Is Genetic Engineering Ethical?
[Written by Joe for an undergraduate philosophy essay. We also have an upcoming podcast on this subject]
Genetic engineering is the process of directly altering and modifying the genes of a living organism, producing physical effects.[1] In recent years, the once science fiction like process has become a reality, allowing scientists to alter the nutrient content in certain crops[2], whilst also even more recently, being able to edit the genes of human babies, making them resistant or even immune to some diseases.[3] Immediately, genetic engineering or modification sounds vastly positive, introducing nutrients, or removing disease, but I argue that this is a slippery slope with no clearly defined end. As I will go on to show, genetic engineering is potentially very dangerous and has frightening implications. In order to discuss whether or not genetic engineering is ethical, we must first make it clear what ethics is. Later on, I will argue that there must be a distinction made between ethics and morality in order to say what is ethical, but for now, I will discuss ethics and morality as one idea together, as the majority of ethical theorists do. Having read many definitions of ethics, by many different thinkers, it is clear that each definition is loaded with a particular theory or point of view, making it very difficult to provide an objective definition of ethics. There are however common themes among them that we can extract. To put it somewhat generally, ethics is the foundational idea of how humans should all treat each other, and in order to be ethical, we must treat each other fairly and with respect.[4] If we go any further into this definition, we begin to discuss the felicific calculous or the categorical imperative, concepts that I wish to avoid at this point in time, as for me they are wholly lacking in usefulness for ethics, as I will show.
In order to show whether or not genetic engineering is ethical, I will first consult the work of Julian Savulescu, who claims it is our moral, or ethical, duty to genetically modify our children, his argument comes from a Utilitarian perspective which is already problematic in essence. I will go on to counter his piece with an alternative yet still Utilitarian account from Peter Singer who claims almost the opposite as compared to Savulescu. Despite giving comprehensive accounts, I will ultimately argue that both points of view are inadequate and do not go far enough to show what ethics really is. In order to fully understand ethics and appreciate human life in its full reality, we must do away with the traditional ethical theories such as Deontology and Utilitarianism. Instead, we must use the work of Raimond Gaita, who splits ethics and morality in order to show what ethics really is and how we must use it to treat other humans. Whilst Singer and Gaita may come to similar conclusions when their theories are directed towards genetic engineering, I argue that only Gaita can see the human for what it is and treat it ethically. Using Gaita, I will eventually show that genetic engineering does not treat a human as such, and is therefore unethical.
As I stated earlier, genetic engineering is the process of editing and modifying genes, but what exactly does that mean? In modern science, a process known as CRISPR-Cas9 has been developed, allowing biologists to intervene with the nature to some degree.[5] Using CRISPR-Cas9, we are able to see patterns in our genes that relate to certain attributes in the human body. These can range from something as simple as eye colour, to the likelihood of developing diseases. The initial implication for gene editing is to prevent disease, something that has already been done by Chinese scientists. In 2018. They were able to genetically modify twin babies, making them immune to HIV, something that is clearly considered as a triumph.[6] Having said that, I argue that even at this early stage where genes are just being manipulated for the sake of preventing disease, there are already ethical issues. The first glaring issue is of course consent. There is no way that an unborn baby can give consent to have its genes manipulated, meaning that baby may grow up to become resentful of the scientist that edited it’s DNA structure. Whilst this issue may seem somewhat trivial, I argue that it still indicates ethical issues at an early stage, and these ethical issues are only going to get worse as genetic engineering develops. Without diving into the religious argument of whether or not we are interfering with God’s will when we edit genes, there are problems we must consider. With my opinion in mind, I beg the question, how can genetic engineering be ethical? This is something Savulescu wishes to show us.
In his paper, Procreative Beneficence, Savulescu claims that we have a moral obligation to select the best children[7], even before unpacking what he means, the sentence is somewhat disturbing. I will start by explaining how Savulescu sees morality, and by extension, ethics. He argues that morality is essentially the thing that we have most reason to do, and bases his argument for genetic engineering on this point.[8] He argues that if we were to see a list of possible diseases that may one day manifest in the embryo that becomes a living human, we would surely choose the embryo that had the least chance of developing diseases. To illustrate, if embryo A has the genetic predisposition to develop asthma, and embryo B does not, Savulescu claims that there is nothing that embryo A has in favour over embryo B, and in fact there is something against it. The reason that there is something against embryo A is that asthma reduces the quality of life and overall, according to Savulescu makes life worse than if asthma was not present.[9] Whilst I understand his reasoning, and can come to terms with the idea that preventing disease is good, there is an element of genetic modification that still does not sit right. Where is the line for Savulescu, at what point is genetic engineering dangerous not only to the gene pool, but also to human society?
He goes on to discuss what the best life may be, intertwining his previous argument regarding disease, suggesting that disease limits ones ability to live their best life. He gives a vague and fairly meaningless definition of ‘Best Life’ by suggesting that the best life is one with the most wellbeing, framing his definition in a somewhat scientific way, a common theme for Savulescu as he seems to miss out humanity in much of his paper. He then combines his view of a best life with a classic Utilitarian approach based on hedonism. ‘…what matters is the quality of our experiences, for example that we experience pleasure.’[10] Clearly Savulescu is only concerned with maximising pleasure and minimising pain. He continues on his slippery slope from preventing disease to discussing character traits in humans, and discussing which are positive, and which are negative. Savulescu suggests that certain genetic traits can be linked to behavioural characteristics such as aggression, anxiety, bipolar disorder and neuroticism to name a few. These negative traits as defined by Savulescu also have the ability to reduce quality of life, linking into his main argument that we should avoid these traits. He goes on to also claim that certain other traits have the ability to increase quality of life, namely intelligence and memory. Intelligence and memory fit in with his definition of the best life and so surely would be chosen by parents to implement into their children and we should at the very least offer it.
This point of view seems no less than absurd. I understand that Savulescu is trying to act with the best interest of the children involved, but the implications his argument has are simply terrifying. Not only can the child not consent to being genetically modified, but surely not all parents are going to be able to afford the genetic treatment. An easy objection to me would be to suggest that Savulescu is envisaging a future in which all would be offered genetic modification, but in his introduction he claims that ‘I will argue that Procreative Beneficence implies couples should employ genetic tests for non-disease traits in selecting which child to bring into existence and that we should allow selection for non-disease genes in some cases even if this maintains or increases social inequality.’[11] Clearly Savulescu is not interested in the ethics or the humanity that I argue should be considered when discussing genetic engineering. The final point he makes that I find ludicrous is that we should, if available, be providing ‘non-coercive advice as to which child will be expected to enter life with the best opportunity of having the best life.’[12] His words could easily fit in with a dystopian sci-fi script, as he advocates for doctors explaining to couples which embryo they should select based on a set of genetic codes. I argue that a huge part of what it is to be human is to be flawed. Flaws make us unique and create individuals, something Savulescu is risking, playing with the ability to change what it is to be human for good. Most importantly what Savulescu does not do, is see the would be subjects of genetic engineering as human, a point we will return to when discussing Gaita’s argument.
Whilst also a Utilitarian advocate, Peter Singer makes a compelling argument against genetic engineering, countering Savulescu entirely. Singer starts by discussing cochlear implants, devices that correct the hearing of deaf people. He then quickly jumps to the conclusion that cochlear implants are genocide.[13] To illustrate his argument, it seems obvious that if a deaf couple had a baby that was born with hearing it would be totally unethical to make it deaf so that it was part of the so-called normal community with hearing. Singer claims that the reverse is also unethical, giving a baby cochlear implants removes its ability to be part of the deaf community. By definition, he shows that cochlear implants could result in genocide. Genocide is the destruction of an ethnic group, deaf people can be described as such, and cochlear implants could end deafness.[14] Whilst his argument appears extreme, his points are valid. Deaf people have developed a culture around deafness to the point where they have their own language using hand signals. Cochlear implants have the ability to wipe out all of this.
