07 Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Biotechnology and
18 Bioengineering
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
ËUnderstand current issues in biotechnology

and bioengineering including athletic
Ë Explain how consequentialist arguments
about costs and benefits apply to
and cognitive enhancements, stem cell bioengineering and biotechnology.
research, cloning, genetic engineering, and
genetically modified organisms.
Ë Critically examine moral objections to
“playing God” and the idea of the “wisdom
Ë
Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock
Draw connections between the ethical of repugnance.”

challenges of biotechnology and ethical
issues related to abortion, animal welfare,
Ë Analyze concerns and hopes for a future
in which human beings have more
and personal privacy. control over biology.
ËExamine the difference between a therapy
and an enhancement, with respect to
Ë Defend a thesis with regard to
biotechnology and bioengineering.
various applications of biotechnology and
bioengineering.
F or more than seventeen years, Jan Scheuermann has suffered from degenerative
brain disease that has left her paralyzed from the neck down. In 2012, however, a
revolutionary new technology allowed Scheuermann to use a robotic arm to feed herself
for the first time in years. By implanting special electrodes in Scheuermann’s brain, her
doctors were able to create a “brain-computer interface” and connect it to the robotic
arm. With practice, Scheuermann learned to control the arm using only her thoughts.
This technological feat might sound like science fiction. But it is part of a set of rapidly
advancing technologies produced by engineers and doctors who are finding ways to
cure disease and improve human capacities. Another example is the development of an
artificial eye—a retinal implant—that allows blind people to see.1 Other surgeries and
interventions allow us to radically alter our bodies, including, for example, sex reassign-
ment surgery. In the future, regenerative medicine and genetic interventions may be
able to extend our life spans, screen out deadly genetic mutations, or allow us to grow
replacement organs. Performance- and mood-enhancing drugs may make us stronger,
improve memory and concentration, and help us achieve better emotional health. Other
biotechnologies may make it possible to extend our physical capacities—to walk, run,
or swim—as the human body has never done before.
While many emerging biotechnologies, such as the brain-computer interface that
allowed Jan Scheuermann to feed herself, have obvious therapeutic applications, some
worry that these technologies will be abused in ways that are unethical. Others argue that
a new form of humanity is looming on the horizon—one that is genetically, chemically,
Copyright 2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Chapter 18 ❮❮ Biotechnology and Bioengineering 277
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

Jan Scheuermann feeds herself using a robotic arm attached to a brain-computer
interface.
and mechanically enhanced. Some view the “transhu- Biotechnology can be broadly defined as the
man” or “posthuman” future as a positive develop- manipulation of biological systems and organisms
ment; others worry that we are not wise or virtuous through technological means. Biotechnology includes
enough to properly handle these new technologies. performance-enhancing drugs, stem cell research,
Consider, for example, the speed and variety of genetic engineering, cloning, and genetic screening.
recent advances in mind-computer interfacing. One These technologies can be applied, for example, in
recent technological feat allowed one rat to control human reproduction to select or even engineer desired
the actions of another rat by way of implants con- offspring. They can also be applied to animals, in sci-
necting the two animals’ brains. 2 And researchers entific breeding practices to increase meat production.
at Harvard have found a way to connect human And plants grown for food can be genetically modified
brain waves—detected by electrodes placed on the in ways that improve crop yields. Bioengineering
human’s skull—to the nerves of a rat so that the uses biological science to design machines and alter
human subject is able to make the rat’s tail move by biological systems for a range of purposes, including
thought-power.3 While such experiments might raise the use of machines to supplement or enhance bio-
concerns from the standpoint of animal ethics, they logical organisms as in the case of the brain-computer
also suggest other moral concerns. What if biotech- interface discussed previously.
nology and bioengineering could be used in ways Some biotechnologies have strikingly therapeu-
that provide control over other human beings? This tic effects, for example, giving paralyzed people the
is related to a concern of those who oppose human ability to feed themselves. A therapy is an inter-
cloning; that biotechnologies should not be used vention that helps restore normal function to an
in ways that engineer human beings or that create organism that is suffering from an impairment due
human beings for the purpose of organ harvesting. to disease or injury. But other technologies may be
The worry is that in our pursuit of medical advance- viewed as enhancements, which may be seen to give
ment, we will lose sight of those features of human- some people (fair or unfair) advantages over oth-
ity that give life its worth and dignity. ers. An enhancement is the result of a technology
278 PART TWO ❯❯ ETHICAL ISSUES
that provides more than merely normal function. or do they enhance his abilities in immoral ways? (As
One of the ethical questions to be discussed here is of February 2013, a more serious moral question sur-
whether there is anything wrong with enhancements. rounded Pistorius and may prevent him from compet-
While we might accept such uses of technology out ing in future athletic events: he was charged with the
of respect for individuals’ rights to control their own murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.)
bodies, some biotech enhancements appear to raise There is no denying that therapeutic technologies
serious ethical questions about what is “natural” and can be used or abused in ways that enhance perfor-
about the value and nature of human life. mance. One controversial development is in the field
of so-called “cognitive enhancements” or “smart
CURRENT ISSUES drugs.” Drugs such as Ritalin and Adderall, which are
Athletic and Cognitive Enhancement prescribed for diseases such as ADHD, can be used
The use of steroids by athletes who want to bulk up by healthy people in ways that may improve perfor-
and build strength is a clear case of an enhancement mance at school and at work. It is illegal to use these
rather than a therapy. There have been a number drugs to enhance performance in this way, and critics
of controversies regarding the use of performance- warn that such nontherapeutic use is addictive and
enhancing substances by some of the biggest names dangerous. At least one suicide has been connected
in sports, such as baseball superstar Barry Bonds and with abuse of Adderall.5 But defenders argue that
Olympic sprinter Marion Jones. In 2013, cyclist Lance these drugs can provide an advantage in highly com-
Armstrong admitted that he had used performance petitive fields such as academia and business. Others
enhancements, including blood doping, in his seven argue that smart drugs are less like steroids than they
triumphs in the Tour de France. Most athletic organi- are like caffeine or nicotine. In any case, there is no
zations view the use of performance enhancements clear proof that such drugs actually work to consis-
as an immoral action that undermines fair play and tently improve cognitive performance. “As useful as
allows some athletes with sufficient money and con- they may be during the occasional deadline crunch,
nections to buy their victories. But consider the case of no study has linked Ritalin or Adderall use in people
Oscar Pistorius, the so-called “blade runner” of track without ADHD to sustained increases in things like
and field sports. Pistorius was born without fibulas, the grades or performance reviews.”6
bones in his lower legs. On the track, he uses pros- Nevertheless, other nonpharmaceutical technolo-
thetic legs made out of carbon fiber blades, which have gies have been developed that purport to stimulate
allowed him to compete (and win medals) in world cognitive ability. One of these is the use of tran-
events for able-bodied athletes. After some contro- scranial direct-current stimulation—the applica-
versy, the International Olympic Committee permitted tion of electric current to the brain. This technology
him to run the 400-meter race in the London Olympics has therapeutic applications, for example, in treat-
of 2012. Some critics have complained that Pistorius’s ing depression or helping cognitive recovery after a
prosthetic legs give him an unfair advantage. Scien- stroke. But apparently electric stimulation of the brain
tific American examined the issue and concluded that can also be used to enhance the cognitive abilities of
Pistorius uses less energy, due to the elastic action of healthy individuals. Some studies suggest that tran-
the blades.4 His lower “legs” are lighter than those of scranial stimulation can help increase memory and
other runners, and they do not tire. On the other hand, learning, producing, for example, a greater capacity to
Pistorius must compensate for the light springiness of learn a new language or mathematical skill.7 Would it
his blades by bearing down on his prostheses in a way be ethical to use such a technology to enhance your
that no other runner must do. The question of whether ability to learn new information?
Pistorius gets unfair advantage is not easy to deter-
mine. The distinction between therapy and enhance- Stem Cell Research
ment is a bit fuzzy, as we can see in the Pistorius case. Another current issue in bioethics is embryonic stem
Are Pistorius’s blades merely a therapeutic treatment cell research. In recent years, several public figures
have made public appeals for the funding of stem cell into specific skin, muscle, or other types of body cells
research with its potential for treating or curing cer- and tissues. The most potent or flexible type of stem
tain serious diseases. For example, Mary Tyler Moore, cells are embryonic stem cells. These are the undiffer-
who has type I (insulin-dependent) diabetes and entiated cells of the early embryo in the first weeks of
chairs the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, brought chil- development, called a blastocyst. In human beings,
dren with this condition to testify in hearings before these cells remain undifferentiated for approximately
Congress. These children are not able to produce five to seven days after an egg is fertilized. They can
enough insulin to change nutrients into the energy be removed and placed in a culture where they will
needed for life; they must monitor their blood sugar continue to divide. They are the cells from which all
and be injected with manufactured insulin every day. of the body’s organs develop. For this reason, they
Other advocates hope that stem cell research could are called pluripotent, which means that they have
lead to a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, and the actor the potential to develop into a variety of cells and tis-
Michael J. Fox has promoted this research as a pos- sues. However, once removed in this manner, these
sible cure for Parkinson’s disease, with which he is cells can no longer develop into a fetus.
afflicted. Before he died, Superman star Christopher In the case of these embryonic stem cells,
Reeve lobbied for this research as a possible treat- researchers hope to be able to learn how to control
ment for spinal cord injuries such as his. the process of their differentiation so as to be able to
Stem cell research is part of the field of regenera- provoke them to become, for example, the insulin-
tive medicine. One long-term goal of such research producing beta cells of the pancreas (thus effecting
is to produce new cells, tissues, and organs that the cure of diabetes) or neurons for the treatment
can be used to treat disease or injury. Certain stem of spinal cord injuries. Stem cells themselves can-
cell therapies have been around for some time. One not be directly implanted into the pancreas, how-
example is the transplantation of the stem cells pres- ever, because they can cause cancerous tumors to
ent in bone marrow to treat certain forms of leuke- develop. Thus it is necessary to take steps to direct
mia. Another more recent example is the extraction the development of the cells, to ensure they become
from cadavers of certain parts of the human pan- the specialized cells that are needed.
