One way to go about solving
ethical dilemmas is by calculating the costs and benefits of the act and/or the
result. According to Consequentialist
ethical theories, the outcome of one’s actions determine the rightness of the
act. When forming a morality, one should
choose the act that does the greatest good for the greatest number of people,
at the very least. Philosopher, Jeremy
Bentham, claimed we should act to increase pleasure and decrease pain for
everyone. John Stuart Mill pushes the
Consequentialist idea further by claiming that we must look to our past and
allow our traditions, social norms, and rules guide us in determining right and
wrong. Taking all of this into consideration,
let’s address the ideas surrounding genetic modification. This conversation has been in the works ever
since the technology boom. How far can
we go with biotechnology? Better yet, we
must ask ourselves how far should we
go? What are the benefits and the
consequences of genetic modification?
Now, we will not answer all of these questions, but we will take a look
at two distinguished opinions on the issue.
A current issue is the problem
of disease-carrying mosquitoes in the developing world. Scientists are trying to combat this problem
by using genetically modified mosquitos to subside malaria and dengue fever
attacks. One of the ideas on the table
is to reduce the mosquito population by making it difficult to breed. Since it is female mosquitos who feed on
blood (in order to reproduce), scientists are trying to produce “flightless
females.” In her New York Times article,
When Mutant Mosquitos Attack, Maggie
Koerth-Baker addresses this as an innovative solution. However, she says, “all solutions…come with
risks.” If the mosquito population is eradicated
from Mexico City, what new organization will fill its niche there? Also, how long will this last? Baker focuses her article on the claim that “[s]olutions
to problems at hand can create new, sometimes unforeseeable, challenges in the
future.” She understands that we cannot
predict all outcomes, but urges scientists to be more thoughtful in their
ethical decisions. She recognizes that
the relationship between science and technology has changed in the last century
and that we have become a risk-taking civilization in terms of
biotechnology. It is not that we should
not use genetic modification, but we must realize that solving problems leads
leaves us with the possibility of creating new ones, ones that we will have to
manage in the future. So is genetic
modification ethically commendable?
Baker would claim that we need to be more cautious with our use of
biotechnology and value the future to understand the possible challenges we
will be creating for ourselves.
On the other hand, author of Frankenstein’s Cat, Emily Anthes, has a
slightly different perspective on the issue.
Anthes encourages us to be cautious but feels that the benefits of using
biotechnology for genetic modification outweigh the damages. In her book, she discusses the issue of diarrhea. Taking 2 million lives of children a year,
diarrhea is a deadly condition. Through
the use of genetic modification, scientists have found an easy and cheap
remedy. They were able to develop a
modified goat that contains lysozyme in its milk. Lysozyme is an enzyme that helps fight
bacteria which causes diarrhea. This
could potentially save millions of lives, however, we are still waiting on its
approval from the FDA. Anthes talks about
how other trivial modifications have received FDA approval such as the GloFish,
but it is the more important things that are taking a long time to get
approved. Anthes does not ignore some of
the potential issues that could come with genetic modification, however. She talks about cloning species that are on
their way to extinction in order to preserve the species, but acknowledges that
we “might be setting the animals up for a miserable existence on a planet that
can no longer give them what they need.”
In Frankenstein’s Cat, she
addresses some peculiar ideas along with some practical ones. In the end, she comes down in favor of
genetic modification as she sees its future in the sciences to be beneficial.
There are no right and wrong
answers, there are just different perspectives.
In order to come to some sort of consensus on such pending issues, we
must have conversations that include multiple perspectives, sources, experts,
experiences, ideologies, etc. We may
never come to a final conclusion on the issue, but having conversations on
bioethics is imperative to further our understanding of issues in the world and
the position of those involved in efforts to solve these problems.
Sources:
Anthes, Emily. Frankenstein's
Cat: Cuddling up to Biotech's Brave New Beasts. London: Oneworld, 2013. Print.
Koerth-Baker, Maggie. "When Mutant
Mosquitoes Attack." The New York Times.
The New York Times Company, 19 Feb. 2013. Web.
"Mosquito Spraying Set to Begin in Katy." The Katy News. N.p., 2013. Web. 12 Oct. 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment