post human species

8/8/2019 Post Human Species

1/38

Towards a Post-Human Species:Crucial Challenges and Creative

Possibilities of Genetic Biology

Kuruvilla Pandikattu SJJnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune

We live at a crucial moment in human history. We may be inthe process of humanity being transformed into a new species.

The possibilities brought about by the genetic advancement inrecent years are not just mind-boggling, but truly species-transforming. It opens us to amazing possibilities andindescribable.1 The first century or two of the newmillennium will almost certainly be a golden age for eugenics.Through application of new genetic knowledge andreproductive technologiesthe major change will be tomankind itself [T]echniquessuch asgenetic

manipulations are not yet efficient enough to beunquestionably suitable in therapeutic and eugenic applicationfor humans. But with the pace of research it is surely only amatter of time, and a short time at that.2 Truly it gives us

1 For this study, I am indebted to the research grant and facilities madeavailable at Oxford provided by CCCU Washington and John TempletonFoundation. Particularly I am indebted to Prof John Roche who havinginitiated me into the programme.

2 Glayde Whitney, Reproduction Technology for a New Eugenics,paper for The Galton Institute Conference Man and Society in the NewMillennium, September 1999, published in The Mankind Quarterly (Vol.40, No. 2, 1999), pages 179-192 and online athttp://www.eugenics.net/papers/gw002.html. (All the internet sites in thisarticle are assessed in August-September 2003) He is from Florida StateUniversity. Whitney has come under fire for his racist writings, includinghis forwardto My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding, byformer Ku Klux Klan National Director David Duke. Many of thecitations in this article are from the internet due to the fast rapidly

growing nature of the topic. Further, it may be noted that the Indian

1
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/gw002.htmlhttp://www.eugenics.net/papers/gw002.html


2/38

unprecedented choices.3 Confronted with such dangers andpossibilities, it is irresponsible either to accept this technology

unconditionally or to reject it uncritically.

4

Unconditionalacceptance may lead to our own elimination. Uncriticalrejection may make us completely irrelevant. So in this papera modest attempt is made to view the chances and dangersposed by the technological revolution from philosophicalperspectives.

After analysing historically the emergence of Human Genome

Project, in this article, I look briefly into the two promises itmake: to create new modified human beings or species.Without blindly rejecting or endorsing such possibilities, Ilook into some of the general philosophical issues. We pleadfor a constructive engagement of all human beings, marchingtowards the future.

Since the new capabilities usher in the possibility of a newhuman species, in this paper we argue that it calls for acollective, conscious co-operative and creative response fromhumanity at large: not only by a few scientists, governmentsor corporations, who may not adequately represent thehumanity, but also by humanists, activists, religious andliterary leaders.

response to this challenge is just beginning.3 Audrey R. Chapman, Unprecedented Choices: Religious Ethics at the

Frontiers of Genetic Sciences, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 19994 These two attitudes could be termed active denial or passivesubmission as I have done elsewhere (Idols to Die, Symbols to Live,Intercultural Pub., New Delhi, 2000, 58) or as catastrophist orcornucopian as described by Stephen Cotgrove (Catastrophe orCornucopia: The Environment, Politics and the Future, Chichester Sussex,

New York: Wiley, 1982)

2


3/38

Historical Purview

Although the theory of genetics has been known from the timeof Gregor Johann Mendel (1822-1884), the ability to directlymanipulate the genes of plants and animals was developedduring the late 1970s. When the proposals to begin humangene manipulation were put forth in the early 1980s, itaroused much controversy. A small number of researchersargued in favour of germline manipulation,5 but the majorityof scientists and others opposed it. In 1983 an important letter

signed by 58 religious leaders said, Genetic engineering ofthe human germline represents a fundamental threat to thepreservation of the human species as we know it, and shouldbe opposed with the same courage and conviction as we nowoppose the threat of nuclear extinction.6 In 1985 the U.S.National Institutes of Health (NIH) approved somatic genetherapy trials, but said that it would not accept proposals for

germline manipulation at present. That ambiguous decisiondid little to discourage advocates of germline engineering,who knew that somatic experiments were the appropriate first

5 Germline manipulations are those made to the genes of the germinal orreproductive cells (the egg and the sperm). In practice, this meansaltering the fertilized egg, the first cell in the embryo to be, so that thegenetic changes will be copied into every cell of the future adult,including his or her reproductive cells. Normally such changes would bepassed to all future generations, although, as youll see when you explore

the site, it is probably possible to avoid that transmission. Germlinetechnology stands in sharp contrast to the genetic therapy of today whichis somatic. (It treats the soma or the body cells.) For example, geneticinsertions to treat cystic fibrosis are directed at cells in the lining of thelung mucosa. Somatic interventions dont reach beyond the patient beingtreated, so their potential scope is obviously much more limited than agermline intervention.

6 Cited in Richard Hayes, The Quiet Campaign for GeneticallyEngineered HumansEarth Island Journal, Spring 2001, Vol. 16, No. 1in http://www.genetics-and-

society.org/resources/cgs/2001_earthisland_hayes.html.

3


4/38

step in any event. In the period following 1985, and especiallyfollowing the first approved clinical attempts at somatic gene

therapy in 1990, advocates of germline engineering beganwriting in the medical, ethical, and other journals to buildbroader support.

In the mid- and late 1990s these efforts received severalmajor shots in the arm. The ongoing success of the federallyfunded Human Genome Project in describing and locatingmore than 80,000 human genes fuelled growing speculation

about eventual applications, including germline engineering.The successful development in 1996 of the ability to create agenetic duplicate of an adult mammal (cloning), and in 1999of techniques for disassembling human embryos and keepingembryonic cells alive in culture, were critically important.They made it possible, for the first time, to imagine aprocedure whereby the human germline could be engineeredin a commercially viable manner.

