Transcript Playing God? Part One: The Ethics of Genetic Manipulation Lawrence M. Hinman Professor of Philosophy University of San Diego Last updated: 11/6/2015 11/6/2015 Lawrence M.

Playing God?
Part One: The Ethics of Genetic Manipulation
Lawrence M. Hinman
Professor of Philosophy
University of San Diego
Last updated: 11/6/2015
11/6/2015
Lawrence M. Hinman
1
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
11/6/2015
The Current State of Affairs
Points of Intervention
The Arguments for Genetic Manipulation
The Arguments against Genetic Manipulation
Case Studies
©Lawrence M. Hinman
2
The Human Genome Project
The completion of the
Human Genome Project
provides a scientific
foundation for genetic
manipulation. For the first
time, scientists had a map
of (most of the) human
genome.
http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/HGP/
11/6/2015
Lawrence M. Hinman
3
Points of Intervention
Points ofExample
Intervention
Active
killing?
Consent?
Active extermination Nazi extermination of Jews,
of a population
Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally
and physically disabled
Yes
No/
DNA
Infanticide after birth
Killing female first born in China
Yes
Yes/
No
Abortion
Killing embryo in utero after genetic
testing
Yes
Yes/
No
Forced Sterilization
Involuntary sterilization of poor
women
No
No/
DNA
IVF embryo
selection (PGD)
Only implanting selected embryos
No
Yes/
No
In vitro genetic
manipulation
Correcting “abnormalities” through
in utero intervention
No
Yes/
No
Genetic
11/6/2015
manipulation
Gene therapy &©Lawrence
stem cell
therapy
M. Hinman
in children and adults
No
Yes/4
Maybe
Action
Parent/child
Arguments in support of genetic
manipulation
Utilitarian:
• produces overall a better group of
people (eugenics)
•Libertarian:

It is a matter of individual
liberty to decide what genetic
enhancements one wants.
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
5
Arguments Against Genetic Manipulation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Safety Argument
Too risky at this time—we simply don’t know enough to do this safely
The Slippery Slope Argument
Leads to possible abuses, especially eugenics
The Respect for Autonomy Argument
Violates child’s autonomy by choosing a future for him/her, sometimes using the
child as a mere means
The Hubris Argument
Playing God—takes on privileged more appropriate for God than human beings
The “giftedness” argument (Sandel)
The Natural Law Argument
Genetic manipulation involves going against the natural
order, violating natural law.
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
6
The Safety Argument
•
•
•
•
There is much that we do not understand about human genes. Altering genes may result in changes that we
do not expect.
Germline Engineering:
If these changes can be passed down to future generations, there is a possibility of
catastrophic results.
We may create pressure for people to use these techniques.
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
7
The Slippery Slope to Eugenics:
Some History: Galton
•In the late 19th and early 20th century, a
number of groups—most notably later in
the twentieth century, the Nazis—tried to
control the development of the human race
through organized breeding programs:
eugenics.
•Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) read his
paper “Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope and
Aims” to a meeting of the Sociological
Society at the London School of Economics
on May 16th, 1904,
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
8
Eugenics and G. B. Shaw
Eugenics gained favor
with many, including
George Bernard Shaw,
the famous English
playwright.
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
9
Herbert Spencer
•Herbert Spencer (18201903) was an English
philosopher who developed
the notion of “survival of
the fittest” as a doctrine
describing human evolution.
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
10
Eugenics and Birth Control
• The rise of the birth control
movement, championed by
Margaret Sanger, derived
primarily from a desire to free
women from unwanted
pregnancies. In itself, it was not
primarily a eugenics movement.
• However, the birth control
movement became intertwined
with the eugenics movement,
sharing both advocates and
critics.
G. K. Chesterton
G. K Chesterton
(1874-1936) was
one of the most
outspoken critics
of the eugenics
movement in
Great Britain.
Eugenics in California
The Nazis looked to the California eugenics programs
as a model.
The Respect for Autonomy
Argument
• Genetic manipulation,
performed either in utero or
during childhood, would
seem to threaten the right
to make one’s own choices.
• The President’s Council on
Bioethics has focused on
issues of human dignity and
respect for autonomy.
11/6/2015
Lawrence M. Hinman
14
The Hubris Argument:
Playing God?
• Some critics maintain that altering
genes is “playing God.”
• This version of the argument is not
primarily consequentialist but rather
either deontological or characterbased.
• Michael Sandel, for example, argues
that we should accepted the “gifted”
character of existence and not try to
control everything. The attempt at
such control is an example of
overreaching the bounds of the
properly human.
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
Michael J. Sandel is the Anne T.
and Robert M. Bass Professor
of Government at Harvard
University,
15
The Natural Law Argument
• Genetic manipulation strikes many people as
profoundly unnatural, against the natural order and
(sometimes) against God’s order.
• Is this merely a subjective feeling, shared by some
but not all, or does it have some stronger
foundation?
• This argument seems in danger of proving either
too much or too little;
• Many things which seem unnatural, such as surgery, are
commonly accepted today.
• What allows us to single out this particular thing as morally
wrong?
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
16
Three Questions about Restrictions
• In considering the issue of genetic manipulation,
we are faced with three distinct but closely related
questions:
• What restrictions, if any, are appropriate in regard
to the use of genetic manipulation?
• To whom should these restrictions apply?
• Individuals
• Professionals
• Who, if anyone, is responsible for enforcing these
restrictions?
• Individual
• Professional organizations
• The government
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
17
What Kind of Restrictions?
• What regulation should apply to genetic manipulation?
•The free market/individual liberty model

