In “Limiting Science: A Biologist’s Perspective,” author David Baltimore, biologist, professor, and Nobel Prize winner argues that if society puts limits on the type of experiments that can be performed, then world changing discoveries that have transformed lives for the better are unlikely to happen in the future because scientific success tends to come from “unpredictable directions”. First, he shares how, at one time, molecular biology had almost complete permissiveness and few financial restraints. The permissiveness that enabled advances in biology has created benefits for society in the way of medical advances, food production and even human culture. With these advances have come fears and dilemmas about whether the advances will benefit …show more content…
or damage society. Accordingly, Baltimore insists that new technology will not “create monsters”, but at the same time, he does conclude that technology with the ability to make heritable, permanent changes to DNA creates sobering quandaries. He next explores the role of biology in what he calls the “error of futurism”, as well as the worry about keeping society stable, and “scientific orthodoxy”. Accordingly, he debunks all those uncertainties and endeavors to convince the reader that society can choose more science or less science, but not which science. He concludes his essay with a thought provoking quote by Lewis Thomas about the role of curiosity and the unnaturalness of suppressing questions. As a result, Baltimore makes a convincing case for the need to give freedom to biologists in order for our society to continue to enjoy the benefits that science can bring. Recent years have brought many new advances in the area of genome engineering. Because of these advances, society will now have to wrestle with many difficult questions. Baltimore et al remind us that the “possibility of human germline engineering has long been a source of excitement and unease among the general public, especially in light of concerns about initiating a “slippery slope” from disease-curing applications toward uses with less compelling or even troubling implications” (par. 6). This excitement and unease have caused normally sane individuals to use scare tactics to avoid new advancements. David Baltimore provides an example of this when he says, “The mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts, raised the specter of Frankenstein monsters emerging from MIT and Harvard laboratories, and speculations about the possibility of inadvertent development of a destructive organism like the fictitious Andromeda Strain have been much in the news” (9). Because society is deeply affected by the popular media, they could easily buy into this line of thinking. David Baltimore builds on this by saying, “I believe that genetic engineering, because of its tabloid appeal, has become a symbol to many people of the frightening potential of modern-day technology” (10). This frightening potential could alarm the public so deeply that they could miss out on the benefits that genetic engineering could provide. Genetic engineering provides many benefits to the world of medicine, food production, longevity and quality of life.
These are things that we can take for granted and if they were taken away, we would surely miss them. Both essays agreed on this point. Baltimore et al informs us that “genome engineering technology offers unparalleled potential for modifying human and nonhuman genomes. In humans, it holds the promise of curing genetic disease, while in other organisms it provides methods to reshape the biosphere for the benefit of the environment and human societies” (par. 1). David Baltimore elaborates on this idea by sharing some other uses of genetic engineering when he says, “many instances of blood disorders, mental problems, and a host of other disabilities are traceable to a malfunctioning gene. It would be a triumph of medicine if the effects of such genes could be countered” (9). It would indeed be a triumph of medicine to be able to not only solve those mysteries, but also permanently modify them so the issue disappears. This does raise the ethical question of whether it is right to make those changes. All of those things are part of the human existence and cause growth as the challenges are faced. The question arises whether we would be taking away part of the human experience, by exterminating a cause of development. On the other hand, if science has the ability to make the lives of the average person better and more productive, would we be cheating ourselves by not allowing that to happen? How can we ensure that science is “safe”, but still allow
advancements? There is a fine line between protecting our society from harm and ensuring that scientists have the freedom to make the discoveries that will benefit the world. Baltimore et al and David Baltimore diverge in their thinking at this point. Baltimore et al want to have strong rules and restrictions in place, while David Baltimore would like to see scientists given the opportunity to guide their own work. Baltimore et al encourage the following steps: “In the near term, we recommend that steps be taken to “strongly discourage, even in those countries with lax jurisdictions where it might be permitted, any attempts at germline genome modification for clinical application in humans, while societal, environmental, and ethical implications of such activity are discussed among scientific and governmental organizations” (9). There do need to be restrictions in place, especially when working with technology that not only changes the genetic makeup of the individual but is also inherited by offspring. Changing one person’s makeup is fine, but having those changes passed down through the generations is completely different. There are so many unknowns and once changes occur, they are permanent. Society sees the fallout of some of these kinds of things in the area of genetically modified food. Genetically modified produce brings many benefits, but also unpredictable outcomes that were not advantageous to health as a whole. It is almost too late to turn back and society will suffer. The same thing is possible with “genetically modified people”. “Playing God” could have disastrous outcomes. All of that being said, however, science has brought wonderful advances that have vastly improved quality of life. This has come from scientists who have had the freedom to work as they felt best. David Baltimore articulates this in the following quote: “I wish to argue that the traditional pact between society and its scientists, in which the scientist is given the responsibility for determining the direction of his work, is a necessary relationship if basic science is to be an effective endeavor” (7). The challenge remains to