Advocates of germline engineering were further encouragedby the social, cultural and political conditions of the late1990s, a period characterized by technological enthusiasm,distrust of government regulation, the spread ofconsumerist/competitive/libertarian values, and the perceivedweakening ability of national governments to enforce laws

and treaties, as a result of globalization.

Advocacy of germline engineering moved to the status of anopenly acknowledged political cause in March of 1998, whenGregory Stock,7 organized the symposium Engineering theHuman germline. All the speakers were avid proponents of

7 He is the Director of the Program on Medicine, Technology and Society

at UCLA (the University of California at Los Angeles).

4


5/38

germline engineering. Stock declared that the importantquestion was not if, but when germline engineering would

be used. The symposium was attended by nearly 1,000 peopleand received front-page coverage in The New York Times, TheWashington Postand elsewhere.

Four months after the UCLA conference one of the key participants,somatic gene transfer pioneer W. French Anderson, submitted adraft proposal to the NIH to begin somatic gene transferexperiments on human foetuses. He acknowledged that this

procedure would have a relatively high potential for inadvertentgene transfer to the germline. Andersons proposal is widelyacknowledged to be strategically crafted so that approval could beconstrued as acceptance of germline modification, at least in somecircumstances. Anderson hoped to receive permission soon to beginclinical trials.

In the meantime, the first successfully cloned sheep, Dolly

became the symbol of the progress of cloning and has helpedthe population to apprehend the significance of cloning forhumanity. Meanwhile the official announcement of thesuccess of Human Genome Project and the mapping of theworking draft Human Genomes became the climax of thegenetic march forward. The official announcement was madeon June 20, 2000. 8 It was hailed as the most important fact

8 This is the most important, most wondrous map ever produced by

humankind, the then American President Bill Clinton said inWashington. Humankind is on the verge of gaining immense new powerto heal. Genome science ... will revolutionize the diagnosis, preventionand treatment of most, if not all, human diseases. Blair called thegenome project the first great technological triumph of the 21stcentury. Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project atthe National Institutes of Health. Historians will consider this a turningpoint. Youre going to see a proliferation of discoveries about thegenetic contributions to diabetes and heart disease and high bloodpressure and schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis and on down the list,

Collins told

5


6/38

of life on this Earth is our common humanity. The HumanGenome Project was formally completed in April 2003.9

If the current pace of research and development continues,there will be an explosion of genetic knowledge and capabilityover the next several years. We will be able to transform thebiology of plants, animals, and people with the same detailand flexibility as todays digital technologies and themicrochip enable us to transform information. The challengebefore us is to summon the wisdom, maturity, and discipline

to use these powers in ways that contribute to a fulfilling, just,sustainable world, and to forgo those uses that are degrading,destabilizing and quite literally dehumanizing. Advocatesof a full-out techno-eugenic future believe were not up to thatchallenge. Finally, they believe, people wont be able to resistusing a new genetic application if it looks like it might allowtheir children some advantage over other peoples children.And they believe that once we allow even a little bit ofgermline engineering, the rest of the techno-eugenic agendafollows inexorably. I hope that we can be wiser than that. ButI agree that if the germline threshold is crossed, further controlbecomes far more difficult.10

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/06/26/human.genome.05/9 For the history of HGP beginning on 1883 see

http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/project/timeline.html. In fact the sequencing took much less time than originallyanticipated.

10 . Human Genetic Engineering, an Interview with Richard [email protected] www.wildduckreview.com, August 2003.See also Kirk Semple UN to consider whether to ban human cloning,The Asian Age, Mumbai, 4, November 2003, p. 7. The author pleads fortherapeutic cloning which has considerable potential from a scientific

perspective and calls for a ban on human cloning.

6
http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/project/timeline.htmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/project/timeline.htmlmailto:[email protected]://www.wildduckreview.com/http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/project/timeline.htmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/project/timeline.htmlmailto:[email protected]://www.wildduckreview.com/


7/38

The Ethics of Designing People

Redesigning People

After the official announcement of the successful cloning onDolly11, James Watson in the panel discussion at UCLA,maintained emphatically: And the other thing, because noone has the guts to say it: If we could make better humanbeings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldnt we?Whats wrong with it? He further commented, Evolution

can be just damn cruel, and to say that weve got a perfectgenome is utter silliness.12 So the question is: can or willhuman beings be manufactured according to design?

11 The Feb. 27 1997, issue ofNature described a scientific advance thatcan only be described as breathtaking -- and alarming. A researcher fromScotland had managed to grow a healthy adult sheep -- Dolly by name --from genetic material from a single cell of an adult sheep. On Mar. 41997, President Clinton forbade the use of federal funds for humancloning research. Hes already asked a bioethics advisory commission toissue recommendations on cloning research. Scottish scientists whocloned the sheep Dolly indicated that therewere 276 failed cloning attempts before the successful one.http://whyfiles.org/034clone/main1.html

12 James Watson, President, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, quoted inEngineering the Human Germline: An Exploration of the Science andEthics of Altering the Genes We Pass to Our Children, Gregory Stockand John Campbell, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000),pages 79, 85. Watson shared the Nobel prize for Chemistry in 1962 forthe discovery of the structure of DNA, and served as first Director of theHuman Genome Project. See also the criticism of Philip. Sloan entitledDeterminism, Reductionism and the New Genetics, in Philip Sloan,New Human Genetics and Religious Vision: Some Options for theTwenty-First Century, in Job Kozhamthadam, Contemporary Science

and Religion in Dialogue, ASSR Publications, Pune, 2002, 129-136.

