Questions

Posted by Robert on the 12th of December, 2004 at 5:26 PM GMT0. Permalink.
Tags: Cloning, Philosophy, Religion, Stem Cell

The following is an advertisement.

When I posted this, I was listening to: Interpol - A Time To Be So Small

I spent a large portion of time filling out a few questions for Robyn, Kat's sister. Since this blog is about what I do, and because it's easier than writing about what I said, I'm posting my responses here.

Question 1: What experiences (educationally, occupationally, or spiritually) influence your perspective of scientific innovation and its peripheral issues? How do you view genetic alteration in human beings (in any sense, from "designer drugs" to germline engineering)? Do you have any strong feelings concerning the consequent ethical/social issues? Do you have any hopes for genetic innovation?

All my life's experiences color my perspective on science. Since my history is out of scope of this question, I'll give what many would consider the main factors.

1. Currently, I am an agnostic leaning toward atheism. This unties me from any dogmatic reasons for rejecting science and / or scientific practices, and makes it easier for me to operate within scientific thought. That is, metaphysical naturalism goes well with scientific naturalism.
2. I've been through the wringer that is a bachelors in Philosophy. While I'd pretty much figured out how I felt about many topics, having a formal education gave me names for them and opened up several other topics I hadn't considered.
3. I'm from a very non-superstitious / religious background. My parents are Southern Baptists, for lack of a better definition, but never made us go to church and never suggested that God would seek retribution if we did something bad. They also never lied to me about Santa Claus, etc, existing, and really just let me think for myself.

I think genetic alteration is going to save humanity. Medical technology has pretty much put an end to evolution in humans. In fact, it is working against evolution. Medical doctors are in the business of saving people that would have died in the wild, allowing those people a better chance to propagate their genes. In a natural state, someone more better fit to survive would last longer than someone less fit. For example, a disease, an accident caused by stupidity, or a bad gene might cause one person to die before another. A natural resistance to a disease, a more intelligent brain, or an enhanced gene would cause someone to live longer than another. Modern medical technology is saying (in a very humane way) that all people deserve to live. While this might be true in an ethical sense, in an evolutionary sense, it is not. We are polluting the human race with bad genes.

Human genetic alteration is going to allow us to step in as an evolutionary force. We'll no longer be just saving the people that should have died, but start eradicating the genes that put past generations disadvantage. I think this is the only way humans will evolve (or, more accurately, stop de-evolving) without stopping modern medicine.

So, I guess you could say I feel strongly about it.

Question 2: Do you support stem cell research? Where do you stand in regards to the adult versus embryonic stem cell debate? Why do you believe as you do?

I staunchly support stem cell research. The last time I did any reading on it (and I'm sure technology has changed some), was when the idea was first hit the media. Basically, scientists were taking pluripotent cells from embryos in vitro fertilization. These cells were waste. They were going to be thrown away, as it were. They wouldn't become human life in the trash can, as that isn't a suitable environment for harvesting human life. Rather than waste them, put them to use to help people. I see no wrong in this. It's like taking leftover food and "harvesting it" to solve world hunger.

The other method at the time was to pull them from an aborted fetus. Abortion is out of the scope of the question, so I'll be brief. If something positive can come out of something negative (and no one in addition is hurt), it should be done. For example, if I die in a car crash, and my organs could save someone else's life, they should be given to them (since I can't use them).

Basically, any chance of these embryos becoming human is gone. In the first case, these never had chance of becoming humans. In the latter, (if the fetus is even alive is debatable) the fetus it is "dead" before the cells are removed. These cells can then be used to create human parts that can save lives. I believe the way I do because NOT taking advantage of stem cells is daft.

If one wanted to outlaw abortion and outlaw in vitro fertilization, and those methods were the only way to get stem cells, then there is an argument. Otherwise, there is no reason not to.

To boot, stem cells can be used to create other stem cells. Once we get a big enough cache, we shouldn't need to worry about the ethics of it.

Question 3: The dilemma over cloning -- both of animals and human individuals -- has certainly bloomed in recent decades as the science becomes more prevalent and realistic in today's society. What should we clone, and for what reasons?

Cloning of humans, as it stands, is a horrible practice. The technology is still very rudimentary, and very imprecise. Only one or two percent of clones survive. Those that do are riddle with genetic disorders, and problems in many essential and non-essential functions. Dolly the sheep had premature arthritis, for example. Cloning a human would be very unethical. Cloning animals is arguably unethical.

Cloning is still very dangerous for the clones.

That said, cloning will be very helpful now that we are able to make "chimeras," animal hybrids that have human parts. We should keep cloning animals to (eventually) perfect the practice. At which point cloning chimeras would be useful (assuming it's easier to clone than create a chimera).

One company was discussing cloning as a means to give children to people who weren't able to have children. In that case, if cloning is perfected, the good having a biological child would do for the parents might justify cloning a human. Otherwise, I don't see any need to clone a human.

Question 4: Should individuals be held responsible for actions that are undeniably (if such a ruling can be made) the result of his/her particular DNA sequence?

I'm not exactly sure what would fall into this category. If you mean mentally ill serial killers (are there any other kind?), I think the penal system handles things well enough. When someone does something wrong, we do one of three things: punish them, attempt to rehabilitate them, or protect the public from them. Jail is supposed to rehabilitate. I suppose a mental institution might be able to rehabilitate someone with a genetic mental illness enough to be reinserted into society. Rehabilitation assumes that the person doing evil doesn't know any better. We try to teach them that what they do is wrong. Jail is also used as punishment. It seems to me that mental illness is something that results in perpetual rehabilitation. They never get to the punishment part. Finally, protecting the public results in "life sentences" or execution (people often make the mistake of thinking execution is punishment).