find a happy medium where both sides are effectively served. There is a possibility that fear can take over a society, keeping them from those very things that can make life better and bring joy. Throughout the essay that Baltimore et al wrote, there is much talk of fear and risk. “However, with such enormous opportunities come unknown risks to human health and well-being” (par 1) is one of many such examples. David Baltimore brings a different perspective. “The second danger in restricting areas of scientific investigation is more crucial: although we often worry most about keeping society stable, in fact societies need certain kinds of upheaval and renewal to stay vital. The new ideas and insights of science, much as we may fight against them, provide an important part of the renewal process that maintains the fascination of life” (12). There is much truth to this. On a recent visit to Kennedy Space Center, I was reminded of all of the scientific advances that have come from the space program. Had they played it safe and stopped after many failures and even deaths, many of the things that we take for granted as a society would not be in existence. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory gives a list of some common items. Camera phones, CAT scans, scratch resistant lenses, LED’s, land mine removal, Nike Air Trainers, foil blankets, water purification systems, dust busters, ear thermometers, home insulation, “the jaws of life”, wireless headsets, memory foam, freeze dried food, adjustable smoke detector, baby formula, artificial limbs, computer mouse, and the laptop computer all stemmed from inventions created initially for space travel. Although there is a need for limits on science, especially in areas where permanent, heritable changes to human beings are possible, as a whole, limiting science will stunt the growth of society and civilization. Kennedy Space Center and the work at Oregon Health and Science University both demonstrate the astounding possibilities that can come from science. However, they also demonstrate the need for regulations in certain areas. The scientists at Oregon Health and Science University are tampering with life itself, both creating and destroying it. That is rightfully alarming and angering many people. Scientists cannot be allowed to tinker with something that could continue down through the generations. The possibilities of creating permanent harm are just too great. Although, scientists should not be allowed free reign in this area, they should be allowed freedom in other areas. Curiosity is a God-given instinct and it would be an “offence against nature” (Baltimore 14) to suppress those questions that can lead to further light and knowledge. Works Cited Baltimore, David, et al. “A Prudent Path Forward for Genomic Engineering and Germline Gene Modification.” Science, Vol. 348, issue 6230, 3 April 2015, pp. 36-38. Baltimore, David. “Limiting Science: A Biologist's Perspective.” Daedalus, Vol. 134 issue 4, Fall 2005, pp. 7-15. ProQuest, http://byui.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.byui.idm.oclc.org/docview/210572883?accountid=9817. Servick, Kelly. “First U.S.-Based Group to Edit Human Embryos Brings Practice Closer to Clinic.” Science, Vol. 360, issue 6394, 2 August 2017, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/first-us-based-group-edit-human-embryos-brings-practice-closer-clinic. “20 Things We Wouldn't Have without Space Travel.” NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/infographic.view.php?id=11358.
In the late twentieth century, the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering has positioned itself to become one of the great technological revolutions of human history. Yet, things changed when Herber Boyer, a biochemist at the University of California, founded the company Genentech in 1976 to exploit the commercial potential of his research. Since then the field has exploded into a global amalgam of private research firms developing frivolous, profit-hungry products, such as square trees tailor-made for lumber, without any sort of government regulation.
Atwood takes many of today’s potential scientific developments and illustrates the worst possible outcome of what may happen if we continue the unregulated pursuit of knowledge. In reality, the scientific advances of today will yield a higher standard of living for the majority of the world tomorrow. We will continue to push for the best in everything including science, medicine, and technology; we will not allow any single person to make the sole decision to develop an idea. Scientific progression will save many lives; therefore, it should and will always be there for us.
The respective areas of science and religion always seem to be overlapping, or stepping on the other area’s toes. In his book, Stephen Jay Gould addresses the topic of Non-Overlapping Magesteria, or NOMA. Gould examines the principles of NOMA as a solution to the supposed false conflict between religion and science. (Pg. 6) He starts off his argument on NOMA by telling a story of “Two Thomas’s.” The first Thomas is from the bible, of which he makes three appearances in the Gospel of John. The second Thomas, is a Reverend Thomas Burnet. Thomas the Apostle defends the magesteria of science in the wrong magesteria of faith, while the Reverend Thomas proclaims religious ideas within the magesteria of science.
When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1959, they could not have known that their discovery would one day lead to the possibility of a human factory that is equipped with the capabilities to mass produce perfectly designed, immortal human beings on a laboratory assembly line. Of course, this human factory is not yet possible; genetic technology is still in its infancy, and scientists are forced to spend their days unlocking the secret of human genetics in hopes of uncovering cures for diseases, alleviating suffering, and prolonging life. In the midst of their noble work, scientists still dream of a world—a utopia—inhabited by flawless individuals who have forgotten death and never known suffering. What would become of society if such a utopia existed? How will human life be altered? Leon Kass, in Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics, acknowledges genetics technology’s greatness, and applauds it for its invaluable, benevolent contributions to mankind. However, Kass argues that if left to their devises and ambitions, geneticists—with the power of their technology—will steal away society’s most precious asset; genetic technology will rob society of its humanity. Genetic technology can, and will, achieve great things, but unless it is regulated and controlled, the losses will be catastrophic and the costs will far exceed the benefits.
