The Ethics of Genetic Engineering - A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry Office of Public Policy

THE ETHICS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING


A POSITION PAPER
FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY
OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY


AUTHOR: DAVID KOEPSELL, J.D., Ph.D.,





REVIEWING COMMITTEE: PAUL KURTZ, Ph.D., AUSTIN DACEY, Ph.D.,
RONALD A. LINDSAY, J.D., Ph.D., RUTH MITCHELL, Ph.D.,
JOHN SHOOK, Ph.D., TONI VAN PELT




DATED: AUGUST, 2007



Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted
for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational
purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced
materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies
are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish
requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc.

---

THE ETHICS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING

Just as the twentieth century was a golden age of computing, the twenty-first
century is the DNA age. The silicon age brought about dramatic changes in how we as a
species work, think, communicate, and play. The innovations of the computer revolution
helped bring about the current genetic revolution, which promises to do for life what
computing did for information. We are on the verge of being able to transform,
manipulate, and create organisms for any number of productive purposes. From
medicine, to agriculture, to construction and even computing, we are within reach of an
age when manipulating the genetic codes of various organisms, or engineering entirely
new organisms, promises to alter the way we relate to the natural world.
Biotechnology, specifically genetic engineering, is already a beneficial resource,
employed in medicine, manufacturing, and agriculture. We have begun reaping the
practical rewards of genetic engineering such as new medical therapies and increased
crop yields and so far only a few instances of measurable harm have resulted. Genetic
engineering has the potential to improve our health and well-being dramatically,
revolutionize our manner of living, help us to conserve limited resources, and produce
new wealth. Provided that it is appropriately regulated, bearing in mind ethical concerns
relating to dignity, harmful consequences, and justice, its potential benefits outweigh its
harms. There is certainly no reason to reject it outright as “unnatural.” Biotechnology
should be understood as an extension of already accepted and well-established
techniques, such as directed breeding, combined with sophisticated understanding of
evolution and genetic technologies.

As with any revolutionary technology, anxieties, fears, and moral objections to
the promise of genetic engineering abound. Some are well-grounded and suggest
caution, while others are the product of misinformation, religious prejudice, or hysteria.
We should sort out those objections based on sound science and reason from those that
are unfounded. Given the relative youth of the technology and the tremendous
possibilities it offers for improvement of the human condition, as well as the environment
in general, careful consideration of ethical implications now can help inform and ensure
Center for Inquiry, August 2007
1
(Amended September 2007)

---

the future of the genetics era.
As indicated, some significant moral implications ought to be taken into account
as we go forward with genetic engineering. Some of the moral implications that we
should consider carefully are discussed below in three clusters: first, general ethical
concerns, both religious and secular, about the intrinsic immorality of genetic
engineering; second, the potential beneficial and harmful consequences of genetic
engineering; and finally, issues of justice, especially fair access to genetic therapies and
enhancements. Note that given the scope of this paper there are many other ethical issues
that are not addressed, such as the ownership of genetic information. This paper
concentrates on what we regard as the major ethical concerns about genetic engineering.
Before proceeding to these concerns, we will briefly review the science underlying
genetic engineering.

The Basic Science
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a remarkable molecule capable of directing the
development and propagation of organisms. The organizational component of every life
form on Earth is wrapped up in DNA’s double-stranded molecular structure. Each
organism carries within its DNA the instructions for that organism’s every ongoing
function, folded tightly in the nucleus of most of its cells. The same DNA exists in the
organism’s “germline” cells, used for reproduction, as in the organism’s other cells
(referred to as somatic cells); however, germline DNA, as opposed to somatic DNA, is
used solely to create new offspring, forming a part of the set of instructions that are
combined (in the case of sexual reproduction) with DNA from the other parent.
The DNA molecule consists of four nitrogenous bases, adenine, thymine, guanine
and cytosine, on a phosphate-sugar “backbone,” twisting in a double helix like a spiral
staircase. A subunit of DNA, consisting of a base, a phosphate group, and a sugar, is
referred to as a “nucleotide.” Each thymine base is joined across the “rung” of the double
helix ladder to an adenine base, and each cytosine base is joined with a guanine base.
This structure is both elegant and remarkable. Because of the exclusive bonding of these
base pairs, replicating a strand of DNA, and thus the instructions for the organism’s
development and each of its cells’ ongoing metabolism, can be accomplished more or
Center for Inquiry, August 2007
2
(Amended September 2007)

---

less by simply splitting the DNA strand in two down the rungs of the ladder. Each half,
split along the axis of its rungs, provides a template that will recombine with loose
nucleotides to form exact copies of the original strand, with the help of special
“proofreading” enzymes, and some other mechanisms of cellular reproduction.