7


8/38

The main issue is how far we are willing to go in reshapingthe human body and psyche?13 Science and medicine have

moved from elucidating our genes to manipulating them.Human gene therapy science fiction a mere decade ago now boasts more than 500 approved human studies and a U.S.National Institute of Health budget of some $200 million ayear. The ability to make genetic changes to our germinalcells will represent a major advance in such therapy, becausechanges to the first cell of the human embryo are copied intoevery cell of the body and can thus reach any tissue. Genetic

material can be transferred between species, blurring taken-for-granted integrities and identities. Digital technologiescreate new personal and social worlds new immersiveenvironments in which concepts of time, space and palce arereconfigured.14

Germline therapy embodies the most profound possibilitiesand challenges of molecular genetics, because it promises(some would say threatens) eventually to transform our verybeings as ever more significant genetic changes are introducedinto our genomes. This technology will force us to re-examineeven the very notion of what it means to be human, for as webecome subject to the same process of conscious design thathas so dramatically altered the world around us, we will beunable to avoid looking anew at what distinguishes us from

other life, at how our genetics shapes us, at how much we are

13 The Prospects for Human Germline EngineeringGregory Stock29.01.1999 found inhttp://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/2621/1.html.

14 Elaine Graham, Nietzsche Gets a Modem: Transhumanism and theTechnological Sublime, Literature & Theology, 16/1 March 2002, 6.

See Job Kozhamthadam, The Human Genome Project andHuman Destiny, Omega: Indian Journal of Science and

Religion, 1/1, 36-55.

8


9/38

willing to intervene in lifes flow from parent to child.15Further, it is claimed: The right to a custom made child is

merely the natural extension of our current discourse ofreproductive rights. I see no virtue in the role of chance inconception, and great virtue is expanding choice.If womenare allowed the reproductive right or choice to choose thefather of their child, with his attendant characteristics, thenthey should be allowed the right to choose the characteristicsfrom a catalog.16

Much more than the remedial therapy, the next move is toperfect human weakness and to enhance human capabilitiesthrough specific genetic modification. Here the growth ofcomputers (including artificial intelligence which will matchthat of humans within 20 or 30 years.) and nanotechnolgoy areto be used to our advantage. Do we really want to merge withmachines? There are tremendous awful choices to bemade, Marcy Darnovsky, a Sonoma State Universityinstructor says: Its very risky to have these discussionsbecause theyre about common values. The subject is difficult,painful and [therefore] easily avoided. But we have to stopfocusing on the science and think of ourselves as part of anecosystem. 17

15

The Prospects for Human Germline Engineering Gregory Stock29.01.1999

16 James Hughes, Embracing Change with All Four Arms,EubiosJournal of Asian and International Bioethics (Vol. 6, No. 4, June 1996),pages 94-101, and online athttp://www.changesurfer.com/Hlth/Genetech.html

17 Sally Deneen, Designer People: The Human Genetic Blueprint Has

Been Drafted, Offering Both Perils and Opportunities for theEnvironment. The Big Question: Are We Changing the Nature ofNature? http://www.emagazine.com/january-

february_2001/0101feat1.html

9
http://www.changesurfer.com/Hlth/Genetech.htmlhttp://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2001/0101feat1.htmlhttp://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2001/0101feat1.htmlhttp://www.changesurfer.com/Hlth/Genetech.htmlhttp://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2001/0101feat1.htmlhttp://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2001/0101feat1.html


10/38

Such a possibility has been received with mixed feelings. BillJoy, the father of Java software and co-founder of Sun

Microsystems, affirms with some feeling of guilt that ourmost powerful 21st-century technologies are threatening tomake humans an endangered species. In a celebrated articlein Wired Magazine last year, Joy blamed the possibleextinction of humans on a few key causes, including geneticengineering, robotics and cyborgs.18

Remaking Eden

Moving one more radical step, some futurists imagine of anew species (termed as transhumans, posthumans, cyborgs,etc.) and a new heaven on earth. In his recent book,Re-Making Eden: How Cloning and Beyond Will Change the

Human Family (1998), Princeton biologist, Lee Silvercelebrates the coming future of human enhancement, inwhich the health, appearance, personality, cognitive ability,sensory capacity, and life-span of our children all becomeartifacts of genetic engineering, literally selected from acatalog. Silver acknowledges that the costs of thesetechnologies will limit their full use to only a small elite, sothat over time the human society will segregate into theGenRich and the Naturals: The GenRich who account

for 10 percent of the American population all carry syntheticgenes ... that were created in the laboratory ... All aspects ofthe economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and theknowledge industry are controlled by members of the

18 Sally Deneen, Designer People: The Human Genetic Blueprint Has



10
http://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2001/0101feat1.htmlhttp://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2001/0101feat1.htmlhttp://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2001/0101feat1.htmlhttp://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2001/0101feat1.html


11/38

GenRich class...Naturals work as low-paid service providersor as labourers, and their children go to public schools... If the

accumulation of genetic knowledge and advances in geneticenhancement technology continue ... the GenRich class andthe Natural class will become ... entirely separate species withno ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interestin each other as a current human would have for achimpanzee.19 So it is natural that over time, society willsegregate into GenRich who control the economy, themedia, and the knowledge industry, and the Naturals, who

work as low paid service providers or as laborers.Moreover, Silver asserts that these trends should not andcannot be stopped, because to do so would infringe onliberty.20

