Intro to GenEthics: PGD, Genetic Enhancement and Cloning

1
Intro to GenEthics PGD, Genetic Enhancement and
Cloning
Dr. SchmidPhilosophy and Religion UNCW
2

• O, wonder!
• How many goodly creatures are there here!
• How beauteous mankind is!
• O brave new world
• That has such people int
• Shakespeare, The Tempest

3

• A powerful alliance of government, business and
  science is propelling society into a new era in
  which human beings will acquire much greater
  control over living things, including ourselves.
  No one knows the limits of our future powers to
  shape human lives or when these limits will be
  reached. One thing, however, is certain coping
  with these new technical powers will tax our
  wisdom to the utmost.
• --Buchanan, Brock, Daniels, Wikler,
  From Choice to Chance

4
Genetic Engineering

• Genetic engineering, genetic modification (GM)
  and gene splicing are terms for the process of
  manipulating genes outside the normal
  reproductive process
• They involve the isolation, manipulation and
  reintroduction of DNA into cells or model
  organisms
• The aim is to introduce new characteristics or
  attributes physiologically or physically, such as
  making a crop resistant to a herbicide,
  introducing a novel traitor, in the case of
  cloning, determining the entire genetic structure
  of the resulting organism.

5
Ethical perspectives

• Social welfare perspective consequences in costs
  benefits for human happiness beneficence (Do
  good, not evil), utility (greater good for
  greater number in long run), social justice
  issues
• Individual rights perspective respect for human
  persons and their rights human rights (All men
  are created equal and endowed with inalienable
  rights), Kantian imperative (Treat people as
  ends, not mere means)

6
Three Case Studies

• PGD (Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis). Used
  today, raises many basic issues in genethics.
• Genetic Enhancement. Not yet used (but likely
  soon), which raises difficult ethical and
  political issues.
• Human Cloning. Not used today (banned in U.S.),
  raises similar, but more radical ethical issues.

7
Case 1 PGD

• Biopsy of a single cell per embryo, followed by
  genetic diagnosis via different techniques
• Allows identification of genes
• that cause severe and untreatable childhood
  diseases, e.g. cystic fibrosis
• linked to a propensity for serious diseases, e.g.
  breast cancer
• determining gender
• linked to impairments, e.g. deafness
• potentially linked to other traits, e.g. height,
  eye color, memory

8
In Vitro Fertilization Technology
9
Is it right to play God?

• Colon cancer afflicted Chads family
• Chad/Colby decided to avoid natural child birth
• Chloes embryo (1 of 8) passed the PGD test when
  she was an 8-cell embryo and was implanted in her
  mothers womb
• How might we think about the ethics of this
  decision?

10
Ethical Thinking

• We begin by thinking through the situation from
  the perspective of the greater good, which
  suggests maximizing use of biotechnology
• Consider the issue of the right to embryonic
  life, which does not seem to be commonly
  resolvable, leaving the issue in the hands of the
  parents
• Consider the question of respect for persons, and
  whether the right to an open future argument
  implies prohibiting therapeutic interventions

11
The Greater Good

• In terms of the greater good, it is natural to
  conclude that Chad and Colby made the right
  decision
• Greater good for the child
• Chloe does not have the inherited propensity to
  develop cancer
• Colon cancer is very harmful
• She is better off than the child they would have
  had if it had cancer
• Greater good for the parents
• Lesser good for the embryos that were discarded
  (?)
• Greater good for society (? well return to
  this)
• Decreased severe illness
• vs. abstract questions concerning moral impact
  of this technology
• Overall, greater good principle seems to ?
  maximal use of biotechnology not only to protect
  but to enhance life
• Minimize destructive diseases/propensities/disabil
  ities
• Maximize desirable traits, e.g. height, eyesight,
  memory

12
Right to Life Issue

• This technology destroys a viable human life
• Each embryo has the right to life
• Chad and Colby caused the others to be destroyed
• They did not have the right to do that
• Counterargument embryos are not persons
• They are merely undifferentiated human cells
• No personal harm was done
• Moreover, they had limited life-possibilities
  (Greater good argument)
• Neither argument seems objectively conclusive
• This ? parental choice conclusion
• Ignoring the storage alternative