The genetic code of organisms such as humans is complex, with nearly three
billion base pairs. Those three billion base pairs are arranged in different sequences,
yielding approximately 25,000 genes, each of which is responsible for some trait or facet
of each of us. When combined with environmental factors, variations in the coding of
those genes define our unique identities. Not every trait is cosmetic. While genes
convey information about features such as hair and eye color, height, etc., they also
convey information about important biological functions. Errors in the sequencing of
some genes can produce genetic disorders.
There are more than four thousand known genetic disorders. These conditions and
diseases may be chronic or degenerative or even latent and undiscovered for some time,
but are ultimately harmful to the organism. In some cases, genetic disorders are the result
of errors which creep into germline cells because of environmental factors; some errors
creep into the genome as a result of copying errors during replication. In other instances,
defective genes may be passed on through generations of parents where the trait has not
been fatal. In many cases, genetic diseases remain as dormant, recessive traits waiting to
be passed on to offspring of parents who both happen to have the recessive characteristic.
Over time, all of these means of genetic change have resulted in the current form
of humans. The process of mutation, responsible for the emergence of genetic diseases, is
also the underlying mechanism of evolution. Evolution is the process of genetic change
over time, as some of these changes result in a fitter version of the species more apt to
survive than others, and these advantageous traits are then passed on to succeeding
generations. In some cases, the errors conferred a survival advantage in some
environments while subsequently conferring a condition classified as a disease in other
environments, as with the hemoglobin-s gene, responsible for the sickle-cell trait, which
confers some immunity to malaria but also results in anemia (Levine and Suzuki 1993,
pp. 35–38).

Most mistakes in DNA replication result in errors in the production of proteins.
Center for Inquiry, August 2007
3
(Amended September 2007)

---

Somatic cell DNA is essentially a protein-making code that directs cellular metabolism
throughout an organism by controlling the production of essential proteins that direct the
ongoing survival and functioning of discrete cells in every organ of the body. Because of
tissue differentiation mechanisms, also part of the instruction set of DNA, different types
of cells in the body produce different types of proteins. Certain genes in those organs are
“turned on” and others are “turned off,” directing the tissues of those organs to perform
their own unique functions. Genetic diseases typically involve mistakes in an organism’s
DNA sequence that result in disruption in the normal production of a certain protein
(Griffiths et al.1997). Cancers, however, typically involve damage to somatic cell DNA
that disrupts cellular reproduction itself, not just metabolism or protein production.

While the actual mechanisms of genetic diseases are complex, scientists are
learning more about their causes and how to detect them. Some of the relevant DNA
changes occur in the gene causing the disease; other changes, while not present in the
directly relevant gene, alter the functioning of that gene; a third type of change, while not
causing a particular disease, indicates that the individual with that particular sequence is
more susceptible to developing the disease. Many of these changes can now be detected
and scientists continue to discover correlations between between specific DNA sequences
and genetic diseases. By understanding these correlations, scientists could test for the
presence of a particular disease, or the susceptibility to that disease, and perhaps devise
cures based upon our knowledge of these relationships (Griffiths et al.1997).

We are a long way from understanding fully the complexity of the human
genome, but we are making progress in understanding how certain genes work in humans
and other species, including species that serve as sources of foods and medicines.

Besides the promise of treating or curing genetic diseases, manipulating DNA can
enable scientists to develop new strains of organisms, including mice that serve as models
of human diseases useful for pharmaceutical testing, or sheep that secrete medicines in
their milk (Rebelo 2004). New strains of agricultural crops have been engineered, by
inserting genes from animals or other plants, making them resistant to cold, disease, or
pesticides (Myskja 2006, p. 228). In sum, as we learn about the specific functioning of
genes in various species, we are able to develop new, useful life forms; manufacture new
medicines; and improve human life, health and the environment.
Center for Inquiry, August 2007
4
(Amended September 2007)

---

But these medicines, therapies, and other products of genetic engineering present
ethical challenges. For purposes of understanding these challenges, it is useful to
distinguish different categories of genetic intervention (Allhoff 2005, p. 40). They are:
somatic gene therapy, which aims at the treatment or prevention of disease without
affecting future generations, and is the least morally objectionable; somatic genetic
enhancement, which aims to improve the functioning of the individual; germline gene
therapy, which aims at preventing disease, but involves heritable genes; and germline
genetic enhancement, which aims to improve the functioning of future generations.
Germline genetic enhancement is, not unexpectedly, the most controversial form of
genetic intervention. Bioethicist Ronald Green makes the point forcefully:
“enhancements are always more controversial than therapies or preventions, less likely to
be funded by society, and more likely to be morally and legally prohibited if the risks to
individuals or society are seen to outweigh their benefits” (Green 2005, p. 104). As this
paper will discuss ethical issues arising out of all four types of genetic intervention, the
reader should bear in mind the distinctions among the different categories of
interventions.


Ethical Concerns
1. Objections to Genetic Engineering as Inherently Wrong
Some people object to any tinkering with the genetic codes of humans, or even of
any life form. Some religious critics perceive genetic engineering as “playing God” and
object to it on the grounds that life is sacred and ought not to be altered by human
intention. Other objectors argue from secular principles, such as the outspoken and
ardent Jeremy Rifkin, who claims that it violates the inherent “dignity” of humans and
other life-forms to alter their DNA under any circumstances (Rifkin 1991). These
arguments, while perhaps well-meaning, are not supported by sound logic or empirical
evidence, as will be demonstrated here (Epstein 1999). Religious objections assume the
existence of some creator whose will is defied by genetic engineering, and secular
objections assume that life in its “natural” state, unaltered by human intention, is
inviolable because of its inherent dignity.

Center for Inquiry, August 2007
5
(Amended September 2007)

---

a) Religious objections to genetic engineering
Arguments based upon life’s sacredness suggest that altering life forms violates
the will of a creator (Ramsey 1966, p.168), but they fail for want of internal theoretical
consistency or because they rest on question-begging assumptions. If a creator does exist,
most philosophers and theologians agree that either the creator’s will is expressed in
every facet of its creation, or that consistent with the creator’s will mankind has free will,
which includes the ability to create technologies (for a contrary view, see Prather 1988,
pp.138–42). Thus, either genetic engineering can be seen as an expression of the
creator’s will—since it forms part of creation—or it is the result of our having been
imbued with free will.
Granted, there are those who would claim that genetic engineering constitutes a
misuse of our free will. Of course, determining what constitutes a misuse of our free will
in defiance of divine directives depends on interpretation of those supposed divine
directives. This is a problem with all moral theories premised on God’s commands: what
anyone believes to be commanded always depends on some human’s interpretation of
those commands. “Defying God’s will” always means defying some person’s
interpretation of God’s will. The difficulty of discerning a deity’s wishes in the context of
genetic engineering is compounded by the fact that none of the major religions’ sacred
writings speak to this issue. The Bible, for example, is silent on recombinant DNA.
Furthermore, those who suggest that genetic engineering violates God’s will must also
view selective breeding of agricultural products, both plants and animals, as similarly
contrary to God’s will. If they do not view selective breeding as violating life’s
sacredness, then they must explain how it is qualitatively different from genetic
engineering, which is in many ways only a quantitative or methodologically distinct
process. The speed and predictability of the changes brought about by genetic
engineering do surpass the speed and predictability of changes accomplished by selective
breeding techniques, but that seems a poor argument for saying the former is contrary to
God’s will, while the latter is acceptable. Is it God’s will that modifying nature is
acceptable, but only provided we proceed slowly and haphazardly?
Our entire culture exists by virtue of human inventiveness and our modification of
nature. Even religious sects that reject modern technologies nonetheless embrace some
Center for Inquiry, August 2007
6
(Amended September 2007)

---

technologies; the essence of technology is to alter the human relationship to nature.
Clothing, agriculture, and weaponry have existed since before the dawn of civilizations,
and each alters our relationship with nature. These technologies express a rejection of the
“natural” order of things, and result from human consciousness and intentionality. In
fact, embracing these technologies has altered human evolution, enabling us to venture
outside of the savannah, and live in a variety of climates, defending ourselves from
inclement environments and dangerous predators. Without these technologies, it is likely
that humans would look very different, with different strengths and weaknesses from
those we see now, and would have remained in relatively restricted environments instead
of populating six out of the seven continents (and the seventh to a limited extent). As
such, the history of our tinkering with the natural is long, and its results generally lauded
by religious and secular alike.
Technologies such as antibiotics and contraceptives have interfered with the
natural order of evolution, preventing the conception of millions of human beings, and
enabling the survival of others who might have died through exposure to diseases. These
technologies have affected not only human populations, but also numerous species where
humans have interfered through medicines, contraception, and selective breeding. Those
who oppose the alteration of genomes of humans and other species based upon some
notion of the inviolability of natural processes must provide an ethical justification of the
use of medicines, contraception, and selective breeding which somehow sets them apart
from conscious, more targeted alterations at the genetic level. The technical difference
between genetic engineering and these other mechanisms of altering the natural evolution
of various species is the difference between a blunderbuss and a rifle. The blunderbuss
approach we have historically taken, by the use of contraception, antibiotics, and
selective breeding, results in unanticipated consequences: medical and social problems
may result from selecting for certain traits by breeding, or by ensuring the survival of
potentially unfit members of the species through the use of medicines, or even by
preventing generations of potentially fit members of a species being born. Moreover,
these techniques are not always reliable in achieving their desired results. By contrast,
genetic engineering is a rifle that can be accurately focused on a desired target.
Admittedly, genetic engineering may have undesired side effects as well, but, as
Center for Inquiry, August 2007
7
(Amended September 2007)

