Genetic engineering is an amazing science advancing at such a fast-pace, but because of moral and ethical concerns, research into this new technology has been limited. In his article, `Will genetic engineering produce a master race and a servile multitude?' published in the Pectator magazine 1999, Paul Johnson explores the perils of genetic engineering and the ethical dilemma facing scientists and the intellectual community. He asserts that genetic engineering will create a caste society consisting of a genetically enhanced overclass and a suppressed, skilless underclass. He argues that playing god with genetics is immoral and that it will bring into being a society "biologically evil in ways we can scarcely imagine."
Genetic engineering is the science of designing a human being's genes to fit specified criteria. You could determine your potential child's future by choosing its gender, skin colour, level of intelligence - the list is infinite.
Paul Johnson is concerned that genetic engineering fits all too well into our consumer society. If we want something, we are accustomed to getting it and will pay large sums of money to attain it. He argues that once people are aware that science is capable of determining characteristics of our mind and body, we will buy that technology at any cost. Thus genetic engineering will turn into an industry fuelled by public demand and private funding. Johnson is worried that it will soon become trendy for parents to `design' their babies.
Fear is a sentiment that resonates throughout his article. Johnson hypothesizes that if genetic engineering was legalised, over generations it would create two distinct classes. A "master race" - a genetically enhanced group of human beings who are highly intelligent, attractive and skilled, and a "servile multitude" - those whose parents could not afford to buy their future for them, and are therefore less intelligent and possess no real skills or opportunities. The likelihood of people from either group marrying outside their genetic, social and economic group is slim, since the propensity in modern society is for the educated and intelligent to intermarry and produce even more intelligent, privileged offspring. Johnson claims that this will create deep antagonisms within society since the "master race" will dictate the function and role of the "servile multitude."
So what are the ethical and moral debates regarding genetic engineering? Paul Johnson claims that scientists and doctors, supposed `experts' on the subject, have yet to reach a consensus on the issue.
Usage of genetic modification to pick and chose features and personality traits of embryos could conceivably occur in future times. Wealthy individuals could essentially purchase a baby with built-in genetic advantages (Simmons). Ethically, these seem immoral. Playing God and taking control over the natural way of life makes some understandably uneasy. Ultimately, religious and moral standpoints should play a role in the future of genetic engineering, but not control it. Genetic engineering’s advantages far outweigh the cost of a genetically formulated baby and
Sarah Ly is a PhD candidate at the University of Pennsylvania where she studied biomedical sciences and neurobiology and at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory where part of her work involved genes and genomics. Ly received the National Merit Scholarship as well as the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship. In her article, “Ethics of Designer Babies,” author Sarah Ly explains that the concept of in vitro fertilization has become a reality and with that, genetically engineered embryos are evolving, thus many people believe regulations are needed. The article states that many believe it should just be used when the child is at risk of a genetic disease and should not be used to permit parents to decide the fate of their children by picking traits.
The ethics behind genetic engineering have been discussed and argued for years now. Some arguing points often include competitive advantages, playing God, and the polarization of society, but Sandel takes a different approach in explaining society’s “unease” with the morality of genetic engineering. Broadcasted through several examples throughout the book, Sandel explains that genetic engineering is immoral because it takes away what makes us human and makes us something else. He states that by taking control of our genetic makeup, or the makeup of our progeny, we lose our human dignity and humility. Our hunger for control will lead to the loss of appreciation for natural gifts, whether they are certain talents, inherited from the genetic lottery, or the gift of life itself.
Lucassen, Emy. “Teaching the ethics of genetic engineering” Journal of Biological Education 29 (Summer 1995): 129-139.
Kevles, Daniel J. and Leroy Hood. "Will the Human Genome Project Lead to Abuses In Genetic Engineering?" Taking Sides. Ed. Thomas A. Easton. Guilford, Connecticut: Dushkin Publishing Group Inc., 1995. 342-357.