The ethics behind genetic engineering have been discussed and argued for years now. Some arguing points often include competitive advantages, playing God, and the polarization of society, but Sandel takes a different approach in explaining society’s “unease” with the morality of genetic engineering. Broadcasted through several examples throughout the book, Sandel explains that genetic engineering is immoral because it takes away what makes us human and makes us something else. He states that by taking control of our genetic makeup, or the makeup of our progeny, we lose our human dignity and humility. Our hunger for control will lead to the loss of appreciation for natural gifts, whether they are certain talents, inherited from the genetic lottery, or the gift of life itself.
In this paper, I will argue that genetic therapies should be allowed for diseases and disabilities that cause individuals pain, shorter life spans, and noticeable disadvantages in life. I believe this because everyone deserves to have the best starting place in life possible. That is, no one should be limited in their life due to diseases and disabilities that can be cured with genetic therapies. I will be basing my argument off the article “Gene Therapies and the Pursuit of a Better Human” by Sara Goering. One objection to genetic therapies is that removing disabilities and diseases might cause humans to lose sympathy towards others and their fragility (332).
With the progression of modern biotechnology, there is much contentious debate affecting ongoing developmental affairs. Controversy aligns itself with cautious thoughts on the appropriate amount of enhancement that can be applied before it undermines the “gifted character of human power and achievement (Sandel).” Michael Sandel, author of The Case Against Perfection argues through political discourse that the passion to master all of the science dominion through the use of such technology is largely flawed by our interpretations of perfection.
The world was in utter shambles when Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World. It was the middle of the depression, unemployment was high and the stock market low. It was the age of sterilizing the mentally ill, and the age of mass manufacturing by machines. Scientific progress was on the rise, and Henry Ford was considered a savior. Huxley's imaginary world of scientific perfection was far from perfect. The texture of his imaginary world is nearer to nightmare that to heaven on earth (Watts 72). In creating the prophecy, New World State, scientific evolution, in trying to create a superior society, is only as perfect as its' creator.
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu, in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings,” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is a morally obligatory. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to intervene genetically even if such intervention may be permissible under certain criteria. I will show, in contrast to Savulescu’s view, that the moral obligation to intervene is not the same as the moral obligation to prevent and treat disease. In short, I will show that the ability of humans to intervene genetically is not sufficient to establish a moral obligation.
The video, “What Darwin Never Knew”, is a stunning time line that details the theory of evolution formed by Charles Darwin, and the recent advancements made that answers some of the questions he simply could not. Darwin 's theory explained why today there are 9,000 kinds of birds, 350,000 kinds of beetles, 28,000 kinds of fish, and at least 2 million kinds of living species and counting. Darwin figured out that all species are connected, and he also realized that species evolved and adapted, but he did not know how.
...ne starts life with an equal chance of health and success. Yet, gene therapy can also be thought of as a straight route towards a dark outlook, where perfection is the first priority, genes are seen as the ultimate puppeteer, and personal freedom to thrive based on one’s self isn’t believed to exist. With the emergence of each new technological discovery comes the emergence of each new ethical debate, and one day, each viewpoint on this momentous issue may be able to find a bit of truth in the other. Eventually, our society may reach a compromise on gene therapy.
Recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics and biotechnology have brought attention to the ethical issues surrounding human enhancement. While these breakthroughs have many positive aspects, such as the treatment and prevention of many debilitating diseases and extending human life expectancy well beyond its current limits, there are profound moral implications associated with the ability to manipulate our own nature. Michael Sandel’s “The Case Against Perfection” examines the ethical and moral issues associated with human enhancement while Nick Bostrom’s paper, “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity” compares the positions that transhumanists and bioconservatists take on the topic of human enhancement. The author’s opinions on the issue of human genetic enhancement stand in contrast to one another even though those opinions are based on very similar topics. The author’s views on human enhancement, the effect enhancement has on human nature, and the importance of dignity are the main issues discussed by Sandel and Bostrom and are the focus of this essay.
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is morally obligatory. In this paper I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.
Human genetic engineering can provide humanity with the capability to construct “designer babies” as well as cure multiple hereditary diseases. This can be accomplished by changing a human’s genotype to produce a desired phenotype. The outcome could cure both birth defects and hereditary diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Human genetic engineering can also allow mankind to permanently remove a mutated gene through embryo screening as well as allow parents to choose the desired traits for their children. Negative outcomes of this technology may include the transmission of harmful diseases and the production of genetic mutations. The benefits of human genetic engineering outweigh the risks by providing mankind with cures to multiple deadly diseases.
Scientists and the general population favor genetic engineering because of the effects it has for the future generation; the advanced technology has helped our society to freely perform any improvements. Genetic engineering is currently an effective yet dangerous way to make this statement tangible. Though it may sound easy and harmless to change one’s genetic code, the conflicts do not only involve the scientific possibilities but also the human morals and ethics. When the scientists first used mice to practice this experiment, they “improved learning and memory” but showed an “increased sensitivity to pain.” The experiment has proven that while the result are favorable, there is a low percentage of success rate. Therefore, scientists have concluded that the resources they currently own will not allow an approval from the society to continually code new genes. While coding a new set of genes for people may be a benefitting idea, some people oppose this idea.