The transhumanist advocates seem to take it for granted thatnot only human cloning is possible, but the emergence ofadvanced (post-human) species is a foregone conclusion. Thepowerful lobby that is behind this enterprise hopes amongother things the extension of life span, the eventualenhancement or even replacement of human body throughcomputer parts and the radical modification of human geneticmaterial to create a new human species.21

19 David King, The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering,

http://www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/threat.htm20 David King, The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering,

http://www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/threat.htm. See also Philip R. Sloan,The Biomolecular Revolution: The Challenge of Western BioSciencein Job Kozhamthadam, Science, Technology and Values: Science-Religion Dialogue in a Multi-Religious World, ASSR Publications, Pune,2003, 131-140

21 The most powerful group advocating unfettered use of genetic materialfor the dawn of the new species is Extropians who are active primarilyin the cyber-world. See www.extropy.com . My personal meetings with

some of them in August 2002 at Oxford has only reinforced this idea.

11
http://www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/threat.htmhttp://www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/threat.htm


12/38

Ethical Challenges22

The response to Genetically modified humans has been in factslow in coming?23 The most critical technologies in humangenetic engineering have been developed only within the lastthree years or so, and there hasnt been time for people tofully understand their implications and respond.24

Also, the prospect of genetically engineering the humanspecies is categorically beyond anything that humanity has

ever before had to confront. People have trouble taking theseissues seriously they seem like science fiction, or beyond thepale of anything that anyone would actually do or that societywould allow. As a consequence there exist no self- identifiedconstituencies of concern, and no institutions in place toeffectively focus that concern.

Finally, although people intuit that the new genetictechnologies are likely to introduce profound social amidpolitical challenges, they also associate these technologieswith the possibility of miracle cures, notably for the manytragically fatal inheritable conditions. Before any sentiment in

22 Darryl R. J. Macer, Ethical Challenges as we approach the end of the

Human Genome ProjectEubios Ethics Instituteinhttp://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/chgp/index.html.

23 Richard Hayes, The Politics of Genetically Engineered HumansCoordinatorExploratory Initiative on the New Human GeneticTechnologies, San Francisco, CA, USAhttp://www.organicconsumers.org/Patent/gehumans.cfm

24 Richard Hayes, The Politics of Genetically Engineered HumansCoordinatorExploratory Initiative on the New Human GeneticTechnologies, San Francisco, CA, USA,http://www.organicconsumers.org/Patent/gehumans.cfm. See further,Kuruvilla Pandikattu, From Genes to God: Human Search forImmortality and its Theological Significance, Vidyayoti, 64/12

December 2000, 903-916.

12
http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/chgp/index.htmlhttp://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/chgp/index.htmlhttp://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/chgp/index.htmlhttp://www.organicconsumers.org/Patent/gehumans.cfmhttp://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/chgp/index.htmlhttp://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/chgp/index.htmlhttp://www.organicconsumers.org/Patent/gehumans.cfm


13/38

favor of banning certain uses of genetic technology canevolve, people will have to come to understand that doing so

would not foreclose means of preventing or curing geneticdiseases. 25

So it is not surprising that surveys conducted have indicatedthat people do not support human cloning. For instance, thesurvey on reproductive cloning consistently gave a highdisapproval rate as indicated below.

Attitude of the general public to reproductivecloning26

Date Population Conductor QuestionApprove

ofcloning

Disapproveof cloning

May2002

Americans CBS News

Should

scientists beallowed to clone

humans?

11 85

May2002

Americans Gallup Do you favor oroppose cloningthat is designedspecifically to

result in the

8 90

25 Richard Hayes, The Politics of Genetically Engineered HumansCoordinatorExploratory Initiative on the New Human GeneticTechnologies, San Francisco, CA, USAhttp://www.organicconsumers.org/Patent/gehumans.cfm.

26 http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/summary.html.

Though the survey was taken predominantly among the Americanpopulation, we may safely extend it to other population too. Details ofthe survey could be had from the website. It is unfortunate that the author

could not find comparable survey for the Indian situation.

13
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002cbshttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002galluphttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/summary.htmlhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/summary.htmlhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002cbshttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002gallup


14/38

birth of ahuman being?

May2002

Americans Gallup

Is it morallyacceptable or

morally wrongto clonehumans?

7 90

Feb /Mar2002

Americans Pew

Do you favor oroppose

scientificexperimentationon the cloning

of humanbeings?

17 77

Feb

2002Americans Fox News

Do you think itis acceptable touse cloning to

reproducehumans ?

7 89

Nov / Americans Ipsos-Reid Choose a 21 72

14
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002galluphttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002pewhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002foxhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001ipsoshttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002galluphttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002pewhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002foxhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001ipsos


15/38

Dec2001

preferredpolicy.

Nov2001

AmericansCNN / USA

Today /Gallup

Do you approveor disapprove ofcloning that is

designedspecifically toresult in thebirth of a

human being?

9 88

Aug2001

Americans ABC News

Do you think itshould be legal

or illegal toclone humans in

the UnitedStates?

11 87

15
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001cnnhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001cnnhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001cnnhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001abchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001cnnhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001cnnhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001cnnhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001abc


16/38

July2001 Americans Zogby

Regardingcloning human

beings, are youopposed orsupportive?

8 90

Feb2001

Americans Time / CNNShould all

cloning researchbe banned?