13
Right to an Open Future (ROF)

• What do we owe the child?
• Every person has the right to be treated as an
  end in him/herself
• This implies each child has the right to an open
  future, i.e. one not excessively defined by
  others manipulations
• Genes can significantly limit life-options,
  close the childs future
• Therefore parents have the right to use
  therapeutic intervention, if they can, to keep
  open their childs future
• ROF argument ? therapeutic gene interventions
  justified to prevent life impairments
• severe inherited diseases (e.g. Tay-Sachs) or
  disabilities (e.g. blindness)
• propensities to either of the above
• Parental desire should be to preserve open
  future of child
• NOTE suggests parents do not have the right to
  e.g. select for disability (e.g. deafness or
  dwarfism), an issue that has arisen in recent
  years
• What about genetic interventions to create
  enhancements, physical or mental?

14
Case 2 Human Cloning

• The most radical form of genetic intervention
  might be cloning, i.e. reproducing a genetically
  identical person
• Not yet safe, it might well become safe
• Would it be morally wrong, and if so, why?
• Does this imply the state should prohibit cloning
  in all cases (if it were to become a safe
  technology)?

15
Cloning

• Would a cloned person still be an individual?
• Implies the myth of genetic determinism
  environment and choices we make, experiences we
  have also shape who each of us becomes
• Still raises the questions
• Why was I, this individual, born?
• Do I exist for my own sake, or for someone else?

16
Of course, it might help in world affairs
17
Respect for Persons

• But cloning often would seem to grossly violate
  the principle of respect for persons as ends in
  themselves, who have equal moral worth to other
  persons, and deserve to be treated as such
• Cloning would generally be done to
• Serve the ends of the state or a given community
• Serve the ends of the parents
• Serve other persons (as in Never Let Me Go)
• And the cloned person would not be brought into
  existence to live their own lives

18
The morality of cloning

• MORALLY PERMISSIBLE?
• 1. Infant child killed in an accident, parents
  want clone of that child.
• 2. An infertile individual wants to have a child
  biologically related to him/her.
• 3. A couple wants a child, but one of them has a
  serious genetic disorder.
• 4. Parents with a seriously ill child want to
  clone a twin to use tissues or organs for
  transplant (in a way that respects that childs
  life, cf. Picoults My Sisters Keeper).

• MORALLY FORBIDDEN
• 5. Yourchild, Inc. offers to clone for parents
  their own Bill Gates or Michael Jordan
• 6. The Raellians attempt to clone 10,000
  embryos from the cults religious leaders
• 7. The North Koreans attempt to clone 100,000
  state warriors from the best soldiers in their
  army
• 8. Clones are created for organ implants to
  normals (cf. Ishiguros Never Let Me Go).
• Gross violation of Respect for Persons

19
Case 3 Genetic Enhancement

• Suppose it were possible to select or implant
  genes with enhanced traits
• Physical traits, such as greater height or
  strength
• Mental traits, such as greater memory or music
  skills
• Would this be morally responsible?
• Tiger Woods argument parents do this kind of
  thing already, seeking to enhance a childs life
  it is both permissible and admirable (when
  successful)
• Michael Jordan argument it would be immoral to
  buy MJ genes to raise your own MJ child.

20
Right to Open Future Argument

• Argument against Genetic Enhancement
• Each person has the right to an open future, i.e.
  one not excessively defined by others
  manipulations, including genetic manipulations
• Genes do not determine who we are, but can
  significantly define our life-options
• Cloning, in the extreme, and genetic enhancement,
  to a greater or lesser degree, violates the ROF
  principle
• Thus cloning and genetic enhancements would be
  wrong.
• Problems
• Many parents violate ROF in more normal ways
  sometimes we admire it, e.g. Tiger Woods
• How can it be wrong to do this, if it is right
  for parents to encourage their children through
  camps, special instruction, etc.?

21
Moral vs. Legal Right

• Some actions are morally wrong, but the liberal
  state permits them as a sphere of personal
  freedom.
• Individuals have the right to do bad things if
  they do not harm others.
• Forbid cloning? YES it too massive direct a
  violation of the ROF. (Exceptions?)
• Forbid parents from importing enhancements to
  their childs genes? NO but
• This is morally questionable
• It needs more discussion, from the perspective of
  social justice.

