People should be squeamish about the revolution in biotechnology. Yes, we wonder at the possibilities for curing genetic diseases and even for making ourselves smarter, prettier, or stronger. Yet we shrink from the potential horror of the world we might create with no hope of turning back.
Is this just the next step in human discovery about ourselves, or does it mean the end of humanity as we know it? Could we literally redesign humanity out of existence? Some are telling us that indeed we can and we will and it is inevitable and “you’d just better get used to it.”
Who’s right? What have we done already? Is there any opportunity for science and society to agree?
Is There a Posthuman Future?
“Transhumanists” are among those who welcome with open arms the possibilities of genetic engineering to alter who and what we are. They scoff at the reluctance of others to step into this coming Brave New World. They relish the possibilities of double and triple average life-expectancy, designer babies, and the elimination of genetic disease. They aren’t troubled by the necessity of costly mistakes and failures. That’s just the price of research and progress. We accept risk all the time, they say. Why should genetic research be any different? They apply rather consistently a naturalistic worldview which sees human beings as just another species. We certainly are not made in the image of God, they say, so why is our current genetic structure sacred?
Gregory Stock opened his book, Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future, with: “We know that homo sapiens is not the final word in primate evolution, but few have grasped that we are on the cusp of profound biological change, poised to transcend our current form and character to destinations of new imagination.” Stock is a naturalist and has little patience with those who would hold back our genetic future.
Stock rightly points out that we have already started down the road of genetic manipulation of our species. Several fertility clinics in the U.S. already offer preimplantation genetic diagnosis or PGD. This procedure screens newly created embryos by in vitro fertilization for a few genetic diseases such as Tay Sachs, cystic fibrosis, and hemophilia. You can also have the embryos screened for sex selection.
One couple from Wyoming had fourteen embryos created by in vitro. Seven were male, seven were female. They chose three females to be implanted to ensure their fourth child was a girl after three boys. The technique is virtually 100% effective. Less efficient sperm selection techniques are only 91% effective for girls and only 76% effective for boys. But should we be selecting the sex of our children?
Over one million IVF babies have been born worldwide, around 28,000 in the U.S. — roughly 1% of newborns. This may soon become the “natural” way once more procedures become available to design our own babies. We may recoil today at the thought of designer babies, but we also recoiled 45 years ago against the thought of test-tube babies.
Stock closes his book by saying, “We are beginning an extraordinary adventure that we cannot avoid, because, judging from our past, whether we like it or not this is the human destiny.” But is it?
What’s Wrong With DNA Tinkering?
Couples are already being given the power to choose the sex of their child, even at the cost of simply rejecting the embryos that are the wrong sex. But our technology is advancing rapidly to allow a far broader array of genetic choices.
Gene therapy, the ability to transfer a normal human gene into the affected tissues of a person affected by a single gene disease, has been pursued for over ten years. So far results have been disappointing. That is partly the reason why many are looking for improved ways to add genes to the earliest one-cell-stage embryo so the gene can be spread to all tissues at once. This process is also rather inefficient in animals, successful only about 1% of the time.
Some researchers view the embryo fourteen days after conception as little more than reproductive cells and not yet worthy of being declared human. With this definition, embryos can be wasted as long as a supply of human eggs is readily available.
Researchers have already devised artificial chromosomes. These chromosomes pass on stably over several generations in mice. They have been tested successfully in human tissue culture, and have remained stable over dozens of cell divisions. No one has added foreign genes to these chromosomes, but that is the plan: to provide a safe and effective means of adding genes to embryos and have them distributed to all tissues and to succeeding generations.
Stock summed it up when he said, “Breakthroughs in the matrixlike arrays called DNA chips, which may soon read thirty thousand genes at a pop; in artificial chromosomes, which now divide as stably as their naturally occurring cousins; and in bioinformatics, the use of computer-driven methodologies to decipher our genomes — all are paving the way to human genetic engineering and the beginnings of human biological design.”
Some may scoff at these projections, but people seem quite willing around the world to consider taking advantage of technologies that can genetically enhance themselves or their offspring. So what’s the problem?
Improving the Original Design?
I believe that being able to genetically redesign human beings is far closer than most people realize. Not only is the technology developing at an ever-increasing rate, but people are also far more willing to consider using such technologies. I have deep reservations about this seemingly inevitable future.
I believe that at least trying to alter ourselves genetically is inevitable because the technology is developing rapidly using animal models. And whatever we have done in animals, we eventually do in humans. The naturalistic worldview says quite strongly that we are just another animal species. If our understanding of our own genetics continues to increase and we gain the technology to correct our defects and faults, the naturalist says, Why not?!
Society and governments have put few barriers in the way of scientists and researchers from simply taking the next logical step. So far, we have been unwilling to say that there are some experiments we will not do. Even though most will say they are against human cloning — even scientists — that figure is changing, and we have few reasons for our objections besides the fact that it is not yet safe. If it does become safer, the public will have little room to say no.
As to genetic engineering, we are easily swayed by appeals to eliminate genetic diseases without considering how difficult it is to delineate between curing genetic disease and producing genetic enhancements. Nobel Laureate James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, exposes our difficulty with two penetrating statements. Concerning curing genetic disease he said, “What the public wants is not to be sick and if we help them not to be sick, they’ll be on our side.” In another context Watson said, “No one really has the guts to say it, but if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn’t we?”
Only a few voices are warning of the developing crisis over human dignity as the diesel engine of human genetic technology gains momentum and steam. Some fear that we must figure out how we are going to cope with a future of redesigned humans.
Leon Kass’s book, Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity acknowledges that there is a human design.
Kass sees that our efforts to redesign humans challenge our very dignity and identity as human beings. If parents have constructed the best child for them using the best available technology they can afford, are they still parents, or creators and owners with additional rights and privileges? A child becomes a commodity to be designed, manufactured, and even sold. Love and nurture will turn to management and stimulation.
Within a few short decades, our children will be pressured to alter their children genetically to keep up with society. Scientific research may well use human embryos as research subjects. This research may likely extend to developing fetuses, and it will all in the name of furthering health and eliminating disease.
Do we really think we can improve on the original design? We must take seriously this threat to our humanity.