No Guarantees 1

Human Genetic Enhancement: No Guarantees Rocky Williams May 1, 2012 English A111 Methods of Written Communication

No Guarantees 2 Abstract Evidence suggests that although individual freedom and the good of humanity are pursuits that make research concerning human genetic enhancement worthwhile, the power that this technology holds, after refinement and actualization, could cause great and irreversible harm to our society as well as changing the very nature of what it means to be human. The promises made by the proponents of this highly contested technology come with some very serious consequences that cannot be over-looked when the decision to move forward with this research is reached. However, through moral enhancement, the dangers that are most obvious can be avoided making the potential for the evolution of the human species an achievement that can be reached.

No Guarantees 3 Human Genetic Enhancement: No Guarantees It is widely accepted that human beings have lived on this planet for more than 150,000 years (ONeil, 2011). In this massive expanse of time, human beings have learned to adapt to conditions forced on them by nature such as climate and natural disaster. It is with some certainty that the assumption that our ancient ancestors lived lives that were substantially shorter, in terms of duration, than our own, if for no other reason than the invention of modern medicine. Common ailments like bacterial infections, treatable using antibiotics during the modern era, were most likely fatal as recently as one hundred years ago. However, in recent years, our species has set its sights on a developing a type of science that could arguably revolutionize human beings as no other medical achievement before it. The technology of human genetic enhancement has been born bringing with it endless potential, as well as possible irrecoverable damage. Genetic enhancement has been defined as altering a trait that is within the norm for an organism and changing it to a superior position within the normal range of variation or moving it beyond the norm (Loftis, 2005, p.58). Has the idea of manipulating the basic building blocks of our very being become so alluring that we are willing to risk the future of our species on increasing the length and quality of life to an even further extent? Is longer, healthier life that precious? Evidence suggests that although individual freedom and the good of humanity are pursuits that make research concerning human genetic enhancement worthwhile, the power that this technology holds, after refinement and actualization, could cause great and irreversible harm to our society as well as changing the very nature of what it means to be human. In order to clearly understand the entire debate surrounding human genetic enhancement, we must inspect the topic from multiple perspectives, the first being the end of human suffering caused by disease. It can be reasonably speculated that human suffering is something that would

No Guarantees 4 be completely eliminated given the means. Given that most people would share this sentiment, it is understandable that one of the primary ways that modification of our genetics is promoted is the easement of human suffering (Sorenson, 2009). Human genetic enhancement holds the potential to rid humanity of diseases that are genetically inherited much in the same way that smallpox was eradicated. Genetic enhancement has the possibility to achieve the unimaginable, completely removing disease from the human species by plucking the disease causing agents from our DNA (Gordon, 1999). How could one possibly argue against a technology so beneficial as to rid the world of disease? Imagine a world where doctors did little more than routine check-ups geared toward preventative maintenance of minor illnesses and the treatment of accidental injuries rather than risky surgical procedures or prescribing pharmaceutical drugs that have potentially deadly side effects. Personal liberty is another way that human genetic enhancement has been is proposed in that through genetic enhancement a person would have not only the physical ability through lack of debilitating illness, but also the mental faculties, to pursue any endeavor that they wish. As it stands currently, those born with physical or mental limitations which classify them as below average have substantial difficulty achieving some goals because of circumstances that are out of their control. However, through genetic enhancement, those who currently find themselves limited, both personally as well as professionally, would have the ability to live their lives to the fullest (Bostrom, 2003). This would have a profound effect not only on the individual, but on society as a whole. The cumulative effect of this newfound personal liberty for all would theoretically increase exponentially leading to equitable opportunity for all. Through human genetic enhancement, everyone could have the chance to do anything that they wanted without the issues of physical incapability or being cognitively inept, thereby increasing the individual as

