Thought experiments taken for real

At present one of the most discussed topics in bioethics is genetic enhancement. Basing on the new information concerning human genome and research in medical genetics, hopes are set for massive clinical procedures that not only will cure a bunch of genetic diseases, but also will create a possibility to enhance your own or your children’s genetical traits. The wishing list begins from height, strength and immunity and goes on to even more complex ideas like sense of humour, empathy and intelligence. This scientific and public discussion has raised strong hopes, anxieties, endorsement and resistance. [1]  However, when the reality is faced, the hopes (and fears) show up to be science-fictional fantasy, a philosophically interesting though experiment that should be handled out as such, not as a forthcoming reality.

It is somewhat understandable that participants in the discussion without scientific or genetic knowledge should jump to the conclusion that all these possibilities will occur in some years. From this we can thank the media that persistently reports only the wildest part of a research paper. While the media hypes scientific findings in a way that well could include a promise of a whole new world, the actual information is much moderate. It is common, that the item of news from the research holds only the most provocative and debatable finding, while this particular piece of information might be the most doubted and uncertain part of the research. In addition, the media rarely reports all the research results that are not containing some breaking news – which nevertheless constitutes the most of researches. What is questionable is how this basic fact of popular science reporting is not taken account by all scientists, such as philosophers, when critical reading should be a baseline in scientific work?

Most of the traits in the wishing list of enhancements are highly complex. It is not that there would be one gene for each trait, but many genes, even tens or hundreds. And this is just the beginning. Genes are not the only influence for the traits, which largely depend on many environmental factors. Conditions during pregnancy, food, pollution, culture, lifestyle, social conditions and social environment are just examples of these environmentally influencing elements in the phenotype of an individual and his characteristics. Of course most or all of the characteristics are partly heritable and so it is tempting to think one could intervene them just by tuning up some genes. However the heritable genetic part in these multifactorial inheritance traits in the wishing list is so small, that influence through genetic manipulation is hardly imaginable. It is not even necessary to go in the problems when transforming biological knowledge in the laboratory into useful clinical practices to show the complexity of the situation. When the reality of the contem-porary biomedical sciences is taken account, there is very little proof that we are in front of an epochal change, soon being able to transform our lives although it seems that the remaining obstacles are only technical. [2]  Why the epochal change is nonetheless so emphatically speculated?

Even though at least some of the writers of these wish lists admit the uncertainty and even improbability of such large-scale clinical possibilities, the discussion goes on like the enhancements actually were just around the corner.  Referring to the implausibility and science-fictional elements in the discussion concerning genetic enhancements, I suggest them to be closer to thought experiments than actual reality. Consequently, they should be discussed at the same level than other philosophical thought experiments. It might even be said that it is not responsible to launch demagogic predictions about the moral dangers or possibilities in the future. We are not, after all, discussing seriously the possibilities that it could be just tomorrow that we shall be called in the island where Dworkin’s auction will be taking place, or that it’s just around the corner that we will somehow forget our past and social relations, and decide what the principles of justice should be. Or that will it be useless to think these questions, because it is a sure thing that Hare’s archangel will tell us the right answer in short.

Of course discussion is necessary, especially in a topic that is philosophically very tempting. It just should take place in a different level.

References: 

See i.e. [1] Savulescu, Julian (2001): ”Procreative Benefience: Why We Should Select the Best Children”. Bioethics 15 (5–6): 413–426, Harris, John (2007): Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making better people. Princeton University Press, Princeton., Sandel, Michael J. (2007): The case against perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., Habermas, Jürgen (2003): The future of human nature. Polity, Cambridge.

[2] Rose, Nikolas (2007): The Politics of Life Itself. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford. 

Johanna Ahola-Launonen has completed a B.Sci. in Genetics and a B.Pol.Sci. in Social and Moral Philosophy at University of Helsinki. She will finish her M.Pol.Sci. in Social and Moral Philosophy within a year and is looking forward to starting a PhD. She also has plans to complete an M.Sc in Human Genetics. Her main study interests are ethical and moral questions in human genetics and biomedicine, and political philosophy.