Individuals should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they do
not infringe on the liberty of others.
•The government regulation model
•
•
Genetic manipulation should not be permitted unless explicitly approved
by the government.
The government should ban all attempts at genetic manipulation.
The professional regulation model

Genetic manipulation should be monitored and controlled by appropriate
professional organizations of scientists, physicians, and others.
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
18
Choosing Between Life Paths
Genetic manipulation is very different from abortion:
• Abortion is a matter of life or death, of deciding
whether a fetus lives or dies.
• Genetic manipulation is a matter of deciding which
life an individual may have by altering the
individual’s genes; It is a matter of which future
the fetus is going to have.
• Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is in
between these two, allowing the choice of which
embryo should be implanted.
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
19
Scenario #1:
Designer Babies
• Imagine that it is possible to decide height, skin
color, hair color, eye color, sex and other physical
characteristics of a newly-conceived child.
• Should parents be allowed to change these
characteristics if they choose?
• Will this lead to designer babies? To uniformity?
Will this deplete the gene pool?
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
20
Scenario #2:
Sexual Orientation
• Imagine that:
• Scientists have isolated the genes that predispose sexual orientation;
• You are going to have a child;
• Tests have determined that your child will probably be gay.
• Your doctor asks you: would you like us to alter the genes
that predispose toward sexual orientation so that the child
will not be gay?
• Further assume that you “have nothing against gays,” but
know that overall a gay person will face more discrimination
and suffering—all other things being equal—than someone
who is heterosexual.
• What should you do?
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
21
Scenario #3:
Sexual Orientation
• Imagine scenario #2 with the following
changes:
• Doctors have determined that your child
will have a heterosexual orientation;
• You are gay.
• If the doctor offered to alter the genes so
that your child would be gay as well, what
should you do?
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
22
Scenario #4:
Achondroplasia
• You are pregnant, and a
routine test reveals that your
child has a particular gene that
results in achondroplasia, a
form of dwarfism. The doctor
asks you whether you want to
have the gene altered so that
the child’s height is “normal.”
• What should you do?
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
23
Scenario #5:
Achondroplasia
• Imagine the scenario is similar to that given
in #4, except that you and your spouse are
both dwarfs and the doctor tells you, after
a routine test, that your baby will be
“normal” height.
• A friend, aware that it may be difficult if
both parents are dwarfs and the child is
not, suggests that you ask that the child’s
genes be altered so that the child too will
be a dwarf.
• What should you do?
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
24
Scenario #6:
A Savior Baby
• “A boy has been born to a British couple who want to use
stem cells from his umbilical cord to treat an older brother
with a life threatening blood disorder.
• Michelle and Jayson Whitaker's baby, Jamie, was genetically
selected while he was still an embryo to be a near perfect
match to four-year-old Charlie.
• The couple went to an American clinic for test tube baby
treatment because the selection procedure is not allowed
in the UK.”
• Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/issues/designer_babies/
• Also see Jodi Picoult, My Sister’s Keeper
• Kazuo Ishiguro, Never Let Me Go
11/6/2015
©Lawrence M. Hinman
25