Perspectives

Tweaking our souls

The fight for the future of genetic research

By Jessica Mintz
From the April 2006 Print Edition

As we continue into the 21st century, many new technologies will exponentially change the way we interact with the world, more so than ever before. Striking extrinsic advances like nuclear energy and space technology, computers and the Internet, have vastly improved our standard of living in ways that a hundred years ago were akin to fairy tales. These advances have, however, left our biology and psychology, the essence of our identity, largely unchanged. Not anymore.

We have already seen the tip of the iceberg with the explosion, despite government interference, of pharmaceutical technology. But with significant breakthroughs in medicinal and genetic technology now reported almost daily, new questions arise. Will we be able to alter our genes and eradicate hereditary disease? Could we decide the hair color, skin type, and even brainpower of our children before they are born?

These tantalizing and morally troubling questions are no longer only figments of science-fiction imagination. With the completion of the Human Genome Project and the successes of in-vitro fertilization, stem cell research, gene splicing and other biotech advances, these dreams are quickly becoming reality.

The important question, therefore, is not whether these and related technologies will become possible, but how human society will respond when they do.

Ethics, politics, economy, and religion all clash in this brave new world of bewildering choices and shape-shifting definitions. For example, genetic engineering of crops and livestock, the mildest leading edge of the impending biotech revolution, has generated much fear and hostility. Is this simply fear of change, or is it more deeply rooted? Let’s get back to basics.

The most simplistic definition of genetic engineering is the intentional alteration of the genetic material of organisms to produce some desirable characteristic. Genetic engineering of this type has been going on for thousands of years. The process we call “breeding,” whether it is of dogs to produce the shiniest coat or of the healthiest cows to produce the most meat and milk, is exactly this.

Recent technological advances simply make breeding more efficient. And yet many fear this time-tested tool for improving the human condition, and many others use that fear for political and economic gain. For example, terms like “organic,” “natural,” and “non-GMO” are often used to market inferior products.

What is the basis of this deep-seated fear of genetic engineering? Many feel that the procedures involved are in some way “unnatural,” these concerns often arising from a religious or semi-religious foundation. “Unnatural” in this context is harmful by definition. Let us consider these concerns objectively. While many man-made products can be potentially harmful, obviously good things like indoor plumbing, maggot-free produce, and safe and effective medicines are all results of man’s “tampering with nature.”

It is true in fact that the progress of civilization has depended almost entirely on man’s interference in nature. This point is a very simple one: Merely because something happens in nature does not mean that it is right or good, or that it should be preserved or protected. Many “natural” organisms and genetic disorders cause disease and death in humans, and if we have the knowledge to upset this “natural” order of things, it is proper, and indeed necessary, that we do so.

The faith-based arguments against this kind of research, recently focusing on embryonic stem cell research, have many Americans determined to stop it. Religion has, however, a history of coming to terms with the advance of science. Alchemy was once blasphemy, but no one has been recently burned alive for creating a new medicine. Genetic engineering has clearly preserved and enhanced the lives of many, and has yet barely touched its enormous potential to improve the human condition. Religious faith seeks the same central goal and is therefore fundamentally compatible.

This issue is not necessarily divided along traditional political or religious lines. It is easy to find examples of proponents and opponents who are liberal and conservative, secular and non-secular. The risks and potential rewards are generally acknowledged by both sides but lead to different conclusions. Scientific progress, in fact, depends on prudent risk-taking and acknowledging that everything unknown is potentially hazardous and potentially rewarding. Without scientists taking risks in the past, we would not enjoy the luxuries — and necessities — that are available to us today.

Excessive caution, however prudent it may seem, does not eliminate the risk of future disasters and may instead guarantee them. For example, genetic science is giving us a fighting chance against the bird flu, a quintessential “natural” disaster. We must also remember that terrorists and rogue nations will surely use this new science against the defenseless, regardless of what we choose to do.

The potential of genetic engineering is enormous. Because of in-vitro fertilization technology, for example, more than 200,000 babies have been born worldwide who would never have even had a chance had this research had been blocked. All hereditary diseases like sickle-cell anemia, diabetes, and heart disease could perhaps be eradicated with the simple tweak of a gene. What compassionate civilization could oppose such miracles? The ultimate goal and overall effect of science and technology has been to improve human life, and every development thus far has been met with opposition. Considering the dangers of a new technology is appropriate, but a complete ban on all research involving genetic engineering is cruel at best and, at worst, extremely dangerous.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot