A Reflection upon Perfection

 

A collection of letters between Will Fotsch and John Marrero.

 

 

 

            With the recent completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, there has been much debate recently over the issue of genetic research and sequence alteration. The following letters argue the benefits and perils of gene engineering in the context of human subjects, as well as other possible consequences of genetic research. We took opposing stances as we argued out the pros and cons of this very debated issue. We eventually ended upon a kind of consensus, where we each realize the validity of the other side’s arguments, while holding to our own personal ideals.

 

 

 

Dear Dr. Fotsch,

            As a man of the cloth, I feel compelled by duty to respond to any ethical or moral issues that may cross my path. I was browsing through my favorite periodical, Issues, and I came across your article, “A Future upon Us: Gene Engineering and Self-Alteration,” and studied the points you made. I must say, respectfully, that I disagree with just about everything you argue in your article.

            You say that human gene engineering promises a golden age of prosperity for humanity. I disagree. We would be completely changing ourselves with gene alteration! We would not be human anymore! How can a golden age for humanity ever come about if we lose our humanity? I say this because God created Man naturally, and, as our genes determine who we are, we would simply be man-made products as opposed to children of God. We would be surrendering our human status to play God, and, as a devout Catholic, I find this to be completely unacceptable, no matter what. I do not know what beliefs you hold, sir, but, God or not, we will not be able to call ourselves human after gene alteration.

            Not everyone could afford the treatment, and so you would have a class system based on wealth and genes! Can you see what ramifications this would have? Insurance companies would destroy our economy by over-charging on premiums! A vicious cycle would be created as the poor could not afford genetic engineering and thus would pay more for insurance as they are at greater genetic risk.  They would become poorer still and this downward spiral is clearly wrong.  Gene engineering would inevitably destroy our society. What response do you have to this, sir?

Yours,

Fr. John Marrero, S.J.

 

 

Dear Fr. Marrero,

I’ve considered your arguments. You bring up good points, but I feel you have misinterpreted much of my article. A golden age for humanity will be brought about when we bring an end to Alzheimer’s, Cancer, and mental retardation.  With increased physical ability and intelligence we will advance more quickly and bring about a whole new era, where humans transcend their natural abilities and become capable of things only previously dreamt of.  Genetically, we will stay human so your argument that we would lose our humanity is absurd.  Not only would we be human, but as a species we will be more capable than before – all that changes is what defines our humanity.

            Insurance companies would only destroy our economy if proper precautions were not taken.  Genetic information should either be kept private, or the United States should change the structure of its insurance market, maybe to make it more like Canada where everyone is protected under common insurance.  The beauty of the possibilities is that everyone could become better.  If everyone could be genetically improved, insurance would be unnecessary.  The human race would be improved.

            After we understand the nature of the human genome, which is now possible with the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, we are able to do incredible things.  Testing already exists in order for people to know their genetic likelihood for contracting disease.  Knowing more about these genetic diseases will allow cures to come more easily.  Eventually we can bring about new eugenics through genetic engineering.  It could be made safe and available for all.  No longer would people be born severely handicapped.  People would not have to grow up being ridiculed for genetic deficiencies, natural disabilities, or even abnormalities such as being born abnormally short or deemed by society to be ugly.  As a priest, I would think you would wish the best for all.

 

Respectfully,

Dr. Fotsch

 

 

Dr. Fotsch,
            You bring up a valid point with the capacity to cure genetic disorders. Whether or not the idea occurred to me, I did not want to accept it, because it seemed to me that gene alteration was equivalent to playing God. However, after considering your rebuttal, I realized that all medicine is righteous in that its purpose is to heal the ill, and there is nothing wrong with that. 5% of the population, afflicted with congenital disorders, could be cured of their deeply debilitating ailments through gene alteration. I have a brother showing the first signs of Alzheimer's, myself, so this issue is important to me. Gene alteration for curative reasons, therefore, seems merely to be another kind of medicine.
            This is all good and well, but I still do not believe in the alteration of genes in otherwise healthy people. That, Sir, is still playing God. It is the elevation of oneself above the rest of our human family, the proclamation of ourselves as newly-born deities. Do you believe that we should simply be allowed to do that? It's unjust, especially to the less fortunate who are unable to undergo the treatment.

