Today we have a society influenced more by humanism, materialism and moral relativism than by religious or ethical convictions, but we must realize that the possibilities of genetic manipulation are profound. With such awesome technological discovery (consider the clone “Dolly” the sheep), there comes dramatic potential for significant abuse. As such, we need to keep a careful eye on “science” and continually remind ourselves that technology is not the supreme authority, or the cure for advancing or improving upon all of human life.
First of all, the risks involved in genetic manipulation concerns not only the individual undergoing gene therapy, but also the offspring. The price to be paid for any mishaps would be too high, since these would be hereditary and transmitted from one generation to the next.
The threat of power over others creates another argument against genetic manipulation. Most parents consciously choose to have children, and some try to influence the development of their child in utero. All parents exercise authority over their children after birth and use the authority to educate and develop their children. This use of parental authority is natural. But genetic manipulation gives a person absolute dominion over the existence of another. The genetic material will be what the person’s intelligence and appearance and special skills will be—all this would be determined by another person. Again, if people can have this kind of power over others, then the quality clause is just empty words from a quaint past. Those who genetically manipulate would be seen as “God-like.” The calling into existence of a precisely specified new person is an exercise in apparent human omnipotence.
According to Jeremy Rifkin, who is president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, genetic engineering weakens the authenticity of the genetically modified person’s accomplishments. It holds that the engineered person’s abilities and talents are no longer his or her own, that these accomplishments are because of the alteration.
In Leonard Pitt’s article, “A Risk Free Life,” he argues that the dangers that come with this kind of control over life are denying one of life’s most basic truths. He acknowledges that he does not know what he would have done if placed in a situation where he could use genetic manipulation to clear away a danger. Pitt argues, however, that people who seek this sort of power will abuse it to alter, arrange, pick and choose their children like a “meal in a take-out restaurant.”
Genetic alteration treats humans as products that must be designed, perfected, and controlled; they are viewed as commodities, no longer gifts. Genetic engineering is a problem because it tries to remake nature, besides human nature, to serve purposes and satisfy desires.
The problem with biotechnology is that there is a distinct beginning but has no clear end. Cell by cell, tissue by tissue, organ by organ, we might willingly surrender our personhood in the market place. In the process, each loss will be compensated for with a perceived gain until there is little left to exchange. It is at this point the case of our agreement become apparent. But is also at that point that we may no longer possess the very thing we were so anxious to enrich: our humanity. In the decades to come, we humans might well barter ourselves away, one gene at a time, in exchange for some measure of temporary well-being. In the end, the personal and collective security we fought so long and hard to preserve may well be irreversibly compromised in pursuit of our engineered perfection.
