In looking at The Question we must, as we do with scientific models, understand the assumptions that underlie it. The most obvious assumption that seems to be being made is that what is natural is good; this is what is known as the naturalistic fallacy (in the sense of an appeal to nature rather than in the sense of G.E. Moore). However, natural systems are essentially amoral and natural products can be just as or more deadly than those contrived by man. The appeal of some mythical purer, more natural past seems strong but few of us would trade our modern comforts for any time prior to the invention of antibiotics if we are really honest and the knowledge that an apple will definitely not have that unpleasant surprise of my childhood, a hidden worm, seems worth having to wash the apples before eating. Certainly humans have always altered nature it is part of what makes us human, so at this level the question is essentially moot. We have and we always will alter nature.
If we now look at The Question in terms of should we alter humans, the question opens more possibilities. At what level are we making the alteration? A walk across campus would suggest that the current undergraduate population feels it is not only OK to alter Nature but it is in fact mandatory to do so if the number tattoos, piercings and dye jobs are anything to go by. But what about at a more fundamental level of change, directly modifying the biological processes of humans. The paragraph under The Question homes in on the issue of reproductive technology and genetic manipulation. For reasons more to do with, I suspect, popular culture rather than any understanding of the scientific processes involved one of the first issues that is raised in such discussions is the idea of cloning humans. Yet in many ways this is the least problematic issue as the clones are already with us ? identical twins are in fact clones; they are two individuals produced from one egg. In what way is the creation of two individuals in a mother?s womb by the improper division of a very early embryo morally any different than the splitting of a fertilized embryo in a Petri dish and then replacing the two new embryos in the mother? Similarly what is morally reprehensible about the fertilization of an egg in vitro for a couple who, for physiological reasons, are unable to conceive in vivo? To take this a step further, the creation in 2004 of the ?mouse with two mothers? raises the long-term possibility of the fusing of two eggs to create an embryo to implant in a mother. It is unclear how joining of two nuclei is in this manner any way more or less moral than joining two nuclei in a ?normal fertilization?. Actually since such a method does not require intercourse there might even be an argument that it was morally superior.
So if we go one step further and consider genetic modification ? something beloved of science fiction but not currently practical in any real sense ? is this at a level of modification that is beyond the pale? Let us consider Tay-Sachs Disease a mutation on chromosome 15 that leads to neurological degeneration in a child a year after birth and proceeds through paralysis and blindness until death occurs at 3 to 4 years old. In certain populations this affects 1 in 3,600 children. We know where this gene is located on the chromosome so it is a prime target for genetic modification. Yet the same technology that would allow us to modify this gene would allow us to modify any gene to change eye color, stature or other attributes. Should we not proceed with the development of the new technology because it could be used for trivial or even detrimental changes?
Any scientific endeavor could lead to information that can be used in a negative manner. The challenge becomes how to identify immoral science; unfortunately it is not always easy. In the mid 19th century there was a significant debate over the morality of using anesthetics, particularly during childbirth. Debates were held in the newspapers and government intervention sought since religious groups claimed the anesthetic was ?Against Gods Law? and tampering with nature as pain was God?s punishment to humanity for the sins of Adam and Eve. In reading this debate the echoes seen in our current debates on genetic engineering and reproductive technologies are clear, one wonders will these debates look as silly in 150 years as the anesthetic debate looks today.
Ultimately the decision of what direction research should take will come down to the individual scientist. So perhaps the best way to ensure that moral and ethical issues are always considered in the laboratory is to ensure that the next generation of scientists and engineers has a good liberal education with some key courses in Philosophy.