---

indicated, this does not distinguish this technique from currently accepted methods.

b) Secular objections to genetic engineering
Secular objectors to genetic engineering must defend the claim that the dignity of
an individual member of a species, or of the species itself, is tied to its untampered-with
evolution to its present state (Rolston 2002). This claim seems difficult to defend in light
of the great infirmities—arguably indignities—that occur because of evolution, which is
utterly indifferent to the suffering that results from many genetic disorders. Wholly
innocent creatures lead lives of illness or degradation, or die prematurely because of
genetic diseases. Where is the dignity in Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, a genetic disorder that
results in uncontrollable self-mutilation (Preston 2007)? The dignity of individuals
suffering from such infirmities is dependent not on their “natural” state, but on
overcoming shortcomings or hardships.
Nature itself is indifferent to our dignity, and so altering nature cannot violate our
dignity. In fact, it dignifies us to use the talents we have to alter our environment and our
biology to improve our lives and those of the disabled. Technology in any form is an
outgrowth of our intellectual abilities: at its best, it allows us to overcome natural
shortcomings. Home heating and air conditioning violate the natural order, yet allow us
to thrive in climates we otherwise could not survive. Few would argue that overcoming
that natural disadvantage violates our inherent dignity.
Those who argue for drawing a line at altering the genome of humans or other
organisms must give reasons both for regarding DNA as somehow special and apart from
the rest of the natural world and for arguing that conscious manipulation of DNA is
morally impermissible. There are some reasons to support “genetic exceptionalism,” the
point of view that DNA is unique, but those arguments do not necessarily imply: a) that
because of this uniqueness there are absolute bars to altering it; or b) that if it is
acceptable to alter the DNA of non-humans, it is nonetheless unacceptable to alter that of
humans. Uniqueness does not itself imply any moral duty. In fact, every human being is
“unique” by virtue of DNA, environment, and upbringing, but our moral duties toward
each do not depend upon that uniqueness. Neither of the assumptions above can be
sustained by logic or empirical evidence, and, as indicated previously, we have been
Center for Inquiry, August 2007
8
(Amended September 2007)

---

tinkering with genes in plants, animals, and even human beings, through selective
breeding for millennia. Thus, the uniqueness of DNA has never forbidden us implicitly or
explicitly to modify what we encounter in nature (Myskja 2006, 228).

Selective breeding can, over time, express genetic traits that are desired and
suppress genes (and thus their phenotypes) that are undesired. Selective breeding
manipulates the genome of a species, or subclasses of that species. As those who are
familiar with various breeds of domesticated animals or plants, breeding for certain traits
also has resulted in some instances in new and unanticipated infirmities. Genetic
engineering allows for more selectivity in determining traits and in weeding out harmful
traits or infirmities. It is arguably just a matter of degree rather than a qualitative
difference in kind that separates selective breeding and genetic engineering. Those who
oppose genetic engineering on moral grounds must make a coherent case that it is
qualitatively different from selective breeding, or they must similarly oppose the selective
breeding which has resulted in almost every aspect of our modern agriculture.

One of the problems in evaluating arguments based on “dignity” is in defining
this concept. Many toss this word around without any explanation of its meaning. An
extended and precise explanation of this concept is beyond the scope of this paper. It is
sufficient to note that two leading philosophers with profoundly different ethical systems
nonetheless had an understanding of the concept of dignity that does not seem to preclude
genetic engineering. Immanuel Kant, insists that our moral duty is to treat other humans
as ends in themselves, and not as means to any particular end. As Kant stated in his
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals:
In the kingdom of ends, everything has either value or dignity. Whatever
has a value can be replaced by something else which is equivalent:
whatever, on the other hand, is above all value, and therefore admits of no
equivalent, has a dignity ([1785]1949, p. 51).

John Stuart Mill derives his theory of liberty from basic principles of human autonomy
and self-determination. It is our autonomy and inalienable right to dispose of ourselves
as we please that gives us dignity as human beings, distinct from creatures incapable of
reasoning and intentional action (Mill [1859]1947). Under either of these understandings
of dignity, modifying our genes either to rid ourselves of infirmities or to improve
Center for Inquiry, August 2007
9
(Amended September 2007)

---