|
WILEY BIOTECHNOLOGY ENCYCLOPEDIAS Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues in Biotechnology
Editors-in-Chief:
Main Page for this Work
Sample Article
. . . |
2 volume set |
continued from page 2 . . .
The point about normality not being a sharp line raises an important distinction within the category of enhancement modifications: There could be modifications that raise a trait above the norm and there could be modifications that raise a trait from one point within the normal range of that trait to a higher point in that range. This suggests that the classification of modifications should be tripartite: therapeutic, (proper) enhancement, and intra-normal. Nevertheless, we should note that many commentators understand enhancement to mean any improvement of a normal trait, thereby collapsing the second and third categories. Cosmetic surgeries, which can often be regarded as intra-normal modifications, are thus placed in the same category as genetic modifications to create superpeople. Whether fewer distinctions or categories is better will depend upon how the issues are analyze and whether one classification clarifies matters more than the other. As we will suggest below, it is better to keep intra-normal modifications, which are differences of degree, distinct from enhancements proper, which are differences of kind.
Types of Modifications
Biotechnology covers a range of technologies and procedures, many of which could conceivably be employed for enhancement. Drugs could be designed to interact with the body's chemistry in such a way as to alter behavior, biological functioning, structure, or affect. Even without introducing drugs, special procedures - such as transfusing a person with their own blood or "blood doping" - can affect traits or behavior. But the most discussed enhancement technology is one in which a person's genome is altered.
It is an empirical question which traits can be enhanced by modifying an individual's genes. And it may turn out that enhancing certain traits requires not only genetic modifications but also certain alterations in the individual's environment. That is to say, a particular genetic modification might not by itself bring about an enhanced trait; it might give the person a capacity to developed the enhanced trait whose realization demands a special exercise regime, diet, or other efforts. The idea of genetic enhancement technologies therefore does not rest on an assumption of genetic determinism - that a genetic alteration alone is sufficient to bring about a particular trait. While a popular image of genetic enhancements is that of some magic-wand transformation in which the person is a passive recipient, the matter can be more complex. Realizing a genetic enhancement might involve hard work. This point will become important later when we consider assessments of enhancements.
Genetic modifications are often separated into two kinds - somatic and germline. The difference is whether the particular genetic modification affects the individual's gametes so that the modification can be passed on to the individual's offspring. The object of a somatic modification is a modified individual, but the object of a germline modification is a modification that becomes part of the individual's legacy or inheritance. In saying that there are these two kinds of genetic modifications, we are not claiming that of any particular genetic enhancement there is a somatic version and a germline version. That is entirely an empirical matter. It may well be that certain kinds of enhancements can only be done as somatic while others can only be done as germline. For example, a modification may only be somatic because it interferes with the individual's ability to reproduce. A modification may only be germline because the only feasible way of delivering the modification to all the relevant cells requires inserting the modification in the few cells of the embryo stage, which would then likely affect the individual's germ cells. Although the distinction between somatic and germline modification is conceptually clear, it may not be applicable everywhere.
Nevertheless, many commentators find the distinction useful. It is reasonable to assume that somatic enhancements are simpler as far as ethics and public policy is concerned. Germline enhancements appear to raise all the issues of somatic enhancement and then some. And so it would seem that we should first examine the acceptability of somatic enhancements and only after settling that should we proceed to an examination of germline enhancements. This strategy however is difficult to sustain if we allow for the possibility that enhancements might not stand or fall as a group. If we are open to the possibility that some enhancements might be acceptable and others not and we acknowledge that some enhancements may have only a somatic or a germline version, the strategy of considering first the somatic case and then the germline case may not always be applicable. Some enhancements might as a matter of technology not have a somatic version.
(Of course there is one way of ensuring a genetic enhancement is not in effect germline - combining the modification with one that also renders the individual infertile. But this possibility is probably not worth dwelling on: It is difficult to conceive of a case where, as a matter of ethics or public policy, an enhancement would be acceptable but only if the individual agrees to sterilization.)
Human Enhancement Uses of Biotechnology: Overview
By Robert Wachbroit
<<<Back - - - 1 2 3 4 5 - - - Next >>>>