THE SCIENCE OF GENETIC ENGINEERING

 THE SCIENCE OF GENETIC ENGINEERING

With the novel accomplishments in the world of medical science, and its overbearing claim to even break new grounds as regards man’s natural make-up, a pertinent question to ponder on is; can science achieve a world without diseases and disabilities? Within the parlance of Human Genome Project, science purports to possess what it takes to “prevent or reduce the prevalence of disease caused in significant part by deleterious genes, (Dan Brock, Genetic Engineering). 

This it claims to achieve by identifying the genes liable to diseases and disabilities, and carrying out experimentations on those genes. So that if there is the slightest inkling of such disease reoccurring in a foetus or in a family line, it is halted. Thus multiplying genetic knowledge which makes gene amenable to the prediction of science. The question is: when man manipulates the genetic line of fellow man, are there ethical and social implications? Or does the dignity of the human person and even of animals absolutely rejects such alteration in the ontology of a being in its pure state? Is it not the case that through such strides in science, man takes absolute control of the human nature, designing human progeny at will and thwarts any prospect of accommodating without gall humans with disabilities? While we may not be able to provide a rocket-science response to these queries, it appears significant to state here that the issue under interrogation is in itself largely dicey.

Genetic engineering means “the deliberate alteration or addition of genes in a human embryo; this includes somatic cell genetic interventions that affect only the subject of the intervention as well as germ cell intervention where the changes will be passed on to the progeny of the subject of the intervention (Dan Brock). In very precise terms, the essence of genetic engineering according to Emy Lucassen points to the human abilities to ‘engineer’ the natural lot of an embryo given to such an individual by God.

If science has provided insight into the future life of an unborn individual and can predict the misery such a person would face if brought into life, what ought to be the right thing? Is it morally justifiable for science to keep mute despite its foreknowledge and do nothing to salvage the situation no matter the means, thereby allowing such a person to live a life of regret? Or would science be morally appraised and thus be in line with the dictates of the creator in letting such an individual live no matter the gravity of disabilities he or she would suffer? 

Jeremy Bentham, a prominent figure in utilitarian ethics holds; “an action conforms to the principle of utility ‘when the tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has to diminish it. The quest to maximize human welfare while lending equal consideration to the universal interest, stands as the point of departure for those who cling to the moral uprightness of genetic engineering. For them, it is justifiable to manipulate and choose genes, for it is not a given that we must preserve and keep inviolate all the natural features of humans. Genetic engineers, in their arguments lay before man a variety of possible worlds, giving man the prowess of producing further generations with a multiplicity of values. If such possibilities are within our reach, Jonathan Glover argues, rather than just prevent disasters for future generations we mut strive to do more. He pushes this argument further by stating that “if genetic engineering or other techniques can be used to produce future generations who transcend our limitations, whether physical, intellectual or emotional the case against utopianism need not rule this out.

Cementing Glover’s position, John Harris avers; “if we fail to make changes to human beings, the result may simply be that we ensure that the future will be much worse for everyone than it need be. Harris claims that if it is possible to engineer future humans and thus create a class of superbeings sort of, who are less vulnerable to diseases, more healthy and super-intelligent, then such prodigies in no way makes us inhuman. He roots the argument in the statemen thus: “if these traits are unimportant why not let people choose? And if they are important, can it be right to leave such important matters to chance?

Pre-eminently for the deontologist (duty-based ethics), genetic engineering as a reproductive medicine before anything else, includes the production of embryos in the laboratory, freezing of those embryos and subsequent likely destruction. And as such, must involve the ethical cogency it demands. On the first note, there is no question that the manipulations of these genes, treats humans (though unborn) as means to achieving an end. Nothing justifies the claim that even if these genes are liable to be affected by diseases they should be engineered, worked upon or even discarded. For it should be foreknown that when we remove a gene for testing, an entity with the full capacity to become full human has been destroyed. And this is indeed, way beyond the bounds of medicine.

Further, parental arsenal to modify behaviours in children, in no way translates to the freedom to cuddle with their (children’s) genetic make-up. Such responsibilities do not come under the job descriptions of parenting. Sequel to this, when parents play on the genes of their unborn children, in order to bring forth off-springs they may feel at home with, they only end up using such embryos to get to their own ends. Hence the children who ought to be humans with indispensable rights, end up becoming means to an end. An end which they may not even partake in its benefits, given that the choices were made prior to their birth. Consequently, we cannot gamble the fact that any alteration on a being’s species for whatever purpose, whether to suite our demands or to remove certain disabilities, infringes not just on the supreme authority of the maker but also upon his (God’s) freedom to make and fashion humans. It is in essence, an affront on his (God’s) ultimate rule and an abuse of the intelligence and powers to dominate the universe which he has freely bestowed on men. 

FRIAR EMMANUEL IGBOEKWULUSI, OFM CAP.

You can drop your comments in the comment section below.