7 90

Feb

2001

Americans Time / CNN Do you think

scientists shouldbe allowed toclone human

10 88

16
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001zogbyhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001timehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001timehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001zogbyhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001timehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001time


17/38

beings or dontyou think so?

March2000

CanadiansPricewater-

houseCoopers

Are youopposed toscientistsmaking a

geneticallyidentical copy

of a human

being?

- 90

Feb1998

Canadians CTV / AngusReid

I think peopleshould have the

12 87

17
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000pricehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000pricehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1998ctvhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1998ctvhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000pricehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000pricehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1998ctvhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1998ctv


18/38

freedom, in thefuture, to clone

themselves andhave a babyexactly like

themselves toraise as theirown child.

1997 UK Harris

Human cloning

should never beallowed and allresearch shouldbe stopped, orCloning should

be allowedwhen it

becomes

possible.

4 72

Dec1993

Americans Time / CNN

In general, doyou think

cloning is agood thing or a

bad thing to do?

14 75

At the ethical level there are difficult problems associatedwith genetic engineering. The moral scope and nature ofcloning, the justification of stem-cell research for remedyingdefects and for production of new human organs, theconsumption and marketing of genetically modified food are

18
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1997harrishttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1993timehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1997harrishttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1993time


19/38

some of them.27 This criticism is summed up thus: [G]erm-line genetic alteration [poses] many risks and potential harms,

without any clear benefit to any individual. Itjeopardizes,rather than protects, those who are vulnerable.Geneticenhancement raises the prospect of a society wherepeopleare treated as things that can be changed according tosomeone elses notions of human perfection.28

Further, The lessons of history have shown us what happenswhen people are ordered as better and worse, superior and

inferior, worthy of life and not so worthy of life.What canhappen when the technology used in support of geneticthinking is not the crude technology of shackles and slaveships, of showers that pour lethal gas and of mass ovens, oreven the technology of surgical sterilization, but the fabulous,fantastic, extraordinary technology of the new genetics itself?My children will not be led to genetic technology in chainsand shackles, or crowded into cattle cars. It will be offered tothem.29

An adequately prepared human community is the best way toensure that misuse of genetics does not reoccur.30 Most people

27 Ted Peters (ed.) Genetics: Issues of Social Justice, The Pilgrim Libraryof Ethics, Cleveland, 1998, gives a comprehensive account of the ethicalissues related to molecular engineering.

28

Canadian Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies,Gene Therapy and Genetic Alteration, Proceed with Care: FinalReport of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies,

Vol. 2 (Ottawa: Canada Communications Group-Publishing, 1993),reprinted inHuman Gene Therapy (Vol. 5, No. 5, 1994), pages 612-613

29 Barbara Katz Rothman, A Sociological Skeptic in the Brave New

World, Gender & Society (Vol. 12, No. 5, October 1998)30 It may be noted that in todays world, most of those who evaluate theethics of genetics have other agenda and motives. The scientists arenormally motivated by the need to continue their research, the corporations

by the need to make profit, etc. So it is difficult to find impartial

19


20/38

have a poor knowledge of genetics, which must be improvedbefore they will be able to understand the new knowledge.

Incomplete knowledge can be very dangerous when combinedwith existing discrimination, as seen with eugenicprogrammes earlier this century. We should all realize that weare genetically different, and normality is very culturallydefined, perhaps as those who can live comfortably, oranonymously, in a given society? We must be clear that apursuit for our lives to be free of physical suffering is notgoing to make the ideal world. Genetic defects have a smaller

effect on people than the moral, spiritual defects and lack oflove. Education of social attitude together with science isrequired.

Research on this fundamental human nature is a highlyemotional issue. Competition, and profit play significant rolein it. So it is not surprising that belligerent tone is heardamong the advocates of transhuman technologies, against theirperceived enemies. If China uses genetic enhancementswhile the West either bans them or pursues a politicallycorrect re-engineering of human nature, the inevitable resultwithin a few generations would be Chinese economic, andthus military, global hegemony. ...Those serious about eitherpreventing or mandating genetic engineering should start

planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China soon.31

Philosophical Issues

researchers who could evaluate the project independently.31 Steven Sailer is the president ofHuman Biodiversity Institute .He

illustrated his argument with a colorful slide of a hydrogen bombexplosion. Cited in In The Pipeline: Genetically Modified Humans?

Richard Hayes

20
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2000/#namehttp://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2000/#name


21/38

Much more than the ethical issues briefly discussed above, Iwant to point to some general philosophical issues that emerge

from the human genetic engineering and the possibleemergence of a new (embedded) species.

Who Determines our Nature?

Edward O. Wilson, a Harvard entomologist, believes that wewill soon be faced with difficult genetic dilemmas. Because ofexpected advances in gene therapy, we will not only be able to

eliminate or at least alleviate genetic disease, we may be ableto enhance certain human abilities such as mathematics orverbal ability. He says, Soon we must look deep withinourselves and decide what we wish to become.32 As early as1978, Wilson reflected on our eventual need to decide howhuman we wish to remain.33

What is human nature? How is it related to the body? Howdoes it evolve? Such philosophical issues on human naturehave not been exhaustively answered. It may be noted thatfrom a classical perspective, the essence of human nature rationality and animality is an open-ended issue. Recentlyattempts to speak of an evolving and integrating nature findsresonance with todays postmodern sensibility. The followingtable is such a typical attempt:34

New Vision of Nature Dichotomy Challenged

Evolutional Nature Humans vs nature

32 Steve Mirsky and John Rennie, What Cloning Means for Gene

Therapy, Scientific American, June 1997, p.277.33 Edward Wilson, On Human Nature, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press, p. 6.34 See New Visions of nature, Science and Religion, University of

California, Santa Barbara, accessed from their website, 2003.