creas for an experimental treatment of diabetes.8 There are many practical challenges with stem
In 2012, scientists were able to find a way to cell treatments, among which are efficiently obtain-
grow a replacement windpipe for a patient with a ing the cells and directing and controlling their spe-
tracheal tumor. They induced stem cells from the cialization. Some researchers have pointed out that
patient’s own bone marrow to grow on an artificial in the case of some diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s
windpipe scaffolding, which ensured that the plas- disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS) and
tic scaffolding would not be rejected by the body’s other autoimmune diseases, replacing the damaged
immune response. The stem cells went on to develop cells may not help the patient because it is “the cellu-
into the kind of tissue that is found in normal wind- lar environment” that is the problem, and the newly
pipes. The patient has gone on to recover with the added cells could be damaged as well. In these cases,
plastic scaffolding in place and the stem cells devel- the source of the problem with other bodily systems
oping into the appropriate form of tissue.9 A similar might need first to be addressed before regenerative
procedure was recently employed to grow a replace- stem cell treatments could be effective.12
ment windpipe for a two-year-old girl who was born Embryonic stem cell research has generated sub-
without a windpipe—the youngest person ever to stantial political and ethical controversy in recent years.
undergo the procedure and the first in the United Among the central ethical issues is the moral status of
States.10 Unfortunately, the child died of complica- the early embryo. Those who believe that a human
tions in July 2013.11 being exists from the time of conception also hold that
Stem cells are found in bone marrow and in other the blastocyst—although a ball of cells smaller than a
parts of the body. These cells have not yet developed grain of sand—has the full moral status of a person.
Therefore, they believe it wrong to interrupt the devel- project funded by an Arizona millionaire, John Sperling,
opment of such embryos, even to save another life. who wanted to clone his pet dog, Missy, who had died.
(See Chapter 11 on abortion for the arguments regard- The company that he and his team of scientists estab-
ing the moral status of the embryo.) Supporters of stem lished, Genetic Savings and Clone, was based in Sau-
cell research, however, point out that leftover embryos salito, California, and Texas A&M University at College
now stored in fertility clinics (approximately half a mil- Station, Texas.14 In 2004, it was charging $50,000
lion are now frozen in the United States) could be used for a cloned cat and $295 to $1,395 to store genetic
because they are often otherwise destroyed, and using material from a cat. Two kittens, Tabouli and Baba
these embryos could do some good. New techniques Ganoush, who were cloned from the same female Ben-
have also been developed to “reprogram” adult stem gal tiger cat, were displayed at the annual cat show at
cells to behave like embryonic stem cells, which may Madison Square Garden in October 2004. According to
defuse some of the controversy.13 the owners, the kittens have personality similarities as
well as differences.15 Genetic Savings and Clone shut
Cloning down in 2006.16 However, Sperling established a new
A separate but related issue is cloning. A clone is a company, BioArts, in 2007. He then again attempted
genetically identical copy, produced asexually from a to clone the dog, Missy, using samples he had saved
single living being. Since the birth of Dolly the sheep and frozen. This time he was successful and produced
at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland, in three clones, Mira, Chin-Gu, and Sarang, all born in
March 1996, people have wondered whether it also February 2008. Sperling said that “cloning techniques
would be possible to produce humans by cloning. had become more efficient over the years” such that
Dolly was a clone or generic copy of a six-year-old “1 percent to 4 percent of embryo transfers now result
ewe. She was created by inserting the nucleus of a in a puppy.”17 Cloned animals have themselves pro-
cell from the udder of this ewe into a sheep egg from duced offspring in the natural way. Dolly had six
which the nucleus had been removed. After being seemingly normal lambs. Several generations of mice
stimulated to grow, the egg was implanted into have also been produced through SCNT, using cells
the uterus of another sheep from which Dolly was from mouse embryos and fetuses, as well as from mice
born. Dolly was produced from a somatic cell of an tails and cumulus cells.
adult sheep with already-determined characteristics. Unfortunately, animal cloning has not always
Because the cells of an adult are already differenti- been efficient or safe. In the case of Dolly, for
ated, that is, they have taken on specialized roles, example, 277 eggs were used but only one lamb
scientists had previously assumed that cloning from was produced. Moreover, cloned animals also have
such cells would not be possible. Now, for the first exhibited various abnormalities. In one study, all
time, producing an identical, although younger, twin twelve cloned mice died between one and two years
of an already existing human being seemed possible. of age. Six of the cloned mice had pneumonia, four
The type of cloning described above is called had serious liver damage, and one had leukemia and
somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) because it lung cancer. Dolly may have had arthritis, although
transfers the nucleus of a somatic or bodily cell into this claim has been disputed. Some scientists sug-
an egg whose own nucleus has been removed. Clon- gest that this may be because she was cloned from
ing can also be done through a fission, or cutting, the cell of an already aged adult sheep. In February
of an early embryo. Through this method it may be 2003, Dolly was euthanized because she had devel-
possible to make identical human twins or triplets oped an infectious and terminal lung disease.
from one embryo. Some proponents of cloning argue that the use of
In the past two decades, many higher mammals cloning technologies on animals might help farmers to
have been produced through cloning, including cows, more efficiently produce livestock herds. Others argue
sheep, goats, mice, pigs, rabbits, and a cat named “CC” that cloning could provide a way to save endangered
for “carbon copy” or “copy cat.” CC was produced in a species. Cloning works about 5 percent of the time
for domestic animals and less than 1 percent of the still actively supporting therapeutic cloning. Japan,
time with wild animals.18 The reason for this low suc- China, Singapore, and South Korea have similar laws.
cess rate has to do with the complexity of the process However, Germany, Austria, France, and the Nether-
of reprogramming a cell with new genetic material. lands have banned both types of cloning. Countries
Critics argue against animal cloning by appealing in South America, the Middle East, and Africa also
to concepts about animal welfare and animal rights have a diversity of regulation. In the United States,
(see Chapter 17). These critics complain that animal bills to regulate or prohibit human cloning have been
clones have high rates of abnormalities and that the proposed, including the Human Cloning Prohibition
risk of animal suffering and illness outweighs poten- Act introduced into the House of Representatives in
tial benefits.19 November 2012. Meanwhile, one of the leading sci-
Given the controversy surrounding animal clon- entists in the field, John Gurdon—the 2012 cowinner
ing, it is not surprising that human cloning is sub- of the Nobel Prize for medicine—has predicted that
ject to even more scrutiny. However, proponents of we will be able to safely clone human beings within
cloning for human beings point to potential benefits fifty years. 20 Gurdon suggests that one reason to
of cloning technologies for both therapeutic and develop such techniques would be so that parents of
reproductive goals. Therapeutic cloning is the use children who die could replace their lost child with a
of cloning for medical purposes. One such use of clon- copy. Gurdon further suggests that just as the public
ing might be in conjunction with stem cell therapy, to has gotten used to in vitro fertilization, the public will
help avoid the immunological rejection by a patient’s eventually come to accept the practice of reproductive
body of “foreign” tissues or organs grown from stem cloning.
cells. In this type of cloning, the nucleus of a somatic Others worry that such concepts of “replacing”
or bodily cell from the patient, such as a skin cell, individuals through cloning could lead to a devalu-
would be inserted into an unfertilized egg that had ation of human life and a mechanistic “mass pro-
its own nucleus removed. The egg would then be duction” of babies. They point to the growing
stimulated to develop into an embryo. The stem cells acceptance of paying surrogate mothers to bear chil-
in this blastocyst would be genetically identical with dren and argue that we are already commercializing
the patient, and tissue grown from them would not reproduction, allowing (often wealthy and Western)
then be rejected by the patient’s immune system as couples to “rent” the wombs of women (often poor
foreign. The ethical issues raised by this type of clon- and in the developing world). When combined with
ing mirror those of stem cell research, especially the cloning, such practices might seem to spring from
question of the moral status of the human embryo. the dystopia of Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New
Reproductive cloning aims to produce a new World in which the production of children was out-
human being who would be the genetic twin of the sourced and managed for sinister eugenic purposes.
person whose cell was used in the process. Repro- Huxley’s novel is often invoked as a cautionary tale
ductive cloning may be thought of as one of several about the totalitarian dangers of cloning and tech-
reproductive technologies that have been developed nologized reproduction.
