Eubios
Journal of Asian and International Bioethics June 1996, 6(4):94-101
in Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Science, Technology, and Society , Fourth Edition, ed. Thomas A. Easton. Dushkin/McGraw Hill, 2000
and translated into German in Telepolis
1. Introduction
2. Distinctions without a Difference
3. Ethical Starting Points for A Defense
A. Rule Utilitarianism
B. Privacy, Self-Determination and Bodily Autonomy
C. Freedom from Biological Necessity
D. Justice and a Better Society
E. A Critical Defense
4. Arguments Against Genetic Technology
A. Bio-Luddism 1 : Medicine Makes People Sick
B. Bio-Luddism 2 : Sacred Limits of the Natural Order
C. Bio-Luddism 3 : Technologies Serve Ruling Interests
D. Bio-Luddism 4 : The Genome is Too Complicated to Engineer
E. Gene Angst 1 : Fascist Applications
F. Gene Angst 2 : The Value of Genetic Diversity
H. Gene Angst 3 : The Geneticization of Life
I. Gene Angst 4 : Genetic Discrimination and Confidentiality
J. Gene Angst 5 : Systematically Bad Decisions by Parents for Children
K. Gene Angst 6 : Discrimination Against the Disabled
L. Gene Angst 7 : Unequal Access, Priority Setting and the Market
M. Gene Angst 8 : The Decline of Social Solidarity
5. Conclusion
Bibliography
Abstract
This paper sets out to defend human genetic engineering with a new bioethical approach, post-humanism, combined with a radical democratic political framework. Arguments for the restriction of human genetic engineering, and specifically germ-line enhancement, are reviewed. Arguments are divided into those which are fundamental matters of faith, or "bio-Luddite" arguments, and those which can be addressed through public policy, or "gene-angst" arguments.
The four bio-Luddite concerns addressed are: Medicine Makes People Sick; There are Sacred Limits of the Natural Order; Technologies Always Serve Ruling Interests; The Genome is Too Complicated to Engineer. I argue that these are matters of faith that one either accepts or rejects, and that I reject.
The non-fundamentalist or pragmatic concerns I discuss are: Fascist Applications; The Value of Genetic Diversity; The Geneticization of Life; Genetic Discrimination and Confidentiality; Systematically Bad Decisions by Parents; Discrimination Against the Disabled; Unequal Access; The Decline of Social Solidarity. I conclude that all these concerns can be adequately addressed through a proactive regulative framework administered by a liberal democratic state. Therefore, even germ-line genetic enhancement should eventually made available since the potential benefits greatly outweigh the potential risks.
...
Complete entry
Posted by
Anthony Robinson on 11/27 at 07:08 PM
While I find your article interesting, the arguments you put forward in defense of genetic engineering are not compelling enough to convince me. I’m not a Bio Luddite, but there is something that I find slightly disturbing and it’s the idea of a perfect society, or Utopia. There is something immature about Utopia’s - this idea that there will be a land of milk and honey for believers has been offered up throughout history. How is it possible that during the 20th century and in this new millennium, in spite of technological advancements in medicine, in spite of the formation of NGOs charged with the task of eradicating conflict and inequality, that we see more and more suffering?
I’m not advocating a return to cave dwelling or the dark ages. But I refuse to take your word for anything like a good little sheep. When I speak of immaturity, it’s a kind of moral, spiritual immaturity which renders a people totally dependent on outside agencies to make life beautiful.
Neither am I against change. The thing is, real change is usually planned in advance without the participation of the people.
I also take exception to your point about America and it’s allies being the only nations morally qualified to have nuclear weapons. Last time I looked, America is the only nation to have USED nuclear weapons.
IEET Blog