21


22/38

Emergent Nature Chaos vs cosmos

Malleable Nature Natural vs artificial

Nature as Sacred Matter vs SpiritNature as Culture Nature vs culture

So the crucial question before we change our own nature is onour human nature? What are we? How do we form our self-identity: Who am I? How do I understand my role in thecommunity? Philosophers and theologians have been

discussing over two thousand years over these questionswithout coming to any conclusive answers.We do know that human nature has something to do with ourawareness and our self-consciousness. We do know that weare relational beings who are open to transcendence. We knowthat quest for truth, beauty and love forms our nature.Teilhand de Chardin has rightly defined us as evolution

become conscious of itself. But today we may defineourselves as: evolution become capable of propagating oreliminating itself. We are at an unenviable situation wherewe can define for ourselves what human nature is and shapeus accordingly, without fully realising its human implications.

Before radically (irrevocably?) altering our destiny, it isproper to have come to a general consensus on our human

nature.

Who Defines Life?

Genetic engineering claims to unravel the secret code oflife. It is the Book Of Life (similar to the Book of Natureand Book of Scripture). But are we really better equipped to

22


23/38

answer the fundamental biological and philosophical question:What is life?

Of course the theory of evolution can help to understand thepheneomenological origin and development of life. Biologicalinsights can help us to describe life as movement, growth,self-repair, reproduction, etc. But the crucial question of whatis life, what is the dignity and uniqueness associated with life,how is respect an inherent dimension of life, can only beanswered philosophically or religiously. Technological

(medical) innovations may help us to prolong life-span andeven to create new life-form. But the mystery of life, itsbounty and beauty always eludes a technological approach tolife. Here it is proper that we need to take seriously the deeperreligious and philosophical aspects of life as an end initself.35

Closely connected with this issue is the uniqueness of humanlife as contrasted to non-human forms of life. Crassanthropocentrism has become outdated. Still we need toredefine our human dignity and uniqueness in a way that isnot a threat to other life forms and which respects our specialrole in the ongoing flow of life.

Without understanding (mysterious) phenomenon of life, if we

attempt to create new species, we can be justly accused ofplaying God while trying to create a new species. Theattempt to engineer and alter drastically the human destinysmack of crass reductionism, which physics has left behind.

35 Here we do not need to go deeply into the Kantian characterisation ofhumans as ends in themselves. See also Job Kozhamthadam Cloning ofDolly: Scientific and Ethical Reflections on Cloning, Vidyajyoti 62

19998). 110-118.

23


24/38

The scenario may become frightening. Its the materialist-reductionist-determinist worldview run amok. Its what

happens when people become disconnected from themselves,others, and nature.36

Who Owns Humans?

The fundamental question to be asked is: Who owns thehumans, our genetic stuff and our bodily composition.37 Thisquestion comes within the context of patent rights throughout

the world. Since 1971, corporations have put on a relentlesslegal battle to patent genetically altered organisms. Afternearly a decade of legal bantering, the United States SupremeCourt decided that life forms can be considered humaninventions, thus patentable by the U.S. Patent and TrademarkOffice (PTO).38 This case began a slippery slope toward theinevitable patenting of human life.

In 1987, the PTO widened patent rights to include all lifeforms on earth, including animals.39Human beings wereexempt from the ruling, citing the Thirteenth Amendmentsprohibition of slavery. However, the ruling had significantshortcomings. Attorney Andrew Kimbrell notes, Under the

36 . Human Genetic Engineering, an Interview with Richard Hayes

[email protected]. The sameideas are expressed in Kuruvilla Pandikattu,Let Life Be! Jnanam. Pune,2001.

37 Gina Kolata, Who Owns Your Genes? New York Times May 15,

2000 A SPECIAL REPORT .38 Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, petitioner, V.

Ananda M . Chakrabarty etal. 65L ed 2d 144, 16 June 1980, 144-47.39 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,Animals-Patentability(Washing ton, D.C.:

U.S. Patent and Trademark O ffice, 7 April 1987), cited in Kimbrell, 199. Andrew

Kimbrell,The Hum an Body Shop: The Engineering and M arketing of Life(San

Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1993), 233-34.

24
mailto:[email protected]://www.wildduckreview.com/http://www.wildduckreview.com/http://www.wildduckreview.com/mailto:[email protected]://www.wildduckreview.com/


25/38

PTOs 1987 ruling, embryos and fetuses, human life forms notpresently covered under Thirteenth Amendment protection,

are patentable, as are genetically engineered human tissues,cells, and genes.40 Corporate America won the right to own,use, and sell all multicellular creatures, including humanones.41 Here is a concrete example: Michael Rose at UC Irvinehas patented human genes that some scientists suspect mightbe able to increase our life spans up to 150 years.42

Therefore, it is easy to conclude that important market forces

(with the sole purpose of profit) are also at work in thegenetics research industry. Fortunes will be made through thecommercial marketing of genetic material. And scientists havebeen quick to seize the opportunities. Thus genetic researchthat can save lives is often stymied by biotech companiesgreedy patent claims.43

James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize in 1953 fordiscovering DNAs double-helix structure, resigned as thefirst director of the NIH genome institute in 1992 in a disputeover whether to patent DNA sequences that a scientist namedCraig Venter had discovered. Venter also quit the NIH andformed a gene sequencing partnership with William Haseltine,a Harvard AIDS scientist. Haseltine and Venter now lead

40

Andrew Kimbrell,The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and Marketing ofLife (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1993),, 199.