in recent decades. Among these are artificial insemi-
nation, in vitro fertilization with its resulting “test- Genetic Engineering and Genetic Screening
tube babies,” donated and frozen embryos and eggs, Developments in modern genetics can create new
and the use of surrogate mothers. Although these ethical problems. The controversial history of the
other methods of reproduction have been widely eugenics movement mentioned above is an important
accepted, there is almost universal objection to repro- concern. Eugenics can be defined as the science of
ductive cloning, even among those countries that finding ways to improve the genetic components of
allow and support stem cell research or therapeutic a species. Livestock breeders have worked for centu-
cloning. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, ries to create such genetic changes in animals. But
have laws prohibiting reproductive cloning while eugenic practices become more problematic when
attempted with human beings, especially given the donors, a deaf mother should be allowed to choose a
history of human eugenics efforts, which includes deaf sperm donor.23
forced sterilizations and abortions and other practices Many of the ethical controversies surrounding
that violated people’s liberty in the name of produc- genetic engineering and screening have been inten-
ing good offspring. There is a long history of eugenic sified by the great progress scientists have made in
projects, going back to Plato’s plan for breeding good recent decades in understanding the human genetic
citizens in the Republic. There were eugenic laws structure. The Human Genome Project, an effort to
enforced in the United States in the early part of the map the entire human genome, was completed in the
twentieth century, which included the forced steriliza- summer of 2000 and its results first published in early
tion of thousands of people deemed “mentally defec- 2001. The project found that humans have approxi-
tive.” Nazi Germany took eugenic projects to another mately twenty thousand genes—roughly the same
level of sophistication and cruelty. The efforts to number as most other animals—and helped scientists
“purify” the Aryan race involved the killing of more determine that “we have only 300 unique genes in
than 200,000 people—many of them children—who the human [genome] that are not in the mouse.”24
were deemed disabled, degenerate, homosexual, However, although humans have approximately
or insane by Nazi doctors and therefore “unworthy the same number of genes as a spotted green puffer
of life.”21 Hundreds of thousands more were steril- fish, it is surmised that human capacity comes from
ized against their will. And eventually millions were “a small set of regulatory genes that control the
slaughtered in the Holocaust. activity of all the other genes.” These would be differ-
For the most part, contemporary societies view ent in the puffer fish.25
eugenics as fundamentally immoral. But contempo- Two entities competed in the race to map the entire
rary genetic research may open the door toward a human genome. One was a public consortium of uni-
different form of eugenic outcome—such as occurs versity centers in the United States, Great Britain, and
when parents are able to select the genes of their Japan. It made its findings publicly available and used
children. the genome from a mosaic of different individuals. The
Consider what decisions you might make if it were other research was done by Celera Genomics, a private
possible for you to engineer a “designer baby” or to company run by Dr. Craig Venter. It used a “shotgun”
screen out an embryo with an unwanted genetic muta- strategy, with genetic source material from Venter and
tion. Take the process known as preimplantation four others. Celera performed an analysis of the DNA—
genetic screening, by which embryos with harmful identifying where the genes lay in the entire DNA
or perhaps even simply unwanted genetic mutations sequence—and in 2007 Venter published his entire
can be selected out during the in vitro fertilization pro- genetic sequence.26 Although initially the cost to have
cess. Or take the controversy surrounding a Maryland one’s complete genome sequenced was quite high, the
couple—both born deaf—who opted to increase the cost has dropped to under $10,000.27 A few compa-
likelihood that their child would also be born deaf. The nies have begun charging much less, sometimes less
couple (two women who had been together for eight than $500, for a genetic screening of roughly twenty
years) sought out a sperm donor with hereditary deaf- medical conditions. These companies include 23 and
ness out of a conviction that deafness is not a disability Me, Navigenics, and deCODE genetics. The customer
and that they wanted to share deaf culture with their simply sends them a tube of saliva or a cheek swab
children. “A hearing baby would be a blessing,” one and they “match the results with the latest publications
of the mothers said. “A deaf baby would be a special on traits, common diseases, and ancestry.”28
blessing.”22 After one of the women did, in fact, give Since the initial mapping of the human genome,
birth to a deaf baby, some critics argued that the selec- various scientific projects have attempted to deter-
tion of a deaf donor was an abuse of genetic screen- mine the precise role that hereditary elements, includ-
ing practices. But one of the mothers argued in reply ing the genes, play in human development, health,
that if black parents were able to choose black sperm personality, and other characteristics. In this effort,
one focus has been on individual differences. The also raise new ethical questions. Consider, for exam-
human genome, “a string of 3 billion chemical letters ple, gene therapies that could impact the growth
that spell out every inherited trait,” is almost identical of muscle. Myostatin is a hormone that curbs the
in all humans—99.99 percent. But some differences, growth of muscles. Gene therapies might be able
so-called genetic misspellings that are referred to as to block myostatin, which could promote muscle
single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs or “snips”), growth. As a therapy this could be useful for treat-
can be used to identify genetic diseases. The SNPs ing muscular dystrophy or frailty in older persons.
give base variations that contribute to individual Myostatin mutations are already responsible for the
differences in appearance and health, among other development of a breed of cattle called the Belgian
things. Scientists look for differences, for example, Blue that has huge muscles and very little fat. And
by taking DNA samples of five hundred people with some human beings have a myostatin mutation,
diabetes and a similar number from people without which promotes muscle growth—a natural abnor-
the disease and then looking for contrasting DNA mality that has helped produce exceptional athletes,
patterns.29 SNPs also influence how people react dif- including a gold medalist in cross-country skiing.33
ferently to medications. Some people can eat high- While myostatin treatments could save lives, there is
calorie and high-fat foods and still not put on weight, also concern that athletes and other healthy individ-
while others are just the opposite. Some have high uals might purchase them to gain an advantage in
risks of heart disease, whereas others do not. With competition or for cosmetic purposes. Such genetic
genetic discoveries based on the Human Genome enhancements might not leave traces in urine or
Project and more recent efforts, one hope is that diets blood the way that other performance-enhancing
can be tailored to individual human genetic makeups. drugs do. However, in recent years the World Anti-
Since the early 2000s, an international con- Doping Agency has begun to develop new blood
sortium of scientists has been working on the tests to detect so-called “gene doping,” including
“hapmap” project, a $100 million endeavor “to has- other genetic enhancements that allow the human
ten discovery of the variant genes thought to under- body to produce extra red blood cells.34
lie common human diseases like diabetes, asthma, Ethical issues have also arisen over new genetic
and cancer.” 30 Scientists use the Human Genome screening procedures made possible by the genome
Project map as a master reference and compare indi- map. While such screenings may benefit health,
vidual genomes to it. Some diseases are caused by insurers and prospective employers might also use
single genes, such as that producing cystic fibrosis, genetic screening to their own advantage but not
but others are thought to be caused by several genes necessarily to the advantage of the person being
acting together. screened. Although the procedures may be new, the
Other efforts are directed to finding genes that ethical issues are similar to those raised by other types
relate to certain beneficial human traits. For exam- of screening, including drug screening. While we may
ple, some scientists are working on locating what agree that athletes and airline pilots should have
they call the “skinny gene.” Using mice from whom their blood and urine screened for the use of perfor-
a single gene has been removed, scientists at Delta- mance enhancements and recreational drugs, do we
gen, a company in Redwood City, California, have also agree that students and retail employees should
been able to produce mice that remain slim no mat- be subject to similar screenings? Related to this is the
ter how much they are fed.31 According to geneticist question of whether insurance companies or employ-
David Botstein, the impact of the Human Genome ers should be able to obtain information about an
Project on medicine “should exceed that 100 years individual’s genetic code. In 2013, scientists pub-
ago of X-rays, which gave doctors their first view lished the results of a study that showed that it was
inside the intact, living body.”32 finally possible to identify individuals based upon an
Our growing knowledge of the human genome analysis of genetic codes in comparison with publicly
may lead to powerful new medical treatments but available databases containing the genetic information
of individuals whose genes have been sequenced. 35 such mutations are now often caused by “bombard-
This technology could be useful for tracing out genealo- ing seeds with chemicals or radiation” and seeing
gies. But it could also raise privacy concerns, for exam- what comes of it. For example, lettuce, beans, and
ple, among people who fear being stigmatized because grapefruit have been so modified.39
of a genetic abnormality or disease. An increasing number of crops have been geneti-
cally modified in recent decades. A report of the
Genetically Modified Plants and Animals International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
During the past few decades, a lively debate has Biotech Applications concludes, “Biotech Crop hect-
sprung up in the United States and beyond about ares increased by an unprecedented 100-fold, from
genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. While, 1.7 million hectares in 1996, to 170 million hectares in
strictly speaking, humans have been modifying the 2012.”40 According to the Non-GMO Project, “In North
genes of plants and animals for centuries—through America, 80 percent of our foods contain GMOs.”41
such practices as plant hybridization and selective The Non-GMO Project has spearheaded a campaign to
animal breeding—GMOs are created through new bio- certify foods that do not contain GMOs. In 2013, the
technologies such as gene splicing, radiation, or spe- grocery chain Whole Foods announced that it would
cialized chemicals. These technologies often change label products that contain GMOs in its stores.42 While
the genetics of plants and animals that humans grow some are pushing back against GMOs, mainstream sci-
for food, in an attempt to make them hardier, larger, ence tends to hold that these products are beneficial or
more flavorful, or more resistant to drought or freez- at least not harmful. GMO crops are easier and cheaper
ing temperatures. Although some of these traits could to grow and can provide more food from less land.
be established through traditional breeding methods, They may be engineered to survive the use of herbi-
some could not, and a highly profitable new industry cides and insecticides or to be more resistant to pests.
now revolves around creating (and usually patent- Critics argue, however, that herbicide- and pesticide-
ing) these new forms of life. resistant crops will lead to more toxic chemicals in agri-
Critics of GMOs argue that they open a “Pandora’s culture, which may have long-term negative impacts
box” of potential risks to ecosystems and to human on the environment and human health. One article
health. (In Greek mythology, Pandora’s seemingly claims that the use of genetically modified crops has
minor act of opening a beautiful box releases a host unleashed a “gusher” of pesticides.43 But proponents
of evils into the world.) In 2004, the National Acad- of GMOs explain things differently. One technique has
emy of Sciences determined that, “genetically engi- inserted Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) genes into corn,
neered crops do not pose health risks that cannot which enables it to resist a devastating pest called the
also arise from crops created by other techniques, corn borer. With this mutation, the use of environmen-
including conventional breeding.” 36 It is not the tally damaging herbicides intended to combat the corn
method of production that should be of concern, the borer can then be reduced.