What I'm getting at is that these cases sometimes slip through the system. And end up at the wrong stage of justice.

James Colburn, a paranoid schizophrenic in Texas, was one such example. He broke the law, essentially, to get into mental hospitals (a cry for help, in other words), and ended up on death row. He got a stay before he was executed. That was the last I heard of him.

Did he deserve justice? Yeah. But he should have been in a rehabilitation program. Mentally ill should be held responsible for their actions, but they should be treated in relation to their illness in the same way that children aren't treated the same way as adults in the eyes of the law. If you can't rehabilitate them, then you can't punish them. If you can do neither, you need to protect the public by putting them in a mental system for life.

So, in short, yes they should be held responsible, but in a just way.

But if you look at it in a deterministic way, are any of us really responsible for our actions? And we get held responsible.

Question 5: In the future, should we allow genetic screening and discrimination on the basis of genetic propensities? In terms of employment? In terms of insurance policies?

To some degree, insurance companies already practice this. Many won't cover pre-existing conditions. I'm sure they will continue to do this, even in the genetic realm, as long as they can.

In terms of employment, employers are not allowed to hire/fire based on race, religion, or disabilities. I assume this practice will continue.

Question 6: Should doctors and other medical consultants be required to inform patients of genetic disorders despite the patient's wishes? Should they be required to adhere to the desire of the patient?

Doctors, like any other hired service, get paid by the patient to do certain things. If I go to mechanic and say, Is my differential broken? and he truthfully says that it isn't, he's done his job. However, my universal joint might be broken. I paid him to see if my differential was broken, not if my universal joint was broken. Though, it's helpful if he would have diagnosed that problem too, he did his job by only telling me that my differential was not broken.

When you go to a doctor, you usually ask, What is wrong with me? and list the symptoms. The doctor comes up with a diagnosis. If he happened to also see that you anemic, he'll let you know, even if it has nothing to do with your symptoms. If he didn't tell you, he didn't not do his job. Though most doctors see it as a matter of good ethics that they should tell you these things.

In the end, though, a doctor provides a service. If someone specifically asks a doctor not to disclose any information about incurable genetic diseases, the doctor should not. Knowing about an incurable genetic disease might cause the patient to have a poor quality of life, and maybe even commit suicide. Though, if steps can be taken to make their quality of life better during the hard times, it again becomes a question of ethics.

Question 7: Should genetic researchers be granted patents for determining the function of particular gene sequences? Where should we "draw the line" on the issuing of patents?

No, no, no, no. The US patent office is granting too many of frivolous patents as it is, and that has nothing to do with genetics. These sequences they are patenting are not man made. It's not a lawn mower that someone improved upon. It's like patenting a new animal that a diver found in a deep ocean cave. Their motives are evil and greedy. Patenting life should be stopped.

Question 8: Considering that people of diverse beliefs struggle to find "common ground" in many situations, how should we go about determining the ethical considerations for genetic innovation? Should the government make such command decisions?

If private companies do all the work, and work within the law, there is no need to question common ethics. It's when you get government funding that you have to answer to other considerations. I think whoever you involve should have say in what is ethical and what isn't. As long as you aren't breaking any laws, and aren't doing anything against any participant's will, then there isn't anything else to consider.

Question 9: Quite recently, the possibility of making "designer drugs" has, in the opinion of some social critics, taken its first steps into fruition by means of pharmaceuticals that function more effectively for members of a particular "race." One such example is Bidil, a drug that narrows the effects of heart disease in Black Americans. What is your opinion of catering medication to specific gene sequences or protein products found more substantially in specific ethnic groups? Should the situation be considered differently if the drug caters to the needs of the majority of the population? To the needs of the minority population?

Designer drugs are fine if they are being used on the population they are meant for. A problem will come when there is preference for designing for one population and making another use the preferential drug. As long as everyone is being treated equally, then there is no injustice done. That might require a per-situation consideration. If a drug will be distributed to everyone, it should be "generic" or it will cause some unrest amongst the people taking it when one side gets better faster than the other. As long as no one ends up worse off, then I won't complain.

Question 10: If a gene is one day discovered that substantiates a person's 'level' of spirituality in life, do you feel that this would undermine the age-old ideal of "Faith?" What might be some of the important social effects of such a revelation?

If you can change my level of spirituality by a gene, that seems to preclude any "specialness" in being spiritual. That is, that spirituality isn't something done by the spirit but by the body. Thus, the spirit is the body and all that talk of souls is just mumbo-jumbo. If humans aren't special amongst God's creatures, then we don't need to ask about faith. Without all this, the world would be completely different, I'm just not sure if it would be for better or worse. But, then again, there are some people who will always believe in God and some who always won't, even if you offered conclusive evidence (though a spirituality gene would not be conclusive at all, and most people wouldn't even consider the implications of it).

Question 11: Quite simply, do you think that the genome proves or disproves (or neither) the existence of a creator? What are some of the challenges to your particular belief? What allows you to overcome these obstacles?

Evolution may be the method by which God creates. I think God is more perfect and powerful if he was the maker of a self-sustaining system, rather than the maker of a flawed program that needs constant intervention to correct it.

The genome doesn't say anything about the existence of God. It just gives us a peak into our own makeup, something that is fascinating whether it was put together by a creator or a process.

Add this page to del.icio.us or email it.

Comments on this page are closed due to age. If you need to say something, e-mail me.