22
Two Competing Perspectives on Genetic Enhancement

• Will to Excellence

• Gift of Life

• Parents
• strive to encourage, shape, transform their
  children, so they can be the best that they can
  be
• are responsible for developing their childs
  talents and abilities, overcoming disabilities
• should seek to enhance even the childs genetic
  abilities if this is possible
• Argument
• parents have the right and should seek to enhance
  their children in every way they can, to enable
  them to be the most extraordinary people they
  can be
• Not to do this is religious passivity and
  stupidity

• Parents
• strive to encourage and develop the child, but
  see them as gifts, accept them as they are
• are responsible for therapy, and for providing
  opportunities, but not for all the child is
• should refrain from gene enhancements, and from
  over-designing guidance
• Argument
• parents should not seek to enhance their childs
  nature, but nurture it and appreciate that human
  achievements are in part a function of luck, not
  control
• Not to take this attitude is a function of a
  hubristic will to mastery

23
Parental Rights vs. the Greater Good?

• Liberal eugenics parents and the market should
  be free to promote reproductive genetics, genetic
  therapy and enhancements
• Even some not-so-well-off parents would spend all
  they have to get a Barry Bonds child (just as
  now with camps, coaches, etc.)
• But genetic enhancements, if they were possible
  and expensive, would radically widen the
  opportunity gap between rich and poor
• Result 1 even less equal opportunity for lower
  and middle class children than now.
• Genetic engineering might ? widely divergent
  human types (not just races) who will
  interbreed with each other
• Result 2 divergent human species? (cf.
  Remaking Eden)
• This argument implies there may be a deep
  conflict between parental rights and the long
  term greater good for society

24
Genetics and Society

• The film Gattaca (1997) depicts a future society
  in which genetic engineering led to distinct
  genetic castes, and systematic genetic
  discrimination

25
Review Ethical issues

• What kind of interventions (via PGD or genetic
  engineering) are morally legitimate?
• Choosing gender ? Preventing severe genetic
  illnesses, e.g. Huntingtons disease, or genetic
  disabilities, e.g. deafness? For the sake of
  enhancements, e.g. height, memory? Cloning human
  beings, even if not to serve others interests?
• What are the rights of embryonic life?
• Non-selected embryos typically discarded (could
  be used for research/stem cells)
• Sometimes frozen for potential later use (put
  on the shelf)
• What are the responsibilities to children?
• Suppose your child were to develop a cancer that
  could have be prevented?
• What responsibility do you have to have the best
  child you can have?
• Therapeutic vs. enhancement interventions,
  questions concerning the hubris of the will to
  perfection, and the right to an open future?
• Social justice/cost equal opportunity
• 25,000 for PGD procedureinterventions likely
  to continue to be expensive
• 1 in 200 Americans carry a genetic propensity for
  colon or breast cancer
• Compare use of growth hormone lt average height
  children, extensive use of Ritalin, Adderal, etc.
  not only for therapeutic but for enhancement
  goals

26
Resources

• Books and Articles
• Against Perfection, Michael Sandel, Atlantic
  Monthly (4/04)
• Bioethics and the New Embryology, Gilbert, Tyler,
  Zackin
• Companion to GenEthics, Burley Harris
• Ethics of Human Cloning, Kass and Wilson
• From Chance to Choice, Buchanan, Brock, Daniels,
  Wikler
• Future of Human Nature, Habermas
• Liberal Eugenics, N. Agar, in Bioethics An
  Anthology eds. Kuhse, Singer
• My Sisters Keeper, Jody Picoult novel
• Never Let Me Go, Kazuo Ishiguro novel
• Redesigning Humans, Gregory Stock
• Remaking Eden, Lee Silver
• Websites
• http//genethics.ca/
• http//www.genecrc.org/site/ge/index_ge.htm
• http//www.chass.ncsu.edu/ethics/about_prog/people
  /comstock/documents/AlteringHumanNatureshort.ppt