is in India where right now poor people are being exploited in an underground organ transplant industry. Commoditization may have lead to exploitation, but I think it is more likely that the exploitation occurs because it is illegal rather than the commoditization itself. Exploitation is not a necessary result of commoditization. If legalized, regulated and made open to public scrutiny then the chances for exploitation should be diminished.
In the background of the discussion of biological advancement is the notion that there is something vaguely immoral about it. In reference to science, the phrase “playing God” implies that there is something special about organisms and that is should be taboo to understand them to the same detail as God. But this problem is that neither morality, nor the concept or meaning of God is not universal. We do not live in a homogeneous society, and perceptions vary widely from amongst people. Personally, I reject the notion of morality in its entirety. Furthermore, and more importantly, we live in a secular society. Consequently, the more society influencing policies base themselves upon particular metaphysical notions the more inappropriate they become.
An example is the suggestion that with advances in science people are forgetting how to deal with death, and that technology is hampering the natural process of aging and the psychological process of dying. But this is entirely a value judgment. There is no reason to accept the fact of death because it is “natural”. Disease is natural, yet we actively seek to avoid it because it decreases the personal value of our lives. Presumably this manifests itself as aggrieved owners who clone their lost pets in an effort to summon their pets from death. While this behavior is delusional it is fairly benign - no one is hurt except for the owners disappointed when they realise that the animals are in fact different. Perhaps a more valid concern is that when human cloning becomes viable parents who are the victims of child loss will clone their lost child, treat that child as though they are the same, and the child will suffer psychological trauma. However, this technology does not yet exist, and more importantly, even if it did, as a person, the cloned person would have full rights and protection under the law.
Reading the question prompt again, perhaps I have warped the question too much. But I can think of no other way of answering it. Western culture has been plainly hostile to science, and for unfounded reasons. Even today, after 150 years solid evidence, school boards debate whether evolution should be taught in schools, and media invariably portrays the scientific future in dystopian terms. Science is a discipline of evidence, and the evidence is that biological advancements have been overwhelmingly positive for society. Until the time comes, vague fears of prostitution and slavery, and the spectre of lost morality, are not sufficient to overcome the far more likely result that notions of property and personhood will change with advances in biotechnology. The question then is not “are fears of slavery and prostitution enough to out-weight the benefits of biological advancement?” but rather “with advances in biotechnology, what can be done to ensure that the law and society have been adequately advanced to meet its needs?”
No comments:
Post a Comment