            Also, who will stand for the rights of an unborn child whose genes are altered? You make a good point in healing genetic disorders, but whether the child's rights have been violated in this case is an open issue. Surely, Sir, you can see how “selecting” one's children is unethical and a breach of freedoms. This will lead to eugenics, which inherently violates human freedoms, by forcing certain genes to appear in one’s children.

            Additionally, we will be entering what, for the most part, is an unknown realm. Through my research, I have discovered that science does not actually know as much about genetics as you imply. We seem to have trouble with simple organisms, such as the crops we eat. How, then, could we think of tampering with a gene sequence that is significantly more complex? “Fools enter where angels fear to tread.”

            I trust that, as I have seen some things your way, you will consider what I have said here. I look forward to your response.

God bless,

Fr. John Marrero, S.J.

 

Dear Fr. Marrero,

            I can see where you are coming from.  Since you are a priest, you are a religious person and religion is deeply intertwined with ethics and morality.  Therefore, I understand your wish to tread carefully.  I do realize that genetic engineering and even testing is an issue for all.  I found that according to a Time poll, only 50% of people would like to know if they are at genetic risk.  As a scientist, I myself would prefer to know the absolute truth, but it is a personal issue and some believe ignorance is bliss.

            You may have a point about eugenics.  I was very caught up in the idea of a more perfect world where everyone is improved, but I came across an article by my good friend Michael J. Sandel in which he brings up many good points.  He speaks about the pitfalls of eugenics and the dangers of public knowledge of genetic information.  As you previously stated, insurance is a difficult issue and genetic information needs to be carefully regulated.  Eugenics has possibilities, but I am unsure as to where we should draw the line.  I suppose some of the beauty of humans still comes from the randomness of nature in its giving of human traits.

Regarding human freedoms, the scientific community holds a neutral stance on the issue of abortion and so I will not comment on the rights of the unborn as it is a personal and religious argument.  Different people have different opinions as to the origin of life and I will leave that issue untouched.  I respect your opinion.

            As for eugenics, I am not sure where to draw the line, but I do feel that creating an upper class society more privileged and capable in every way is wrong.  I believe in the improvement of society, not just an individual.  I am still very in favor of genetic engineering and progress in genetic research, but we should tread carefully.  This is probably why the Human Genome Project was the first government funded research project with money set aside for studying ethical, legal, and social implications.

I would wish to believe in a utopian society, but it may not be reality.  Restrictions would have to be enforced.  I am unsure about genetically altering the healthy.  I definitely believe that sick people and the less fortunate genetically should be given precedence for genetic treatment in order to maintain fairness.  The issue of genetically altering the healthy could be tackled after the unhealthy are first taken care of.

I believe we must embrace the beauty of the coming genetic age, but we need open conversation between scientists and religious alike to find where people stand.  I believe in FDR's statement, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself” and we should embrace, not fear this revolutionary technology.  Open debate and discussion will avoid the moral pitfalls you fear and lead to real progress.

Sincerely,

Dr. Fotsch

 

 

Bibliography

 

Aldridge, Susan. The Thread of Life. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Avise, John C. The Hope, Hype, and Reality of Genetic Engineering. New York:

Oxford University Press, 2004.

Bohlin, Raymond G. “Human Genetic Engineering.” Probe Ministries.

Last revised 2000. Last accessed Oct. 21, 2004. < http://www.probe.org/docs/humgeneng.html >

“Corporate Profile.”  Human Genome Sciences.  5 October 2004.  17 October 2004 

<http://www.hgsi.com/cprofile/index.html>.

Hill, Walter Ensign. Genetic Engineering: a Primer. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2002.

Human Genome Project Information.  2 September 2004. 17 October 2004

<http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml>.

King, David. “The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering.” Human Genetics Alert.

Last accessed Oct. 21, 2004. < http://www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/threat.htm >

McConkey, Edwin H. How the Human Genome Works. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2004.

Murphy, Timothy F. and Marc A. Lappé, ed. Justice and the Human Genome Project. 

Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994.

National Human Genome Research Institute.  June 2004. 17 October 2004. <http://www.genome.gov/>.

Nicholl, Desmond S. T. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering. New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2002.

Palladino, Michael A. Understanding the Human Genome Project. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings, 2002. 

Peters, Ted. Playing God? New York: Routledge, 1997.

Sandel, Michael J. The Case Against Perfection. Atlantic Monthly Company, April

2004.  30 October 2004 <http://web.mit.edu/writing/fee/2004_FEE_June_Readins.htm>.