41 18 A ndrew Kimbrell,The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and Marketingof Life(San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1993), It is important to note that,as described in the last two ch apters, current U .S. patent law makes patenting

human embryos perfectly legal. 22342 . Human Genetic Engineering, an Interview with Richard Hayes

[email protected] www.wildduckreview.com43 Arthur Allen in

http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/07/genetic_test/index.ht

ml.

25
mailto:[email protected]://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/07/genetic_test/index.htmlhttp://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/07/genetic_test/index.htmlmailto:[email protected]://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/07/genetic_test/index.htmlhttp://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/07/genetic_test/index.html


26/38

competing biotech firms competed with the government-ledconsortium to decode vast quantities of human DNA.44

Can we afford competitive and profit seeking amongmultinational companies to decide the fate of humanity. Canwe sell our DNA to them? Can we buy human life withmoney?45

Who Represents Humanity?

We are fast approaching what is arguably the mostconsequential technological threshold in all of human history:the ability to directly manipulate the genes that we pass on toour children and to pave way to a new generation (or species).Development and use of these technologies would irrevocablychange the nature of human life and human society. It woulddestabilize human biological identity and function. It wouldput into play a wholly unprecedented set of social,psychological and political forces that would feed back uponthemselves with impacts quite beyond our ability to imagine,much less control.

Many take it for granted that it can be done and so it will bedone. To argue that what can be done will be done isunconvincing because a lot that can be done is not done. At

44 Arthur Allen,http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/07/genetic_test/index.html

45 The objections of the Red Indian Chief to buying land may be appliedtoday to owning and selling human beings. How can you buy or sell thesky, the warmth of t land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own thefreshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Quoted in KuruvillaPandikattu, Tamas: Alternative Ways of Viable Existence, World-Life-

Web, Mumbai, 2002, p. 199.

26
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/07/genetic_test/index.htmlhttp://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/07/genetic_test/index.htmlhttp://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/07/genetic_test/index.htmlhttp://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/07/genetic_test/index.html


27/38

the same time, it is hard to believe that something that can bedone easily and cheaply by people all over the world, and that

furthermore is desired by many people with significantresources will not be done. In the not-too-distant future,germline engineering is likely to be in just this position: thetechnology will be feasible in hundreds of laboratoriesthroughout the world and there will be genetic interventionsthat many people find alluring.46 But there is also the dangerthat the technology may get out of control opening to thepossibility of the total elimination of humanity?

So the basic question is: who represents humanity? Who canlegitimately speak for humanity in particular and for life ingeneral? Who will be accountable for and responsible to thehuman society? There have been attempts to sideline the ThirdWorld Countries in this debate. To declare ethics and valuesas irrelevant to the Third World in the context ofbiotechnology is to invite intellectual colonization. At worst, itis an invitation to disaster.47 I do not think that in todaysworld any one group (scientists, politicians, corporations,governments, religious groups) can claim to speak for thehuman race. Only collectively can we decide our destiny?48

Conclusion: A Future without Us?

The most disturbing question before us: Are we digging ourown graves? Are we preparing for a future without us? Our

46 Gregory Stock, The Prospects for Human Germline Engineering,

29.01.199947 Vandana Shiva, Bioethics -A Third World Issue,

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shiva.html48 See Kuruvilla Pandikattu, For a Collective Human Future Project,

Peace Review 12/4 2000 579-585.

27
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shiva.htmlhttp://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shiva.html


28/38

most powerful 21st-century technologies robotics, geneticengineering, and nanotechnology are threatening to make

humans an endangered species.

49

We should considerseriously the statement of the theologians: Geneticengineering of the human germline represents a fundamentalthreat to the preservation of the human species as we know it,and should be opposed with the same courage and convictionas we now oppose the threat of nuclear extinction.50

To combat the perceived inevitability of this Brave New

World, Marcy Darnovsky, a Sonoma State Universityinstructor who works with the Exploratory Initiative on theNew Human Genetic Technologies, calls for three things:First, a global ban on inheritable genetic engineering onhumans; second, a global ban on human reproductive cloning;and third, an effective and accountable regulation of otherhuman genetic technologies.51 Unfortunately, our moralconsciousness and our discerning power have not kept pacewith our technological marvels. How will we decide? Can welet an elite decide for the whole of humanity? It is aphilosophical question and much more a human question inneed of urgent answer! Both scientists and religious scholarsneed to join hands in this momentous task because ourexperience shows that science without values can lead to

49

Bill Joy, Why the Future Doesnt Need Us,http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html

50 Theological Letter Concerning the Moral Arguments, presented to theUS Congress by the Foundation on Economic Trends (June 8, 1983)From http://www.genetics-and-society.org/overview/quotes/opponents.html

51 Sally Deneen, Designer People The Human Genetic Blueprint Has



28
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.htmlhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/overview/quotes/opponents.htmlhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/overview/quotes/opponents.htmlhttp://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2001/0101feat1.htmlhttp://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2001/0101feat1.htmlhttp://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.htmlhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/overview/quotes/opponents.htmlhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/overview/quotes/opponents.htmlhttp://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2001/0101feat1.htmlhttp://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2001/0101feat1.html


29/38

monstrous minds and values without science can lead tomindless monsters.52

As a human community we are still searching and asking.Whether we are to succeed or fail, to survive or fall victim tothese technologies, is not yet decided. We need to decidesoon! Mind-boggling possibilities await us! Or it could be ourown self-annihilation! A future without us! A conscious,collective and creative decision is imperative! Therefore, thecall confronting us is to make a collective decision for the

sake of a better humanity.