No Guarantees 5 well as the human collectives quality of life. In regard to personal liberty, the argument that people should be allowed to make decisions that would lead to their offspring leading more complete, richer, fuller lives also comes into the conversation. All of these are valid points and seem to be all well-intentioned. After all, this is the United States of America, the land where we are supposed to be allowed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As intriguing as the removal of human suffering and the guarantee of personal liberty are, they most certainly come with their consequences. Regarding the use of human genetic enhancement to pluck disease from our genome, consider this scenario: prior to the ability of the human animal to split the atom, no one suffered from the devastation caused by the delivery of a nuclear weapon or the decay of nuclear fuel from a nuclear power plant failure. What this is meant to bring attention to is that the introduction of a new technology opened up an entirely new set of problems to be dealt with. How can we assume that removing all disease from human DNA wouldnt create problems that we havent even contemplated at this point (Douglas, 2008)? One problem that does occur to me is the obvious problem of overpopulation on our planet. There is substantial overpopulation on our planet, even with all of the disease, and lack of cures or treatment for these illnesses, that we contend with at the current date and time. So what will this mean for the population increase when everyone has flawless DNA that will enable them to live into old age unless they are met with an early end because of an accident or other unseen cause of death? This growing mass of people will need to be fed, be economically sustained, and these people will also require resources that, for some on this planet, are already in short supply (Pimentel, 2006). Ultimately, the advancement of human genetic enhancing technology could eliminate human suffering that is caused by disease, but could cause an entirely new and possibly, more difficult form of human suffering than is experienced through disease.

No Guarantees 6 Personal liberty, another of the major selling points used by those in favor of human genetic enhancement, is not without its glaring inadequacies as well when used as a way to improve our lives (Douglas, 2008). The central idea around which the advantage of personal liberty for all, that everyone would have a base-line of enhancement that would give everyone a chance to pursue any endeavor they wish without any genetic restriction, is a little hard to comprehend. How can it be argued that everyone will have the opportunity to accept genetic enhancement, leveling the playing field for all, when in this day and age children starve in poverty stricken countries because we cant accomplish the simple task of feeding people, which seems to me infinitely easier than altering their DNA en utero. Furthermore, considering the alarming rate at which our personal liberties are disappearing in the last decade specifically, personal liberty is a term that has a different definition than it did even 50 years ago. With this in mind, consider the inevitability that enhanced and non-enhanced humans would co-exist and the issues that would arrive from that based on the way that humanity has chosen to resolve its differences via war, slavery, and genocide. In his 2005 article, Ronald Green draws comparisons of the potential of such a division in humanity to that of an old H.G. Wells story where the difference between that of the two formerly human species were as different as humans and animals. Does this sound unbelievable? Yes. Just as in the year 1900 it would have sounded equally impossible to have all the information in the world at your fingertips, known by nearly every living person today as the Internet. When faced with these uncomfortable facts regarding human genetic enhancement, those who are in favor are quick to retreat to the comfort of the law, policy, and regulation. Lest we forget, these tools of control are only as effective as those who are currently in control of a given political or regulatory system, as these individuals have the ability to amend regulation, law, and

No Guarantees 7 policy. Where is the guarantee that as human ideals change that the policy under which human genetic enhancement is agreed will be held regardless of the current social climate? An example of how policies have been changed based on the ideals of society in the past can be found in Europe during the late 1930s through the early 1940s when people, by the millions, were herded up and either killed or enslaved because of their differences from the ideal of the new political system. In the United States in the early 1900s, to be considered feeble-minded was the only offense necessary to find yourself in a bad situation. It is delusional to assume that policy, once adopted, is in any way protected from change. The history of this world is full of examples of atrocities committed against each other. Again, not that long ago, women had no right to vote and African-Americans were a commodity that was bought and sold in a market. Both of these were completely normal and considered acceptable for the people who lived during this time while most of us alive today couldnt imagine a world where the legal enterprise of slavery was openly practiced at a market in our city or town. Just as we cant imagine a world where there is a substantial gap between enhanced and non-enhanced humans, especially to the degree where the relationship is closer to human-to-animal, than human-to-human. With all of this in mind, how could we possibly trust something as temporary and fragile as a law, policy, or regulation to restrain a technology so powerful that it would cause a change in human evolution? The inherent danger in this situation is beyond my capacity to describe. There is, however, a scenario where the progression of research and implementation of the findings could be used. This scenario focuses on the enhancement of our morals rather than the enhancement of our IQs or physical characteristics. If our species could get past the ways that we have historically chosen to resolve our problems we could move forward with this kind of technology with as much speed as we could possibly accumulate. To have an increased sense

