"
Team:Copenhagen/Ethics-1
From 2012.igem.org
The Moral AspectsThe purpose of this section is not necessarily to answer the question of whether or not genetic engineering should be allowed but rather to find the right questions which should be asked and answered when meddling with genetic engineering. In this context we will solely be referring to genetic engineering in nature as this is what our specific project is concerned with and not in relation to human genetic engineering.First we will consider the value of nature and describe the conflicting positions according to which nature either holds intrinsic or instrumental value. Secondly we will infer how these positions can influence the moral implications of genetic engineering. And lastly we will discuss our own project (and the competition as a whole) in moral terms by relating to the aforementioned positions. The Value of Nature Some believe that nature has intrinsic value – that it has value as an end in itself and not merely as a means for something else, e.g. humans. This can mean that either every individual in nature has value, a value equal to every other individual in nature – but it can also be interpreted as meaning that it is not just individuals who have value but also units such as ecosystems and the Earth. This view concurs with a possible Christian point of view that God created nature and even though he created man in his picture it would be blasphemous to try to improve or alter his work. This will not be a theological discussion and therefore I will only mention that various sources have to a lesser or greater degree disproved God’s existence and in any case most of the world is at this point of time secular and thus these arguments will not be considered any further here. However, not all arguments for the intrinsic value of nature arise from a theological point of view. Some are only concerned with the fact that the value of nature is intrinsic – for example because the whole biosphere has a spirit, personality or will that should be respected on equal terms with humans and other sentient beings – and therefore we have to preserve nature as it is and not meddle with anything that could diminish its worth(1). Most people would agree that it is wrong to pollute and to consume all of the planet’s natural resources. But this is not necessarily because they believe that nature has intrinsic value. Many would on the other hand say this because they believe that such actions are hurtful to present and future human welfare. This is another understanding of the value of nature. This second position is held up by those who believe that nature has instrumental value. It has value due to the fact that it is a means to the upholding of human wellbeing. As such it is an instrument used to further and uphold human welfare, e.g. animals for eating, wood for heating, etc. This is an anthropocentric view of the world. Humans are at the moral center of the universe and everything else is understood in relation to us. This view seems plausible as there would be no such thing as morality and ethics without man. Moral is a manmade concept and is generally thought only to concern relations between humans(2). A moral stance We do not find it plausible to support the view that nature has intrinsic value. Instead, we support the view that it has instrumental value for us humans, and in the following we will use this view to discuss whether or not we are allowed to use genetic engineering. We do this from a deontological and a utilitarian point of view. According to deontology, it is the nature of an act that is decisive to its moral status and not the consequences it brings about. If you act out of a good will then the action is morally sound(3). Some actions will however always be wrong, i.e. the killing of innocent people. Such actions can be identified by using Kant’s categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law”. As you or anyone else would not wish to be killed by another person, it is not morally sound to go about killing people yourself. This is also called the sanctity of life doctrine. But this doctrine only applies to humans and not to animals or the environment(4). Only by recognizing that humans and the environment are equals can the doctrine be transferred to apply to the entire environment. This position is very radical and people holding it would seriously believe that for example bacteria share the same value as human beings. Thus deontology can be neither pro nor con the use of genetic engineering on parts of the environment as long as the subjects are not human beings. Another theory, which can be used to judge whether or not genetic engineering on the environment is morally sound, is utilitarianism – a theory about welfare. According to this theory we are morally obligated to maximize human welfare(5), no matter what the means are(6). If genetic engineering can be used to further human welfare then we are obliged to do this – if however it worsens it, we are obliged not to do it. This is rather simple in theory; however in practice it is a lot more complicated. Genetic engineering is a relatively new area of research and consequently there are a lot of things we do not know about it. For example we do not know how it affects the ecosystem. This should not be that big of a concern, as we do not believe that nature has intrinsic value. However it is a concern as we humans are part of the ecosystem too. Let us try with an example: We are successful in using genetic engineering on our bacteria and thus make it useable as a sustainable source of light. But there is a risk of the bacteria infiltrating the ecosystem. If it is absorbed in another living creature, say a spider for example, the spider is eaten by a chicken and a human later eats this chicken – the human has been infected with the engineered bacteria. The route does not necessarily have to be this complicated though, it might also be possible for the engineered bacteria to directly infect humans. The bacteria could of course be completely benign to human beings; the problem is that we cannot know this for sure. In other words, we do not have sufficient scientific knowledge of the consequences of genetic engineering. Accordingly, we are morally obliged to prevent or at least minimize the risk of any malign consequences of genetic engineering on its surroundings. This could be done by controlling the destruction of the bacteria by making sure that it happens in a thorough and noninfectious way. It is also possible to minimize the risk through extensive research/testing that leads to a greater understanding of the topic we are dealing with. We do in fact have several mechanisms that prevent the infiltration of the bacteria to the environment, so the risk of this actually happening is usually so small that it can be considered non-existing. In this way genetic engineering is in itself neither permissible nor impermissible, it all depends on what it is used for and how it is controlled. Our project could at some point in the future improve welfare for human beings. Thus if there are no bad repercussions, we are obliged to actually use this knowledge and make sustainable light – at least from a utilitarian point of view. There is however one last concern and that is the possibility of misuse. This is a concern, which is relevant for the competition as a whole and not only our project. Moral implications of the competition as a whole – the open source problem. The iGEM competition raises moral concerns on a different level as well. Due to the fact that every result in this competition is available for all, there is a risk of misuse. This could either be intentional or unintentional but either way the results could be catastrophic. Examples of intentional misuse of the biobrick-database could be the manufacturing of narcotics by criminals or the manufacturing of biological weapons by terrorists. The unintentional misuse could be a result of scientists who do not have sufficient knowledge to replicate experiments and therefore make disastrous mistakes. It should therefore be considered whether the results only should be available to certain circles – hereby meant scientific research groups and not the public in general. The database could be a huge asset for these research groups, as it makes possible the improvement of existing experiments and the possibility to enhance/supplement/further existing research. Thus it creates the possibility of not starting at the beginning but instead taking off from where another scientist stopped. Therefore to prevent misuse it would make sense to make the database a limited open-source or a tracked open-source database. References (1) Tännsjö 2008, pp. 125-28 (2) Tännsjö 2008, pp. 120-23 (3) We use this phrase in the meaning of morally acceptable. (4) Tännsjö 2008, pp. 56-60 (5) This is a only one of the theories in Utilitarianism. Originally it was said that you have to maximize the good but there are different theories of how this should be understood. According to one of them, the one we refer to, good equals welfare. (6) Beauchamp & Childress 2001, pp. 340-42 |