NAS argued, but the resulting product. Nevertheless, Other benefits of GMOs include the possibility of
there is much that the general public does not under- engineering crops so that they contain more nutri-
stand about so-called genetically modified food. tional value. New strains of rice have been devel-
Strictly speaking, genetic engineering involves oped specifically to combat famine and to reduce a
inserting a specific gene from one organism into vitamin A deficiency that commonly causes blind-
another in order to produce a desired trait. In a broader ness and other infections among the world’s poorest
sense, “nearly every food we eat has been genetically children. Plans for GMOs include “edible vaccines”
modified” as crops and domesticated animals have in fruits and vegetables that would make them more
been bred by humans for centuries.37 Cross-breeding easily available to people than injectable ones.44 Per-
crops “involves the mixing of thousands of genes, haps most significant for global public health, genet-
most unknown,” and trying to select desirable muta- ically modified foods offer a chance to “produce more
tions. 38 In the case of some contemporary GMOs, food on less land—using less water, fewer chemicals,
and less money.”45 And opposition to GMOs in the human dignity by turning human beings into prod-
wealthy West may have negative consequences for ucts that are created and engineered. One significant
developing countries where famine and malnutrition argument, associated with the work of bioethicist
are serious problems. For example, opposition to Leon Kass, is that there is a kind of wisdom in our
genetically modified food has led Uganda to prohibit “repugnance” for certain forms of bioengineering.
efforts to develop a fungus-resistant banana, even When a new technology makes us pause and say
though fungus has seriously damaged its banana “yuck,” we may be tapping into a deeper insight
crop, one of its most important.46 about human nature. Of course, others reject such
At the same time, protests against genetically repugnance as little more than taste and inclina-
modified foods have grown, especially in Europe and tion without any deeper moral basis. Indeed, some
Japan, but also in the United States. One significant theorists argue that what one generation finds to be
concern is food allergies that could result from prod- yucky and repugnant is easily accepted by the next
ucts containing new genetic information.47 Some of generation, as people get used to new norms and
the criticism may be based on ungrounded fears about new ideas about what is natural and possible.
new technologies, but some GMO-related hazards
may be real. There is some evidence, for example, Athletic and Cognitive Enhancement
that crops genetically modified for antibiotic resis- The issues arising around athletic and cognitive
tance may transfer that resistance to humans who eat enhancement involve the conflict between liberty
them, raising serious health concerns.48 There is also and negative consequences. In terms of liberty,
evidence that herbicide-resistant crops may help cre- defenders of biotechnology will argue that individu-
ate “superweeds” that require ever more toxic chemi- als have a right to do whatever they want to their
cals to try to control them. Neighboring non-GMO own bodies, a right to enhance their performance,
crops may become contaminated by GMO crops, a right to use technology to choose their own off-
which has, ironically, allowed giant GMO producers spring, and a right to find ways to profit and benefit
such as Monsanto to sue farmers for patent infringe- from technology so long as they do not hurt other
ment when pollen from GMO crops blows onto their people. Therapeutic technologies can be defended in
land. It may well be possible to reduce some of these terms of their immediate positive impact on impaired
risks, for example, by creating sterile plants that do and disabled people. Those who want to use these
not produce pollen. But clearly we are in the early technologies in ways to go beyond mere therapy will
days of human experimentation with GMOs. So far, argue that the benefits are obvious and that individ-
many of the dangers that people associate with GMOs uals should be free to take the risks that might be
have not materialized, but this does not prove their associated with the use of performance-enhancing
safety for humans and the environment. drugs. Arguments along these lines might paral-
lel ethical considerations regarding the use of other
LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES drugs, such as marijuana or nicotine. Defenders will
A variety of legal and ethical issues arise in think- argue that so long as no one else is harmed, indi-
ing about biotechnology and bioengineering. In gen- viduals should be allowed to choose to use these
eral, there is a tension between valuing our liberty to substances because of a basic right to do what one
pursue biotechnologies for their immediate utility, on wants with one’s own body.
the one hand, and concerns over the potential nega- On the other hand, critics will argue that the ben-
tive impacts of such technologies in the long run. efits are not obvious. Steroid use by athletes has been
There are also tensions between the liberty of indi- proved to produce long-term negative health effects.
viduals and groups to modify biology and concerns Athletes may need to be protected from competitive
about the moral problems involved in such modifica- or organizational pressures to alter their bodies in
tion, including the risk of “playing God.” There is ways that are not healthy. Indeed, the international
also a concern that new technologies will diminish agreements that prohibit the use of performance
enhancements in sports are partly intended to benefit that would have prevented federal funding for embry-
the athletes themselves. If steroid use were allowed, onic stem cell research. The plaintiff in that case, Dr.
for example, there is a worry that there would be an James Sherley, said that his goal was to “emancipate
“arms race” among athletes, which might increase human embryos from research slavery.”50
performance but would result in serious health prob- To overcome such ethical concerns about the
lems. Furthermore, critics of performance enhance- moral status of the early embryo, some people
ments argue that these drugs and technologies create have suggested that only adult stem cells be used
unfairness, as those who are willing to use these in research. Adult stem cells exist in bone marrow
drugs (or those who can afford them) will have an and purportedly in other parts of the body such as
unfair advantage over those who restrict themselves the brain, skin, fat, and muscle. The therapeutic
to developing their own natural talents and abilities. use of these cells seems to work in some situations,
There is a worry, for example, that affluent students such as the case of the reconstructed windpipe men-
will benefit from smart drugs, giving them an unfair tioned previously. Adult stem cells have been used
advantage over less fortunate students. to grow different types of cells, including heart cells,
Furthermore, critics will argue that we may not which could be useful for treating heart disease.51
yet understand the potential long-term impacts of However, adult stem cells may be limited in their
these biotechnologies. Just as genetically modified ability to develop into tissues. They may only be
organisms may produce food allergies and contribute multipotent rather than pluripotent.
to the growth of superweeds, so too, the use of per- Nevertheless, some recent scientific develop-
formance enhancements may create future impacts ments suggest that researchers may find a way out
that we might come to regret. Critics may also argue of the moral impasse over embryonic stem cells.
with regard to biotechnology and bioengineering in Several studies have found that the stem cells pres-
general that we are not wise enough or benevolent ent in amniotic fluid (the fluid that surrounds the
enough to be entrusted with technologies that could fetus in the uterus) can be used for many of the
be easily abused. This is related to a naturalistic same therapies as embryonic stem cells. This would
argument, which suggests that we ought to leave constitute a plentiful source of stem cells and would
natural things alone and not risk dangerous perver- perhaps be less controversial than obtaining the
sions of Nature. cells directly from embryos. In 2012, the Nobel Prize
for Medicine was given to two researchers, Shinya
Stem Cell Research Yamanaka and John Gurdon (mentioned previ-
As we have seen, ethical debate over stem cell research ously), whose work showed how mature cells could
is often—but not always—rooted in the contentious be “reprogrammed” into an immature state capable
debate about the moral status of the human embryo. of growing into various kinds of tissue—a capacity
In 2001, President George W. Bush introduced a ban that resembles the pluripotency of embryonic stem
on federally funded research using stem cells from cells.52 Such new techniques may change the ethical
new embryos, stating that, “[l]ike a snowflake, each conversation about stem cells, especially if it is pos-
of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic sible to create therapies that use adult cells instead
potential of an individual human being.”49 In 2009, of embryonic cells. Such work would circumvent the
President Obama expanded the number of stem cell complaints of those who view embryos as incipi-
lines available for use and allowed federal grant money ent human life that ought not be destroyed in the
to be used for research on these lines. These stem cell name of research. Scientists continue to make rapid
lines are to be derived from excess embryos created in progress along these lines. In April 2013, scientists
fertility clinics and donated for research purposes with announced that they had perfected a technique for
the consent of the donor. (If not used in this way, these creating and growing induced pluripotent cells that
excess embryos would be thrown away.) In 2013, the allows for successful cultivation of large numbers of
U.S. Supreme Court overruled a lower court decision these cells.53
Not all moral concerns about stem cell research, experts from fourteen countries. Like the NAS recom-
however, are narrowly focused on the individual- mendations, these guidelines do allow some research
ity and potential personhood of the human embryo. on chimeric animals—those that could carry human
Another significant concern raised, for example, in gametes—but only if such research passes the review
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommen- of an oversight committee. The guidelines also affirm
dations for stem cell research is the possible creation the fourteen-day limit for embryo development,
of chimeras, or new creatures that cross species arguing that it is not until this point in the develop-
borders. The NAS guidelines prohibit research in ment of a “primitive streak” that the embryo “has
which human embryonic stem cells “are introduced begun to initiate organogenesis.”56 The idea is that
into nonhuman primate blastocysts or in which any prior to that point, the embryo has not yet reached a
embryonic stem cells are introduced into human point of development that would qualify it for moral
blastocysts.” Furthermore, the guidelines maintain, concern—a claim that is connected to the discussion
“no animal into which human embryonic stem cells of the ethics of abortion (see Chapter 11).
have been introduced such that they could contrib-
ute to the germ line should be allowed to breed.”54 Cloning
The possibility of creating and breeding partially Perhaps no issue related to biotechnology raises
human or cross-species genetic mutants raises a num- more ethical controversy than the prospect of clon-
ber of serious ethical worries about how such crea- ing human beings. Although much of the reaction to
tures might be treated, about just how human such cloning humans has been the product of both hype
beings would need to be to deserve human rights and and fear, serious ethical questions also have been
personhood, and, more generally, what it means for raised. One of the most serious concerns is that clon-
scientists to “play God” and create unprecedented ing might produce medical problems for the individu-
new life forms. Such moral questions are not merely als produced in this way, just as it has in some cases
speculative or limited to the realm of science fiction. of animal cloning. For this reason alone, we might
Some medical therapies already do include tissues raise ethical objections to human cloning. Some have
and genes taken from animals, for example, pig heart pointed out, though, that fertility clinics have had
valves that contain some human cells have been used broad experience in growing human embryos, and
to treat human patients with cardiac diseases. While thus cloning humans might actually be less risky
recommending that these therapies and research pro- than cloning animals. However, moral objections to
grams be allowed, the NAS also recommended that: cloning are also based on other considerations.