No Guarantees 8 of morality would alleviate the probability that once a division was created that the species that was less-highly evolved would be exploited or subjugated. The idea of using the technology of genetic enhancement to morally enhance ourselves before making has been proposed, yet there is some speculation regarding whether or not such an enhancement is possible due to the nature of the mind versus the brain (Douglas, 2008). The questions of whether or not we can remove the negative traits of the human mind in the same ways that we are able to engineer our genetics have yet to be answered. If researchers were able to answer the questions needed to be able to achieve such a feat would be a turning point for our species. A moral enhancement would be one that should be wanted by all, removing the problems of unwanted changes being made without the consent of the yet-to-be-born (Elliot, 2007). Is there anyone who wishes that they had a lower level of morals than they currently possess? That seems like asking someone if they desire to be more miserable than they might currently describe themselves to be. By pursuing moral enhancement prior to enhancement of any other kind, we can preserve our individual freedom of reproduction, we can end human suffering not only through disease, but also through the suffering that we inflict intentionally on each other, as well as having the personal liberty to follow any dream or goal that we have without the shackles of genetic disease or limitation, be that limitation from an external source or from within. Again, the problem with this sort of enhancement is that it is unclear if any sort of alteration to our DNA would be able to affect this specific part of the human animal, and if it were found to be possible, we find ourselves asking the same old question of is it safe to begin the implementation of such a change. At what point in that specific type of enhancement is it safe to experiment with a human being? Surely, the risk of such changes to the human psyche is no less dangerous than those of cognitive ability or

No Guarantees 9 physical imperfection that are currently being researched. However, this type of enhancement could be the structure around which all other enhancements could be made. The benefits of human genetic enhancement cannot be denied. Once we are able to put this technology into practice, the human race will never be the same again as it will be the beginning of a change in the evolution of our species. It seems that one of the biggest problems that we face with this sort of technology is the likelihood that our scientific ability has out-run our moral and ethical ability. Human beings have used sticks and stones against each other for millennia with increasing scale and power, again as our technological prowess has out-paced our ability to reason with one another, and it is my belief that if a divide the likes of which will be created by the introduction of an enhanced human being that is superior to the rest of us, that we havent even begun to see the extent that we will go to eradicate what we will come to see as sub-humans. It is through a change in the way that we think, a moral enhancement, which our evolution rests. Imagine a species that not only has what we conceive as un-naturally long life, a species that has no disease to cause illness or limitation, a species that is makes our current intellect seem closer to chimpanzee than to human (Bostrom, 2003). Then imagine that incredible species with a moral standard that far surpasses the human animal that we are today with all of the negative qualities that cause us to do the terrible things that we do to each other. That species of post-human, with a highly refined sense of morality, immaculate health, superhuman intelligence, and physical traits that are unparalleled at this time should be, if we are able to influence our evolution as it appears we will, is the species that I would personally choose for my descendants. Obviously, this isnt to say that a higher sense of morals ensures that a person or group of people will make the most beneficial decisions when it comes to matters such as

No Guarantees 10 these. It does, however, greatly increase the odds of a decision being made that cause the least amount of harm to other people, as well as the social collective.

No Guarantees 11 References Bostrom, N. (2003). Human genetic enhancement: A transhumanist perspective. Journal of Value Inquiry, 37(4), 493-506. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/docview/203909549 Douglas, T. (2008, August). Moral Enhancement. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25(3), 228245. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/doi/ 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00412.x/full Elliott, C. (2007, May). The mixed promise of genetic medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 2024-2025. Retrieved from https://classes.uaa.alaska.edu/@@/ 2DEDF1671BB203B39BCD2ADE31E8A18E/courses/1/201201_39673/content/ _3530192_1/The%20Mixed%20Promise%20of%20Genetic%20Medicine.mht Gordon, J. W. (1999, March 26). Genetic enhancement in humans. Science, 283, 2023-2024. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/stable/10.2307/ 2896679?origin=api Green, R. (2005, March). Last word: Imagining the future. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/docview/ 217112932/1364BC784E031A18D04/6?accountid=14473 Loftis, R. (2005, March). Germ-line enhancement of humans and nonhumans. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/docview/217118966/abstract ONeil, D. (2011, December 24). Early modern homo sapiens. Retrieved April 19, 2012, from http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

No Guarantees 12 Pimentel, D. (2006, April). Overpopulation and sustainability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(3), 155-161. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/stable/3868686?seq=1 Sorensen, K. (2009, April 15). Genetic enhancements and expectations. Journal of Medical Ethics, (35), 433-435. Retrieved from https://classes.uaa.alaska.edu/@@/ 2DEDF1671BB203B39BCD2ADE31E8A18E/courses/1/201201_39673/content/ _3530193_1/Genetic%20Enhancement%20and%20Expectations.%20Sorensen.mht