To put it another way, dwarfism is considered a deformity and may be on a list if genetic diseases that can be eradicated by genetic engineering. However, people with dwarfism have managed to cope with their disease and again created a community around it, one example being ‘Little People of America’.[15] Trying to eradicate certain diseases can be likened to eradicating whole communities and groups, something that is clearly unethical. Singer also goes on to support my point of view and suggest that genetic engineering for diseases will eventually result in ‘Shopping for beauty and brains’[16], something I have already highlighted as deeply unethical. Whilst compelling, it is important to remember that Singer is arguing from a Utilitarian perspective[17], so the reasoning behind his arguments against genetic engineering are that it does not create the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.[18] This is a concept I argue is flawed in ethics, and to find what is truly ethical, we must consult Gaita.
Gaita begins by separating ethics and morality, something that is rarely addressed but I argue, paramount for understanding what ethics is and should be.[19] For Gaita, morality is the wider approach to how we see one another, with lots of influences throughout history.[20] Ethics on the other hand is the up close and personal ways in which humans interact, usually face to face, similar to what Levinas would argue.[21] We can see the difference between classic ethical theories such as Utilitarianism and Gaita straight away. Gaita does not ascribe theory to live by, but instead sees how humans interact and make judgements based on that. Writing extensively about the Holocaust and the horrific treatment of Jewish people by the Nazis, Gaita shows us what absolute evil is and ultimately what ethics is.
In Good and Evil: An Absolute Conception, Gaita highlights the importance of individuality, claiming that all life is truly precious and should be treated as such, something Savulsescu could clearly not grasp. In explaining how precious life is, Gaita makes it clear that it is impossible for one human to be able to kill another human.[22] Of course, murder does in fact happen, so how can this be so? Murder is only possible if the person carrying out the killing does not see the person in front of them as a person, or human. Therefore, they do not appreciate the preciousness of their life. This is precisely how the Nazis managed to carry out horrific murders on a massive scale. When a Nazi officer stood in front of a Jew, he did not see another person before him, only a thing. The only way one person can kill another is to dehumanize the victim entirely, removing any traces of recognition of them as another living person.
This, for Gaita, is absolute evil. Not seeing a person as a person and just seeing a thing is true evil, allowing for horrific acts to take place. In his other book ‘A Common Humanity’ Gaita links these ideas of dehumanization with the concept that we are all the same.[23] If we fully appreciate that we are all human, unethical acts such as murder and racism would be impossible. It is that lack of appreciation and recognition that leads to absolute evil.
What does this all mean for genetic engineering? I mentioned earlier that Savulescu failed to recognise the subjects of genetic engineering as people and discuss them as if they were merely things. His paper saw babies as experiments and tests that could be improved upon, not as humans that are precious. Gaita’s emphasis on recognising the individual as a human and not a thing is paramount to his understanding of ethics[24], and therefore mine, as I find his argument wholly convincing. By showing that genetic engineering fails to appreciate the subject as a human, we also show that genetic engineering cannot be ethical and can lead to ultimate evil.