(1) chimeric animals not be allowed to mate because, One classic objection to human cloning is that it
if human cells invaded the sperm and eggs of an ani- amounts to “playing God.” The idea is that only God
mal host, this could lead to the remote possibility of can and should create a human life. Those who hold
a being with human DNA being conceived in a non- this view might use religious reasons and sources
human host; (2) human stem cells not be allowed to to support it, but although this looks like a religious
become part or all of an animal’s brain and not be position, it is not necessarily so. For example, it
injected into other primates because this could have might just mean that the coming to be of a new per-
the possible result of a human mind trapped in a non- son is a creation, rather than a making or produc-
human body; (3) embryos used in stem cell research tion. According to this view, the creation of a human
should not be allowed to develop for more than four- is the bringing into being of an individual, a mys-
teen days; and (4) women who donate eggs not be terious thing and something that we should regard
paid in order to avoid financial inducement.55 with awe. When we take on the role of producing
In 2007, a task force of the International Society a human being, as in cloning, we become makers
for Stem Cell Research published its own guidelines or manipulators of a product that we control and
for embryonic stem cell research. These guidelines over which we have some kind of power. Another
were developed by ethicists, scientists, and legal version of this objection stresses the significance
of Nature and the natural. In producing a human and often they are expected to act alike. The implica-
being through cloning, we go against human nature. tion is that they do not have the freedom or ability to
For example, in humans, as in all higher animals, develop their own individual personalities. A related
reproduction is sexual. Cloning, by contrast, is objection is sometimes expressed as the view that a
asexual reproduction, and thus may be seen to go cloned human being would not have a soul, or that
beyond the “natural” boundaries of human biology. he or she would be a hollow shell of a person. The
Leon Kass, whom we mentioned earlier, is one of idea is that if we take on the role of producing a
the strongest proponents of the view that in clon- human being through cloning, then we prevent God
ing someone, we would wrongly seek to escape the or Nature from giving it the spiritual component that
bounds and dictates of our sexual nature. Accord- makes it more than a material body.
ing to another related criticism, attempting to clone One response to this objection points out how dif-
a human being demonstrates hubris, an arrogant ferent the cloned individual would be from the origi-
assumption that we are wise enough to know and nal individual. Identical twins are more like each
handle its potential consequences. Tampering with other than a clone would be to the one cloned. This
a process as fundamental as human reproduction is because twins develop together in the same moth-
should only be undertaken with the utmost caution, er’s body in addition to sharing the same genetic
this argument claims. Above all, we should avoid code. Clones would develop in different uteruses
doing what unknowingly may turn out to be seri- and would have different mitochondria—the genes
ously harmful for the individuals produced as well in the cytoplasm surrounding the renucleated cell
as for future generations. that play a role in development. They would also
Those who defend human cloning respond to this likely grow up in very different circumstances and
sort of objection by asking how cloning is any dif- environments. Developmental studies of plants and
ferent from other ways we interfere with or change animals give dramatic evidence of how great a dif-
Nature in accepted medical practices such as in ference the environment makes. The genotype (the
vitro fertilization, for example. Others argue from genetic code) does not fully determine the pheno-
a religious perspective that God gave us brains to type (the genes’ actual physical manifestations). CC,
use, and that we honor God in using them, espe- the cloned cat mentioned previously, does not quite
cially for the benefit of humans and society. Cloning look like its genetic donor, Rainbow. They have dif-
advocates also point out that in using technology to ferent coat patterns because genes are not the only
assist reproduction, we do not necessarily lose our things that control coat color. There are other dif-
awe at the arrival of a new being, albeit one who ferences. “Rainbow is reserved. CC is curious and
comes into being with our help. playful. Rainbow is chunky. CC is sleek.”57 Although
A second objection to the very idea of cloning a genes do matter, and thus there would be similarities
human being is that the person cloned would not be between a human clone and the person who was
a unique individual. He or she would be the genetic cloned, they would not be identical. On the matter of
copy of the person from whom the somatic cell was soul, cloning defenders ask why could God not give
transferred. He or she would be the equivalent of an each person, identical twin or clone, an individual
identical twin of this person, although years younger. soul; any living human being, cloned or not, would
Moreover, because our dignity and worth are attached be a distinct being and so could have a human
to our uniqueness as individuals, this objection sug- psyche or soul, they suggest.
gests that cloned individuals would lose the unique Another objection to human cloning is that while
value we believe persons to have. We might find that any person born today has a right to an open future,
the difficulties that clones have in maintaining their a cloned human being would not. He or she would be
individuality would be a more confusing and trou- expected to be like the originating person and thus
bling version of the difficulties that identical twins would not be free to develop as he or she chose. The
sometimes have. Sometimes they are dressed alike, genetic donor (or his or her life story) would be there
as the model of what he or she would be expected to say, is the notion of a eugenic “brave new world” in
become. Even if people tried not to have such expecta- which children are produced only through cloning.
tions for the one cloned, they would be hard-pressed Some people believe that if human cloning were
not to do so. Critics of this argument point out that widely practiced, then it would only add to the confu-
while there might indeed be certain expectations for a sion within families that is already generated by the
clone, this undue influence is a possibility in the case use of other reproductive technologies. When donated
of all parents and children, and thus a possibility that eggs and surrogate mothers are used, the genetic par-
is not limited to clones. Parents select their children’s ents are different from the gestational parents and the
schools and other formative experiences and promote rearing parents, and conflicts have arisen regarding
certain activities, perspectives, and tastes. Thus any who the “real” parents are. Cloning, objectors contend,
child, cloned or sexually reproduced, would seem to would create even more of a problem, adding to this
run the risk of being unduly influenced by those who confusion the blurring of lines between generations.
raise them or contribute to their genetic makeup. The birth mother’s child could be her twin or a twin
Related to the previous objection to cloning is one of the father or someone else. What would happen
that holds that cloned children or adults would tend to the traditional relationships with the members of
to be exploited. If one looks at many of the potential the other side of the family, grandparents, aunts, and
motivations for cloning a person, the objection goes, uncles? And what would be the relationship of a hus-
they indicate that cloning would often be under- band to a child who is the twin of his wife or of a wife
taken for the sake of others, rather than for the sake to a child who is the twin of her husband?
of the new cloned person. For example, the cloned Critics of these arguments respond that, although
child could be viewed as a potential organ or blood there is a traditional type of family that, in fact, var-
donor—a so-called “savior sibling”—or to “replace” ies from culture to culture, today there are also many
a child who has died. A more far-fetched scenario different kinds of nontraditional families. Among
might include making clones who were specifically these are single-parent families, adopted families,
produced for doing menial work or fighting wars. We blended families, and lesbian and gay families. It is
might want to clone certain valued individuals, such not the type of family that makes for a good loving
as stars of the screen or athletics. In all these cases, household, they argue, but the amount of love and
the clones would neither be valued for their own care that exists in one.
selves nor respected as unique persons. They would A final objection to human cloning goes some-
be valued for what they can bring to others. As dis- thing as follows: Sometimes we have a gut reac-
cussed in Chapter 6, Kant’s basic idea is that persons tion to something we regard as abhorrent. This is
ought not simply be used but ought to be treated as the “yuck” objection, mentioned previously. We are
ends in themselves, and such practices would seem to offended by the very thought of it. We cannot always
be condemned by this Kantian principle. give reasons for this reaction, yet we instinctively
Critics of these objections could agree with Kant know that what we abhor is wrong. Many people
but still disagree that a cloned human being would seem to react to human cloning in this way. The idea
be more likely than anyone else to be used by others of someone making a copy of themselves or many
rather than valued as an individual. Just because a copies of a famous star is simply bizarre, revolting,
child was conceived to provide bone marrow for a and repugnant, and these emotional reactions let us
sick sibling would not prevent her from also being know that there is something quite wrong with it,
loved for her own sake. Furthermore, the idea that even if we cannot explain fully what it is.
we would create and confine a group of human Any adequate response to this argument would
beings while training them to be workers or soldiers entail an analysis of how ethical reasoning works when
must presuppose that we abandon a host of legal it works well. Emotional reactions or moral intuitions
protections against such treatment of children or may indeed play a role in moral reasoning. However,
other individuals. Equally far-fetched, these critics most philosophers would agree that adequate moral
reasoning should not rely on intuition or emotion alone. of “designer babies” argue that exercising control
Reflections about why one might rightly have such gut over these aspects of traditional human reproduction
reactions are in order. People have been known to have would be both unnatural and an affront to human
negative gut reactions to things that, in fact, are no lon- dignity. Those on the other side argue on consequen-
ger regarded as wrong—interracial marriage, for exam- tialist grounds for giving parents the opportunity to
ple. It is incumbent on those who assert that something choose to produce the healthy children they desire,
is wrong, most philosophers believe, that they provide even if that involves selection of preferred physi-
rational arguments and well-supported reasons to jus- cal and mental characteristics beyond the merely
tify these beliefs and emotional reactions. healthy. So long as there is no coercion involved and
There is currently no federal law banning human no one is harmed in the process, one might think that
cloning, although as we saw previously, several laws people should be free to reproduce in accord with their
have been proposed to ban the practice or to prohibit own interests and in ways that would be beneficial to
federal funding for research that involves it. Under society. Again, the worry is that this could easily slide
President George W. Bush, the President’s Council on toward a eugenic project in which reproduction is reg-
Bioethics recommended a moratorium on all types of ulated in more insidious ways. Defenders of genetic
human cloning. In 2009, President Barack Obama engineering will respond by claiming that the slope is
replaced the council with the Presidential Commission not really that slippery.
