***
As we venture into this age of biotechnology, many people expect gene manipulation will become a powerful tool for improving the quality of life. They foresee, for instance, plants genetically engineered to resist pests, animals genetically designed to produce large quantities of rare medicinals, and humans genetically treated to relieve suffering. There appear few if any bounds to what the biotechnologists will be able to do with life, for even the natural barriers between kingdoms are no longer insurmountable.
Yet, despite all the hoped-for benefits, many people also question whether the technology will adversely interfere with human evolution and disrupt the ecosystem. They wonder if humanity is morally ready to handle the unprecedented ethical situations that the "new biology" is sure to breed. The newfound power over life seems analogous to the way physicists learned to dissect and rearrange atoms. Like their scientific colleagues in physics who made nuclear energy possible, the "new geneticists" are now the ones on stage-center as we begin to move into what could be called "the bio-age."
Indeed, with all the far-reaching expectations for how the technology may be used, people are far from ethical or moral agreement on what should or should not be done. Contrasting beliefs are widespread. At one extreme there are those like Daniel Koshland, past editor of Science magazine, who thinks any slowing of genetic engineering would be immoral, "the immorality of omission--the failure to apply a great new technology to aid the poor, the infirm, and the underprivileged."1 In sharp opposition, others advocate wide-ranging moratoriums and even complete halts on some aspects of the technology, since it is thought to counter the natural order.2 Even scientists differ among themselves over what course to take. But, more often than not these days, the debate takes on what appears to be a renewed form of the old clash between science and religion. As the study of human DNA encroaches all that closer to the nature of human existence, the preeminent dilemma stirred up by the new technology may eventually be what has been seen before as the incommensurable abyss between two polarized views of the world: "the material" and "the spiritual."
Many scientists and non-scientists alike may be irritated by the growing intensity of the dialogue about the ethics and morality of biotechnology, because it slows what they see as progress. Still, there is also reason to be encouraged by what can be gained from an even greater dialogue than now under way. As philosopher and ethicist Daniel Callahan recommends in "Calling Scientific Ideology to Account," modern science can benefit greatly from an on-going appraisal. For only then can "science as ideology" keep from becoming a "science of faith" based on its own set of dogmatic tenets--science as the religion called scientism.3 He proposes a role for a "non-hostile, loyal opposition" which serves as
a relentless skepticism toward the view that science is the single and greatest key to human progress, that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge, and that some combination of science and the market is the way to increased prosperity and well-being for all.4
I like Callahan's idea and introduce it here to set the mood for what follows. While I am not "loyal" to all that is professed under the umbrella of science, I do think it is unproductive to cast ugly words and criticisms at it--at what has had such a remarkable influence on who we have become as human beings. In the course of this paper, I remain decidedly respectful and non-hostile with science. However, I also remain respectful of what I believe is beyond the reach of the scientists and their scientific method. It is in this context that I delve into what I think can be realized from the uses of genetic engineering and from the varied ways it will affect all living organisms.
Briefly, my thesis is: the extent to which we make a conscious effort to resolve the ethical issues connected with biotechnology, we gain a powerful and positive influence for moral judgmentmaking and, thereby, can favorably affect the evolution of human morality. Throughout the paper, my approach to this theme is founded on the view that our moral demeanor is not determined by the genes, but rather by the extent to which each of us accesses the "moral realm" through our indwelling spirit-being. While the genes contribute to the chemical make-up of the body, the body offers the physical form in which our soul-spirit resides. Our moral evolution is intimately bound to the evolution of this human spirit.
To meet this goal, I include two introductory sections in which I review what I see as the setting for moral evolution--the present-day stage where biotechnology and bioethics have positioned themselves. To understand my idea of "an incentive for moral evolution," it is crucial to know something about what is happening in this setting. Thus, in the First Part, I focus primarily on what scientists are doing and saying about genetic engineering, especially in relation to the Human Genome Project and human gene therapy. Interspersed with these are the thoughts of educators and people in the humanities. My intention is to be informative. But in so doing, I purposely highlight the contrasting, even conflicting, opinions about the potential problems and how they might be resolved. When the content veers sufficiently away from science and into the realm of ethics and morality, I shift to the second section.
In the Second Part, I turn to the bioethicists and philosophers--the "experts" on ethical and moral decisionmaking--who are being drawn into both the scientific and public debates to offer counsel. Again, I start with a brief introduction to current mainstream views, those of the ethics and morality of biotechnology in the context of human beings. Here again, I emphasize the extremes and conflicting opinions about how to approach what should and should not be done with the technology. This time, when the content diverges well into spiritual issues, I shift to the last part.
The Third Part is a review of issues raised in the first two parts. Here I speak to the value of the ethical quagmire surrounding genetic engineering as an incentive for moral change. This leads into a discussion of a mode of moral decisionmaking that differs distinctively from current trends in bioethics--the moral intuition of "ethical individualism." Whether this ideal can be brought to life in the bio-age will depend on the effort we make to discover a deeper use of thinking--a thinking with the heart which experiences the moral decision that is appropriate for the individual dilemma.
Return to Contents