Friday, October 11, 2013

Ethics Around Genetic Modification

                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