for the Study of Bioethical Issues, chaired by philoso- There are some obvious benefits of genetic engi-
pher Amy Gutmann and focused on specific policy neering of humans. If it were possible to use gene
recommendations.58 This commission has yet to issue therapy to activate, replace, or change malfunctioning
a specific recommendation on cloning. Meanwhile genes before a baby is born, then this could greatly
state legislatures have weighed in on the issue. As of reduce human suffering from genetic diseases. Using
2011, eight states ban human cloning for any pur- genetic techniques to manipulate cells or organisms in
pose, while ten other states explicitly allow research order to provide human blood-clotting factor for hemo-
in which clones are created and destroyed for thera- philiacs, manufactured human insulin for diabetics,
peutic purposes.59 human growth hormone for those who need it, and
Some critics of state cloning laws argue that it is better pain relievers for everyone is surely desirable
too difficult to ban one type of cloning without the and ethically defensible. However, use of the technol-
other. For example, if reproductive cloning were ogy also raises ethical concerns. Among these ques-
prohibited but research or therapeutic cloning were tions are those related to the risks that exist for those
allowed, it would be difficult to know for certain who undergo experimental genetic therapies and the
that cloned embryos were not being produced for issue of informed consent in such experiments.60
reproductive purposes. With regard to proposed fed- Related to the issue of informed consent are a
eral bans, some have pointed out that if there are variety of ethical questions that arise with regard to
no federal funds provided for research cloning, then genetic screening, the process of searching for and
there also will be no oversight. We will not know screening out genetic defects. For example, what lim-
what types of cloning that corporations or other pri- its should be placed upon the ways that genetic infor-
vate entities engage in. Scientists also point out how mation is used? Do people have a right to know their
essential federal research funds have been for new own genetic predispositions? And is there a right to
developments in biotechnology. privacy with regard to our genetic information?
We also should be concerned about access to
Genetic Engineering and Genetic Screening these procedures and whether only the well-off will
The ethical debate over the genetic engineering of benefit from them. The biotechnology industry con-
human offspring has substantial overlap with the tinues to grow. Should information and products of
debate outlined previously with regard to reproduc- great medical benefit be kept secret and patented by
tive human cloning. Those who oppose the prospect biotech companies and developers? For example, the
company Myriad Genetics found a gene linked with The first concern is the basic idea of shame. Shame
breast cancer and attempted to patent the gene.61 and embarrassment are feelings we have when cer-
In another example, therapeutic techniques now tain private things become known or observed—one’s
allow the alteration of genes in sperm, which affect thoughts, bathroom behavior, or sexual fantasies,
not the individual himself but his offspring and thus for example. Some private thoughts and behaviors
alter human lineage. 62 It is one thing to do this in are thought to be shameful—something that should
the interest of preventing genetic disease in one’s off- remain private and not shared in public. Could there
spring, but it is quite another to add new genetically be reasons to be ashamed of our genetic inheritance
based capabilities for one’s children or to the human or genetic disease susceptibilities, for example?
race. Such capabilities raise serious moral concerns. A second reason why we might want certain things
Are we wise enough to do more good than harm with kept to ourselves is our desire to control information
these methods? Can we legitimately deny access to about us and to let it be known only to those to whom
such technologies to individuals who may benefit we choose to reveal it. Such control is part of our abil-
from them, without also violating those individuals’ ity to own our own lives. We speak of it as a form of
rights to do what they want with their own bodies autonomy or self-rule. In fact, the loss of control over
and reproductive capabilities? some of these more personal aspects of our lives is a
threat to our very selfhood, some say. For example,
The Value of Privacy As in our discussion of abor- in his classic study of what he calls “total institutions”
tion in Chapter 11, arguments about our rights to such as prisons and mental hospitals, the sociologist
employ biotechnologies in our own bodies often Erving Goffman describes the way that depriving a
involve the value of privacy. We might want to say person of privacy is a way of mortifying (literally
that decisions that people make about their own killing) the self.65 Having a zone of privacy around us
health and reproductive lives is no one’s business that we control helps us define ourselves and marks
but their own. We think that people generally have a us off from others and our environment. Perhaps our
right to privacy, but we are less sure what this means genetic endowment should be kept private so that we
and what kinds of practices would violate privacy. have a zone of control in this sphere.
Suppose, for example, that a technology existed that Third, privacy helps in the formation and continu-
could read a person’s mind and the condition of vari- ation of personal relations. We are more intimate with
ous parts of her body, or could hear and see what friends than with strangers, and even more so with
goes on in one’s home—his bedroom or bathroom— lovers and spouses than with mere acquaintances.
and could record all of these in a data bank that The private things about ourselves that we confide
would be accessible to a variety of interested parties. to those closest to us are an essential part of those
What, if anything, would be wrong with this?63 One relationships. According to legal theorist Charles
of the things that we find problematic about others Fried, “privacy is the necessary context for relation-
having access to this knowledge is that they would ships which we would hardly be human if we had
have access to matters that we would not want any- to do without—the relationships of love, friendship,
one else to know. According to Thomas Scanlon, this and trust.”66 Sexual intimacies are thus appropriate in
is what the right to privacy is—a right “to be free the context of a loving relationship because they are
from certain intrusions.”64 Some things, we say, are private sharings that also help to establish and further
just nobody else’s business. that relationship. It may be that our genetic heritage
If this definition of privacy seems reasonable, is only the business of our potential sexual partners,
then we can ask for reasons why we would not those with whom we may choose to have children.
want certain intrusions like those in the hypothetical Potential mates might actually have a right to access
example. Many reasons have been suggested, and our genetic information, in this view.
you may sympathize with some more than others. Fourth, we want to keep certain things private
Four are provided here. because of the risk that the knowledge might be
used against us to cause us harm. Screening proce- the bus, train, or plane are able to function well and
dures in particular come to mind here. Drug screen- safely. Airline passengers may have an interest in
ing, HIV testing, or genetic disease scans all make having other passengers and their bags scanned to
information available to others that could result in prevent dangerous materials from being carried on
social detriment. For example, we could be harmed board. Drug screening in professional athletics might
in our employment or our ability to obtain medical be justified with reference to the interests of several
insurance. The problem of data banks is also at issue different parties. In some cases, it may be in the legit-
here. Our medical records, records of psychiatric ses- imate economic interests of the owners; in collegiate
sions, histories of employment, and so forth could be athletics and nonprofessional competitions such as
used legitimately by certain people. However, they the Olympics, it might be justified by the fans’ inter-
also may be misused by those who have no business ests in fair competition as well as by an interest in
having access to them. In a particularly problematic the health of the athletes themselves. But in all these
example, the managed care company that was paying cases, we also need to consider the privacy interests
for the psychological counseling of one patient asked of the parties being screened.
to inspect his confidential files. The psychologist was In cases of conflicting interests generally, as in the
concerned. “The audit occurred, they rifled through more specific examples given here, we want to know
my files,” he said, and “made copies and went. But on which side the interest is stronger. In the case of
it changed things. He [the patient] became more drug testing of airline pilots, the safety of the passen-
concerned about what he was saying.… A few visits gers seems clearly to outweigh the legitimate interest
later he stopped coming.”67 Another notorious case is that pilots might have in retaining their privacy. In
also illustrative of the harm that can be caused by the many other cases of employee drug screening, it is
invasion of privacy. During a contentious New York not so clear that employers’ economic interests out-
congressional campaign, someone obtained a copy of weigh the employees’ privacy interests. In these cases,
the hospital records of one of the candidates and sent one might well argue that unless there is observable
them anonymously to the press. The New York Post evidence of inefficiency, drug testing should not be
published the material, including notes about the can- done, especially mandatory random drug testing. In
didate’s attempt to kill herself with sleeping pills and the case of genetic screening by life or health insur-
vodka. Despite this, the candidate won the election ance providers, the answer also seems less clear. If a
and she successfully sued the hospital for invasion of person has a genetic defect that will cause a disease
privacy.68 Similar concerns about privacy and reputa- that will affect his life expectancy, is his interest in
tion may arise with regard to genetic information. keeping this information secret more important than
the financial interests of the insurer knowing that
Screening and Conflicting Interests As we have information? A person’s ability to obtain life insur-
seen, the value of privacy is particularly relevant in ance will affect payments to others on his or her death.
the context of genetic screening and screening proce- In the case of health insurance coverage, where it is
dures in general. Ethical debates over screening often not socially mandated or funded, the stronger interest
revolve around a conflict between the privacy inter- might seem to lie with the person to be insured rather
ests of those being screened, on the one hand, and than the insurer—in part because being able to afford
the legitimate interests of others in obtaining relevant health care or not plays such a major role in a person’s
information, on the other. An employer may have a health and well being. In fact, some state legislatures
legitimate interest in having a drug-free workplace, have moved to prevent health insurers from penal-
for example. It may have a valid economic interest, izing individuals who are “genetically predisposed to
for one’s employees may not be able to do an effec- certain diseases.”69 In arguing for these laws, support-
tive job if they have drug-use problems. Passengers ers sometimes frame them as a matter of preventing
on public transportation may also have a legitimate “genetic discrimination.” The phrase is apt in the sense
interest in seeing that those who build and operate that it seeks to prevent people from being singled out
and penalized for things that are not in their power to or antibiotics. As we saw previously, benefits to
control—their genes. On a national level, the “Genetic genetically modifying animals can include the produc-
Information Nondiscrimination Act . . . makes it ille- tion of “pharmaceutical” milk from cows, sheep, and
gal for insurers and employers to discriminate against goats that can provide more effective treatments for
people with genetic markers for diseases like cancer, cystic fibrosis and hemophilia.71 And through xeno-
Alzheimer’s disease, and diabetes.” This act took full transplantation, animal organs (such as those from
effect on November 21, 2009.70 pigs as described previously) may be modified with
With genetic screening, as with many other con- human genes and given to humans with reduced risk
troversial issues, ethical analysis of conflicting inter- of immune rejection. In other cases, GMOs may pro-
ests can be consequentialist, deontological, or some mote economic efficiency, as animals are modified to
mixture of the two. On consequentialist grounds, we produce more meat or meat with less fat or to have
might ask whether mandatory screening in a particu- better resistance to disease. Still, GMOs may also
lar situation would really produce more harm than pose risks. For example, some critics worry that farm-
good or more good than harm overall. We might raised and genetically altered salmon, if released into
weigh the harm done to individuals through intru- the wild, might harm other species of fish.72 Weigh-
sions into their privacy against the benefits to the ing potential benefits and risks of GMOs will likely be
public or employers. On deontological grounds, we an ongoing process in the decades to come—one that
might compare the rights of individuals to be “free may reach different conclusions about different tech-
from certain intrusions” with their duties as employ- niques of modifying organisms along the way.
ees, soldiers, or citizens. Or we might need to factor A different ethical debate over GMOs involves
in both consequentialist and deontological concerns the idea that humans should not modify or interfere
as we try to determine whose interest is stronger or with the fundamental design of nature. Shouldn’t the
more important morally. world of plant and animal species as we find them
inspire our respect and awe and place some limits on
Genetically Modified Organisms our efforts to manipulate or change them? One prob-
In general, the ethical debate over genetically modi- lem with this line of criticism is that it is difficult to
fied food and crops has involved a consequentialist distinguish good forms of manipulating nature from
analysis of costs and benefits. Cost–benefit analysis unacceptable ones. Some critics of GMOs argue that
first involves estimating risks and potential benefits— we ought to leave species as we find them, and that
an empirical matter—and then a comparative evalu- it is the cross-species transfers of genetic material
ation in which one tries to analyze and weigh the involved in some GMOs that make them unaccept-
various values involved. Longer and healthier lives able. One problem with this objection is that similar
for more people clearly go on the positive side, and transfers have occurred in nature—from basic plant
risks to longevity and health go on the negative side, genetics to the long-term patterns of evolution.
but we must also try to determine the relative value In addition, the “yuck” objection introduced earlier
of life, health, well-being, and so on. There is also the is sometimes also raised in this context. For example,
problem of how to count speculative and unknown just the thought of having a pig heart or lung within
risks. If we are risk-averse and come down on the one’s own body might provoke this reaction in some
side of conservatism, then we may avoid unknown people. As with similar objections to human cloning,
risks but also eliminate possible benefits, including however, we must question whether such reactions
that of saving lives. are, by virtue of their intuitive force alone, legitimate
Such problems are particularly vexing when moral insights. Even more important, in the case of
it comes to GMOs, which appear to have striking genetically modified animals, is the question of their
potential benefits—such as increased crop yields ethical or humane treatment and potential viola-
in the developing world—as well as some poten- tions of their dignity or rights. This may involve not
tial risks—such as increased resistance to herbicides only the engineering of such animals but also their
suffering and death as in the case of pigs whose April 11, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/
health/research/scientists-make-progress-in-tailor-made-
organs would be transplanted or mice who would
organs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
be given a human cancer. Animal welfare and rights 10. Henry Fountain, “Groundbreaking Surgery for Girl Born
arguments (as discussed in Chapter 17) should be without Windpipe,” New York Times, April 30, 2013,
accessed May 8, 2013, http://www.nytimes
considered with regard to such cases.
.com/2013/04/30/science/groundbreaking-surgery-for-girl-
As we have seen in this chapter, biotechnology and born-without-windpipe.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
bioengineering raise a host of ethical issues—some- 11. “Young Girl Given Bioengineered Windpipe Dies,” New York
Times, July 7, 2013, accessed July 25, 2013, http://www.
thing that should probably come as no surprise. With
nytimes.com/2013/07/08/science/young-girl-given-
every new scientific advance and development come bioengineered-windpipe-dies.html
new ethical problems, for there are new questions 12. Carl T. Hall, “Stem Cell Research Opens New Doors,” San
Francisco Chronicle, April 16, 2007, A1, A9.
about what we ought and ought not to do. To judge
13. “Stem Cell Information,” National Institutes of Health,
well with regard to these issues, we need to under- accessed June 16, 2013, http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/pages/
stand the facts, including facts about possible benefits faqs.aspx#besttype
14. Jason Thompson, “Here, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty!” San
and adverse consequences. We also need to clarify our
Francisco Chronicle, February 24, 2002, D6.
values about issues such as autonomy, liberty, and pri- 15. New York Times, October 8, 2004, A24.
vacy. And we need to consider whether there is any- 16. Peter Fimrite, “Pet-Cloning Business Closes—Not ’Commercially
Viable,’” San Francisco Chronicle, October 11, 2006, B9.
thing wrong with “playing God” and using technology
17. James Barron, “Biotech Company to Auction Chances to
to alter natural beings, including ourselves. Clone a Dog,” New York Times, May 21, 2008, A17.
18. Ferris Jabr, “Will Cloning Ever Save Endangered Animals?”
Scientific American, March 11, 2013, accessed April 22,
NOTES 2013, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.
1. Judy Lin, “Farsighted Engineer Invents Bionic Eye to Help cfm?id=cloning-endangered-animals
the Blind,” UCLA Today, March 21, 2013, accessed April 11, 19. “Fast Facts about Animal Cloning,” End Animal Cloning.org,
2013, http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/wentai-liu-artificial- accessed April 22, 2013, http://www.endanimalcloning.org/
retina-244393.aspx factsaboutanimalcloning.shtml
2. James Gorman, “In a First, Experiment Links Brains of Two 20. Nick Collins, “Human Cloning ’within 50 Years,’” Telegraph,
Rats,” New York Times, February 28, 2013, accessed December 18, 2012, accessed April 22, 2013, http://www
April 11, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/ .telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9753647/Human-
science/new-research-suggests-two-rat-brains-can-be- cloning-within-50-years.html
linked.html?_r=0 21. “Close-up of Richard Jenne, the last child killed by the head
3. “Man Wriggles Rat’s Tail Using Only His Thoughts,” nurse at the Kaufbeuren-Irsee euthanasia facility,” United
Discovery News, April 9, 2013, accessed April 11, 2013, States Holocaust Memorial Museum, accessed June 16,
http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/man- 2013, http://tinyurl.com/ke3kj6e
wriggles-rats-tail-using-thoughts-130409.htm 22. Discussed in Michael J. Sandel, The Case against Perfection:
4. Rose Eveleth, “Should Oscar Pistorius’s Prosthetic Legs Dis- Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering (Cambridge, MA:
qualify Him from the Olympics?” Scientific American, Harvard University Press, 2009), chap. 1.
July 24, 2012, accessed April 22, 2013, http://www. 23. “Couple ’Choose’ to Have Deaf Baby,” BBC, April 8, 2002,
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-debate- accessed April 22, 2013, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
oscar-pistorius-prosthetic-legs-disqualify-him-olympics health/1916462.stm; also see Darshak M. Sanghavi, “Want-
5. Alan Schwarz, “Drowned in a Stream of Prescriptions,” New ing Babies Like Themselves, Some Parents Choose Genetic
York Times, February 2, 2013, accessed April 22, 2103, Defects,” New York Times, December 5, 2006, accessed June
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/concerns- 15, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/
about-adhd-practices-and-amphetamine-addiction.html health/05essa.html?_r=0
6. Will Oremus, “The New Stimulus Package,” Slate, March 27, 24. Tom Abate, “Genome Discovery Shocks Scientists,” San
2013, accessed April 22, 2013, http://www.slate.com/arti- Francisco Chronicle, February 11, 2001, A1.
cles/technology/superman/2013/03/adderall_ritalin_ 25. New York Times, October 21, 2004, A23.
vyvanse_do_smart_pills_work_if_you_don_t_have_ 26. “In the Genome Race, the Sequel Is Personal,” New York
adhd.2.html Times, September 4, 2007, accessed July 25, 2013, http://
7. Will Oremus, “Spark of Genius,” Slate, April 1, 2013, www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/science/04vent.
accessed April 22, 2013, http://www.slate.com/articles/tech- html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
nology/superman/2013/04/tdcs_and_rtms_is_brain_ 27. K. A. Wetterstrand, “DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the
stimulation_safe_and_effective.html NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP),” accessed
8. Scientific American, July 2005, A6–A27. July 25, 2013, www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts
9. Henry Fountain, “A First: Organs Tailor-Made with Body’s 28. “Breakthrough of the Year: The Runners-Up,” Science,
Own Cells,” New York Times, September 15, 2012, accessed December 21, 2007, 1843.