Science and technology are rapidly advancing everyday; in some ways for the better, and in some, for worse. One extremely controversial advance is genetic engineering. As this technology has high potential to do great things, I believe the power genetic engineering is growing out of control. Although society wants to see this concept used to fight disease and illness, enhance people 's lives, and make agriculture more sustainable, there needs to be a point where a line is drawn.
Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary diseases, the genetic enhancement of human embryos is unethical when used to create "designer babies" with enhanced appearance, athletic ability, and intelligence.
“What Is Genetic Engineering?” Union of Concerned Scientist. N.p., 18 July 2003. Web. 3 May 2014. <“What Is Genetic Engineering? | UCSUSA.” Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 May 2014. .>.
Many people often ask, “Is it acceptable for human beings to manipulate human genes” (Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy). Most of the ethical issues centralize on the Christian understanding of a human being. They believe God made them the way they are and people should accept their fate.The Society, Religion and Technology Project have researched and found that countless people are curious if gene therapy is the right thing to do. They have a problem with exploiting the genes a person is born with due to the fact they consider it to be “playing God” (Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy). They are also concerned with the safety. On account of the unfamiliar and inexperienced technology. Gene therapy has only been around since 1990, so scientists are still trying to find the best possible way to help cure these diseases. Multiple scientists are cautious with whom they share their research. For the reason that if it were to get into in the wrong hands it could conceivably start a superhuman race. Author Paul Recer presumes using germline engineering to cure fatal diseases or even to generate designer babies that will be stronger, smarter, or more immune to infections (Gene Therapy Creates Super-Muscles). Scientists could enhance height, athleticism and even intelligence. The possibilities are endless. Germline engineering, however, would alter every cell in the body. People would no longer have to worry about the alarming and intimidating combinations of their parents’ genes. Genetic engineers are able to eliminate unnatural genes, change existing ones or even add a few extra. Like it or not, in a few short years scientists will have the power to control the evolution of
There is always debate over human genetic engineering. Disputes over human genetic engineering concern the means for achieving assumed ends, rather than being a healthy discussion about the ends themselves. This book not only explores how decisions about the ethics of human genetic engineering are made, but also shows how the structure of the debate has led to the technological choices we now face.
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
Coker, Jeffrey Scott. "Genetic Engineering Is Natural and Should Be Pursued." Genetic Engineering, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
As the rate of advancements in technology and science continue to grow, ideas that were once viewed as science fiction are now becoming reality. As we collectively advance as a society, ethical dilemmas arise pertaining to scientific advancement, specifically concerning the controversial topic of genetic engineering in humans. Human genetic engineering increasingly causes dissonance between various groups of scientific and religious groups of people in regards to if we should or should not ‘play god’ and attempt to modify humans for the better of the race. First, let’s take a look at what exactly genetic engineering is; according to, yourgenome.org, “Genetic engineering refers to the direct manipulation of DNA to alter an organism’s
Genetic engineering has been around since the 1960’s although major experiments have not been really noticed until the 1990’s. The science comes in different forms the two major being cloning and genetic reconstruction. Cloning is the duplicating of one organism and making an exact copy. For example in 1996 the creation of the clone sheep named Dolly the first mammal to be cloned which was a great achievement. The other form, genetic reconstruction, is used to replace genes within humans to help or enhance the life of an unborn child for a medical reason or just for the preference of a parent.
Scientists and the general population favor genetic engineering because of the effects it has for the future generation; the advanced technology has helped our society to freely perform any improvements. Genetic engineering is currently an effective yet dangerous way to make this statement tangible. Though it may sound easy and harmless to change one’s genetic code, the conflicts do not only involve the scientific possibilities but also the human morals and ethics. When the scientists first used mice to practice this experiment, they “improved learning and memory” but showed an “increased sensitivity to pain.” The experiment has proven that while the result are favorable, there is a low percentage of success rate. Therefore, scientists have concluded that the resources they currently own will not allow an approval from the society to continually code new genes. While coding a new set of genes for people may be a benefitting idea, some people oppose this idea.