As I have shown, Julian Savulescu’s point of view is clearly flawed on many levels. He is not concerned with the effects of genetic engineering on society as he so obviously states. Savulescu describes humans as things to be worked or improved upon, adding positive attributes and removing potentially negative ones, ignoring the fact that this would jeopardise our individuality and to some degree, what it is to be human. This could also lead to a world of even worse social inequality, as those with the funds and power to create genetically advanced children, would begin to stray further away from working class people, not only in terms of wealth, but also in terms of human physicality, separating the human race even further. Clearly this is not ethical. The most compelling point against Savulescu is that he does not view humans as other humans. He see’s humans as things, and by doing so, fails to appreciate fully what a human is, therefore avoiding any sense of ethics and leading towards Gaita’s view of evil. Whilst he puts forward a strong argument that has similar conclusions to the one I support, Singer still approaches ethics from a Utilitarian perspective. He sees the population as numbers on a scale of pleasure and pain, something I argue is fundamentally flawed. The very essence of Utilitarianism fails to see humans as humans, and instead turns them into statistics. Therefore, I argue we need to do away with mainstream ethical theories such as Utilitarianism and instead use thinkers such as Gaita, who clearly see the human being as a living thing, whose life and individuality is precious. Whilst recognising individuality, we must also accept that we have a common humanity, meaning we are all the same and in order to be ethical, we must see others as the same as us. By failing to see the other as human, we are failing to be ethical, and opening up the opportunity for absolute evil. Genetic engineering in every circumstance I have seen, fails to see humans as anything other than things, and is therefore unethical.
[1] Nicholl, Desmond S. T. 2002. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering. 2nd ed. Studies in Biology. New York: Cambridge University Press page 16
[2] Kimura, Aya Hirata. 2013. Hidden Hunger: Gender and the Politics of Smarter Foods Cornell University Press page 87
[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-chinese-scientist-broke-the-rules-to-create-the-first-gene-edited-babies-11557506697
[4] Gert, Bernard and Gert, Joshua, 2017 "The Definition of Morality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/morality-definition/
[5] Nicholl, Desmond S. T. 2002. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering. 2nd ed. Studies in Biology. New York: Cambridge University Press page 16
[6] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist
[7] Savulescu, Julian (2001). Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Blackwell Publishers ltd 15 (5-6):413-426
[8] Savulescu, Julian (2001). Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Blackwell Publishers ltd 15 (5-6):413-426
[9] Savulescu, Julian (2001). Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Blackwell Publishers ltd 15 (5-6):413-426
[10] Savulescu, Julian (2001). Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Blackwell Publishers ltd 15 (5-6):413-426
[11] Savulescu, Julian (2001). Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Blackwell Publishers ltd 15 (5-6):413-426
[12] Savulescu, Julian (2001). Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Blackwell Publishers ltd 15 (5-6):413-426
[13] Singer, Peter 2002 in Sang-yong, Song; Young-Mo, Koo; Macer, Darryl R.J. Asian Bioethics in the 21st Century Eubios Ethics Institute
[14] Singer, Peter 2002 in Sang-yong, Song; Young-Mo, Koo; Macer, Darryl R.J. Asian Bioethics in the 21st Century Eubios Ethics Institute
[15] https://www.lpaonline.org/
[16] Singer, Peter 2002 in Sang-yong, Song; Young-Mo, Koo; Macer, Darryl R.J. Asian Bioethics in the 21st Century Eubios Ethics Institute
[17] Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna de, and Peter Singer. 2017. Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. First. Very Short Introductions, 530. Oxford: Oxford University Press
[18] Singer, Peter 2002 in Sang-yong, Song; Young-Mo, Koo; Macer, Darryl R.J. Asian Bioethics in the 21st Century Eubios Ethics Institute
[19] Gaita, Raimond. 2004. Good and Evil: An Absolute Conception. 2nd ed. London: Routledge page 264
[20] Gaita, Raimond. 2004. Good and Evil: An Absolute Conception. 2nd ed. London: Routledge pages 11-14
[21] Davis, Colin. 1996. Levinas: An Introduction. Key Contemporary Thinkers. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press page 22
[22] Gaita, Raimond. 2004. Good and Evil: An Absolute Conception. 2nd ed. London: Routledge pages 11-14
[23] Gaita, Raimond. 2000. A Common Humanity: Thinking About Love and Truth and Justice. London: Routledge page 68
[24] Gaita, Raimond. 2000. A Common Humanity: Thinking About Love and Truth and Justice. London: Routledge page 29-35