29. Tom Abate, “Proofreading the Human Genome,” San Francisco 50. Meredith Wadman, “High Court Ensures Continued US
Chronicle, October 7, 2002, E1; Nicholas Wade, “Gene-Map- Funding of Human Embryonic-Stem-Cell Research,” Nature,
pers Take New Aim at Diseases,” New York Times, October, 30, January 7, 2013, accessed April 20, 2013, http://www
2002, A21. .nature.com/news/high-court-ensures-continued-us-funding-of-
30. Wade, “Gene-Mappers.” human-embryonic-stem-cell-research-1.12171
31. “Decoding the Mouse,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 51. “Adult Stem Cells: A Piece of My Heart, From Cells in My
24, 2002, G2. Arm,” ABCNews January 28, 2013, accessed July 25, 2013,
32. Nicholas Wade, “On Road to Human Genome, a Milestone in http://abcnews.go.com/Health/stem-cells-bill-weir-nightline-
the Fruit Fly,” New York Times, March 24, 2000, A19. sees-cells-turned/story?id=18252405
33. Nicholas D. Kristof, “Building Better Bodies,” New York Times, 52. “Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine,” Nobelprize.org,
August 25, 2004, accessed April 22, 2013, http://www. press release, October 8, 2012, accessed April 20, 2013,
nytimes.com/2004/08/25/opinion/building-better-bodies.html http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laure-
34. “WADA-Funded Researchers Achieve Gene Doping Break- ates/2012/press.html
throughs,” World Anti-Doping Agency, accessed April 22, 53. “New Protocol to Ready Clinical Applications of Induced Plu-
2013, http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Media-Center/Archives/ ripotent Stem Cells,” Science Daily, April 3, 2013, accessed
Articles/WADA-Funded-Researchers-Achieve-Gene-Doping- April 20, 2013, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/
Breakthroughs/ 04/130403092655.htm
35. “Genetic Privacy,” Nature, January 17, 2013, accessed April 54. “Final Report of The National Academies’ Human Embryonic
22, 2013, http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-privacy- Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee and 2010 Amend-
1.12238 ments to The National Academies’ Guidelines for Human
36. New York Times, July 28, 2004, A13. Embryonic Stem Cell Research” (2010), Appendix C, p. 23,
37. New York Times, January 11, 2005, D7. National Academies Press, accessed April 20, 2013, http://
38. New York Times, July 28, 2004, A13. www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12923&page=23#p
39. New York Times, January 11, 2005, D7. 2001b5399970023001
40. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech 55. “Group of Scientists Drafts Rules on Ethics for Stem Cell
Applications, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Research,” New York Times, April 27, 2005, accessed
Crops: 2012, accessed April 22, 2013, http://www.isaaa. July 25, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/
org/resources/publications/briefs/44/executivesummary/pdf/ health/27stem.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Brief%2044%20-%20Executive%20Summary%20-%20Eng- 56. George Q. Daley et al., “The ISSCR Guidelines for Human
lish.pdf Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” Science, February 2, 2007,
41. “GMOs and Your Family,” Non-GMO Project, accessed April 603–04.
22, 2013, http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/ 57. “Copied Cat Hardly Resembles Original,” CNN.com, January
gmos-and-your-family/ 21, 2003.
42. Stephanie Strom, “Major Grocer to Label Foods with Gene- 58. The Commissions website is found here: http://www
Modified Content,” New York Times, March 8, 2013, .bioethics.gov/
accessed April 22, 2013, http://www.nytimes 59. Bioethics Defense Fund, Human Cloning Laws: 50 State
.com/2013/03/09/business/grocery-chain-to-require-labels- Survey, (2011), accessed April 22, 2013, http://bdfund.org/
for-genetically-modified-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/CLONINGChart-
43. Tom Philpott, “How GMOs Unleashed a Pesticide Gusher,” BDF2011.docx.pdf
Mother Jones, October 3, 2012, accessed April 22, 2013, 60. See Barbara MacKinnon, “How Important Is Consent for
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/ Controlled Clinical Trials?” Cambridge Quarterly of Health-
how-gmos-ramped-us-pesticide-use care Ethics 5, no. 2 (Spring 1996): 221–27.
44. See “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful,” Pro- 61. Reported in New York Times, May 21, 1996.
Quest, http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/ 62. New York Times, November 22, 1994, A1.
overview.php 63. This is modeled after a “thought experiment” by Richard
45. New York Times, January 1, 2005, D7. Wasserstrom in “Privacy,” Today’s Moral Problems, 2nd ed.
46. Ibid. (New York: Macmillan, 1979), 392–408.
47. “Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food 64. Thomas Scanlon, “Thomson on Privacy,” in Philosophy and
Allergies—Genetically Engineered Soybeans,” Institute for Public Affairs 4, no. 4 (Summer 1975): 295–333. This
Responsible Technology, accessed April 22, 2013, http:// volume also contains other essays on privacy, including one
www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/ by Judith Jarvis Thomson on which this article comments.
articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/Genetically- W. A. Parent offers another definition of privacy as “the con-
Engineered-Foods-May-Cause-Rising-Food-Allergies- dition of not having undocumented personal knowledge
Genetically-Engineered-Soybeans-May-2007 about one possessed by others.” W. A. Parent, “Privacy,
48. Sean Poulter, “Can GM Food Cause Immunity to Morality, and the Law,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12,
Antibiotics?” Daily Mail, accessed June 25, 2013, http:// no. 4 (Fall 1983): 269–88.
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-128312/Can-GM-food- 65. Erving Goffman, Asylums (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books,
cause-immunity-antibiotics.html 1961).
49. “Text: Bush Announces Position on Stem Cell Research,” 66. Charles Fried, An Anatomy of Values: Problems of Personal
accessed June 28, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ and Social Choice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_080901.htm Press, 1970), 142.
67. “Questions of Privacy Roil Arena of Psychotherapy,” New 70. Tracey Neithercott, “A Victory for Your Genes,” Diabetes
York Times, May 22, 1996, A1. Forecast, August 2008, 35.
68. “Who’s Looking at Your Files?” Time (May 6, 1996): 71. Tom Abate, “Biotech Firms Transforming Animals into Drug-
60–62. Producing Machines,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 17,
69. “Bill in New Jersey Would Limit Use of Genetic Tests by 2000, B1.
Insurers,” New York Times, June 18, 1996, A1. 72. See www.greennature.com
R E V I E W E X E R C I S E S
1. What is the basic difference between a therapy and 6. Summarize the arguments regarding human clon-
an enhancement? ing related to exploitation, confusion of families, and
2. How do bioengineering and biotechnology provide the “yuck” factor.
opportunities for the disabled? How might these 7. Summarize arguments for and against genetic
techniques point toward a posthuman future? screening and genetic engineering of offspring.
3. How does your thinking about animal ethics, the 8. What ethical issues have been raised regarding the
ethics of abortion, and even sexual ethics connect production and use of genetically modified plants
with your thinking about the ethics of biotechnolo- and crops?
gies? What concepts overlap among these issues? 9. Discuss the value of privacy and how it relates to
4. Summarize the arguments for and against clon- genetic and other types of screening.
ing and other reproductive technologies based on 10. Should we pursue a “posthuman” future or are there
the idea that it would be “playing God” and would reasons to remain more conservatively connected
undermine human dignity. to more traditional ideas about human nature? Why
5. Summarize the idea that cloning might pose a or why not?
threat to the clone’s individuality.
D I S C U S S I O N C A S E S
1. Human Cloning. Victor and Jenny have one son, 2. Smart Drugs. Ramsey has obtained a “smart drug”
Alan, who was hit by a car at age four and then lapsed from someone else in the dorms. He’s heard that
into a coma. The prognosis is bleak for Alan, but Jenny it may be possible to increase cognitive ability
cannot bear to see him die and so they have kept him through the use of this drug and hopes it will help
on life support. Victor has heard that scientists work- him on his upcoming finals. He knows it is illegal to
ing at a secret lab have been successfully cloning use the drug in this way. But he does not believe
human beings. Victor suggests that they contact the that it would be unethical. “I think they ought to
scientists to see if they can clone Alan—using Alan’s legalize marijuana too,” he says to his roommate,
DNA to grow a new baby, which would be a genetic Marc. “That’s not the same, man,” Marc replies.
copy of him. Jenny is appalled at this idea. “But it “Marijuana is just for fun. You’re talking about using
wouldn’t be Alan. It would be a totally different per- a drug to get an edge over other people on tests
son.” But Victor suggests that the clone would be very and in studying. That’s just not fair. It’s cheating.”
similar. “The new baby would be created to honor Ramsey rolls his eyes. “That’s ridiculous. It’s not
Alan. Of course it wouldn’t literally be him. But we really cheating,” he says. “The drug won’t make me
could honor Alan’s memory and keep Alan’s unique smart. I still have to study. The drug will just make
genetic gifts alive by cloning him.” me more effective at studying. It’s like coffee but
What do you think? To what extent would a clone stronger. Besides, the guy I got the drugs from has a
be the same person as the original? Would it be prescription for them because he’s got ADHD. If he
unethical to clone Alan? Why or why not? gets to use the drugs to improve his performance,
why can’t I?”
Who do you agree with here: Ramsey or Marc? job is to love that child, no matter what.” Steven is
Is it “cheating” to use a “smart drug”? Explain your speechless. But Marisol is not. “But if we can guaran-
answer using concepts discussed in the chapter. tee that our child is healthy and will live a happy life,
3. Designer Babies. Steven and Marisol are a young shouldn’t we do that? We don’t want to raise a child
married couple who are concerned about passing who is doomed to genetic diseases.” Valerie shakes
genetic diseases on to their children. Members of her head. “There is no way to know,” she says. “Kids
Steven’s family have been diagnosed with Hun- get sick and die. Some who have diseases get bet-
tington’s disease, an incurable genetic disorder that ter. You can’t control everything. And besides, that
causes cognitive problems, difficulties with move- test-tube baby stuff is really expensive. How can you
ment that ultimately require full-time nursing care, afford it?” Now Steven replies, “We want to invest in
and reduced life expectancy. Members of Marisol’s this procedure now because it might save money
family have tested positive for a mutation of the in the long run. I’ve seen how much Huntington’s
BRCA genes that are strongly associated with breast costs a family—so have you. I’d rather pay to prevent
and ovarian cancer. At a family reunion, they are it now than have to deal with the costs later.” Valerie
discussing their decision to use in vitro fertilization responds, “That sounds really rude. It sounds like you
and preimplantation genetic screening of embryos. resent people who get sick and need your help. The
Steven’s cousin, Valerie, is appalled. She is opposed whole thing is very selfish.”
to the idea of in vitro fertilization and to the entire Whom do you agree with here: Steven and
idea of genetic screening. Valerie says, “You can’t Marisol or Steven’s cousin, Valerie? Is it wrong to
just choose the babies you want to have. God will want to prevent genetic disease? Is it a wise invest-
only give you the challenges that He knows you can ment? Is it selfish to want to control your child’s
handle. And if a child is born with a disease, your genes? Explain your answer.

07 Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

07 Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07 Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biotechnology and

ËUnderstand current issues in biotechnology

Draw connections between the ethical of repugnance.”

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

You might also like