52 Job Kozhamthadam, The Human Genome Project and Human

Destiny, Omega: Indian Journal of Science and Religion, 1/1, 55.

29


30/38

Appendix

Result of Survey on Research Cloning53

Date Population Conductor QuestionApprove

ofcloning

Disapproveof cloning

May2002

Americans Gallup

Do you favour

or opposecloning ofhuman

embryos foruse in medical

research?

34 61

April2002

AmericansStop Human

Cloning

Do you thinkit is wrong to

create humanembryos for

medicalresearch?

- 59

April2002

Americans Coalition forthe

Advancement

of MedicalResearch

Favour thegovernment

allowing

scientists todo therapeutic

cloningresearch to

68 26

53 http://www.genetics-and-

society.org/analysis/opinion/summary.html

30
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002galluphttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002shchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002shchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002camrhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002camrhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002camrhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002camrhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002camrhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002galluphttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002shchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002shchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002camrhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002camrhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002camr


31/38

produce stemcells for

treating life-threatening

diseases

April2002

AmericansAmericans toBan Cloning

Do you agreewith Bushsposition?

29 63

April

2002Americans

Americans to

Ban Cloning

Agree with

person 1 vs. 2.26 59

Nov/ Dec2001

Americans Ipsos-ReidChoose apreferredpolicy.

60 33

Nov2001

Americans CNN / USAToday /Gallup

Do youapprove or

disapprove of

cloning that isnot designed

specifically toresult in thebirth of a

human being,but is

designed to

aid medicalresearch thatmight find

treatments forcertain

54 41

31
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002abchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002abchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002abchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002abchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001ipsoshttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001cnnhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001cnnhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001cnnhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002abchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002abchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002abchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002abchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001ipsoshttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001cnnhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001cnnhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001cnn


32/38

diseases?

Aug2001

Americans ABC News

Do you think

humancloning for

medicaltreatmentsshould be

legal or illegalin the United

States?

33 63

July2001

Americans Zogby

Should allcloning

research bebanned?

- 40

Aug1999 UK Novartis

Do yousupport or

opposecloning and

growinghuman cells?

28 60

Feb1998

Canadians CTV / AngusReid

I think thatcloning

human beingsfor such

things asreplacementbody parts,transplants

and

46 53

32
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001abchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001zogbyhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1999novartishttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1998ctvhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1998ctvhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001abchttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001zogbyhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1999novartishttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1998ctvhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1998ctv


33/38

experimentingwith new

drugs, ifcarefully

regulated, isnot a bad

thing.

Result of Survey on Inheritable GeneticModification54

Date Population Conductor QuestionApproveof IGM

Disapproveof IGM

Feb2001


Does creatinggenetically

superiorhuman beings

justifycreating a

human cloneor dont you

think so?

6 92

Fall2000

Scots System Three Are opposedto the creationof designerbabies forany reason

~90

54 http://www.genetics-and-

society.org/analysis/opinion/summary.html

33
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001timehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000systemhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2001timehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000system


34/38

other than tostop

hereditaryillnesses.

Fall2000

Scots System Three

are preparedto acceptborn-to-

order babiesfor medical

reasons

42 -

March2000

CanadiansPricewater-

houseCoopers

Find geneticengineering to

change theeye colour orother physicalfeatures of anunborn child

unacceptable.

- 74

March

2000Canadians

Pricewater-

houseCoopers

Find itacceptable forscientists to

usebiotechnology

to cure an

inheritedmedical

condition orto decreasethe risk of

illness.

> 50 -

1996 Americans NCGR How do you

feel about

72 -

34
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000systemhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000pricehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000pricehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000pricehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000pricehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1996ncgrhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000systemhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000pricehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000pricehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000pricehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2000pricehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1996ncgr


35/38

scientistschanging the

makeup ofhuman cells toprevent/stopchildren frominheriting a

usuallynonfataldisease?

1996 Americans NCGR

How do youfeel aboutscientists

changing themakeup of

human cells toimprove the

physicalcharacteristics

childrenwould inherit?

35 -

1994 Japanese Macer How do youfeel aboutscientists

changing themakeup ofhuman cells toprevent/stopchildren frominheriting a

usuallynonfatal

62 -

35
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1996ncgrhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1994macerhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1996ncgrhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1994macer


36/38

disease?

1994 Japanese Macer

How do you

feel aboutscientists


human cells toimprove thephysical

characteristicschildrenwould inherit?

28 -

1994 Australians Macer



human cells toprevent/stopchildren frominheriting a


79 -

1994 Australians Macer How do youfeel aboutscientists



28 -

36
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1994macerhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1994macerhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1994macerhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1994macerhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1994macerhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1994macer


37/38

characteristicschildren

would inherit?

Dec1993


Do youapprove or

disapprove ofthe use ofgenetic

engineering to

make itpossible fornations to

produce largenumbers ofindividuals

withgenetically

desirabletraits?

8 88

1992 Americans March ofDimes



human cells toprevent/stopchildren frominheriting a


66 32

1992 Americans March of How do you 43 54

37
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1993timehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1992marchhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1992marchhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1992marchhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1993timehttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1992marchhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1992marchhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1992march


38/38

Dimes

feel aboutscientists



characteristicschildren

would inherit?

1987 Americans OTA



human cells toimprove the

physicalcharacteristics

childrenwould inherit?

44 -
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1992marchhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1987otahttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1992marchhttp://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#1987ota

post human species

Documents