G6 Ethics | 59 | v4 | BIOS Instant Notes in Genetics

ABSTRACT

Key Notes https://www.niso.org/standards/z39-96/ns/oasis-exchange/table">

Overview

The new genetic knowledge and techniques now available make it possible to do things which were impossible before. These range from procedures that are clearly beneficial to science-fiction horror, but with a continuous spectrum in between. Moral decisions require individuals and societies to draw lines between good that is permitted (or the lesser of two evils) and bad, which is not allowed. These decisions are arbitrary, based on comparing the benefi ts with the disadvantages, and affected by cultural and religious attitudes (e.g. the death penalty for murder). We are not drawing those lines, but are posing the questions and relating some counter arguments to assist you to decide what is allowed, what is not, and, most important, why you make that decision.

Privacy and profit

The increased availability of information about individuals' genotypes raises questions of privacy (who should be allowed to know) and who should profit from the knowledge. Should insurance companies have a right to information about a client's genetic risks? People who know they have a high risk of death or disease might take out larger insurance policies, putting up premiums. People who are at low risk would like lower premiums. Insurance companies would like to balance premiums to risk, but people at high risk might get no insurance at all. Employers might not employ people with genetic ‘weaknesses,’ and genetic ‘inferiors’ might be stigmatized by society. Pharmaceutical firms might exploit DNA sequence data from individuals, families, or tribes to gain insight into a genetic condition, develop drugs, and then make a large profit. Should the provider of the sequence have a share? Should the state keep genetic profi les of convicted criminals, or the whole population, to identify perpetrators of new crimes, or identify missing persons or anonymous corpses, or as a permanent identity tag, impossible to lose or forge?

Moral choices

In all the moral decisions relating to genetics, the problem is where to draw the line on intervention. Screening for genetic diseases identifi es individuals with inherited disorders. This allows selective abortion of fetuses that are at high risk of being born with genetic defects. Similarly, where a family history is known, in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnosis can be used to ensure only ‘healthy’ embryos are implanted. Some people would use religious or ideological grounds to ban all intervention; however most people would accept intervention if the baby was to be born severely handicapped, certain to die after a few days or months of distress. Most disputes arise with conditions where the child can expect some years of normal or happy life. For example, should intervention be used to prevent the birth of babies who would be born healthy but with no prospect of reaching adulthood (e.g. Tay-Sachs disease) or who will have only slight physical or mental disabilities (e.g. Down's syndrome), or conditions that are fully treatable (e.g. phenylketonuria). At the trivial extreme, should preimplantation intervention be used to select a child of a particular sex, eye color, or skills? Such activity is already prevalent in some societies where brides provide dowries, and sons are preferred. Many million female babies (per generation) are already aborted, killed, or allowed to die from neglect, without the use of genetic technology.

Potential harm

Genetic modification of individuals or populations carries hypothetical risks. In humans, there are objections against modifying the gene pool by producing designer babies. This activity would only be affordable by rich people, and make little global impact, but could create a genetic elite. Another possibility is the accidental or deliberate creation of a lethal pathogen. Genetic manipulation and cloning of animals and crop plants is of more immediate relevance. There is a specific objection to creating transgenic species by transferring genes from one species to another. This fundamentalist objection is to ‘playing God’ and changing creation. Objectively, the two important considerations are the cost/benefit ratio, and the comparison with the alternative, typically current practice. There are many perceived risks. The mere act of adding or changing a single gene may have unforeseen consequences. The gene and product are thoroughly known when modification is done by genetic manipulation. This makes genetic manipulation safer than conventional breeding that involves the introduction of hundreds of unknown genes, or mass mutation, then selection for the desired phenotype with no investigation of hidden changes. Suffering may occur in genetically modified animals with human genetic diseases (e.g. cystic fibrosis in mice) or with accelerated muscle growth or milk production in cattle. The costs and benefits must be assessed. There are already regulations regarding animal experiments, but none on conventional breeding which can produce gross abnormalities (e.g. small dogs whose eyes tend to fall out, cows with gross udders). Crop plants producing internal pesticides may also be toxic to harmless species, but the conventional alternative is chemical sprays that are generally worse. Plants resistant to herbicides allow chemical removal of weeds, in turn reducing support for nonpest wildlife; however the whole purpose of agriculture is to replace natural ecosystems with human crops. Fire and the plough have a much greater impact, and have been used for thousands of years. Greater efficiency of production on land already cultivated reduces the need to extend cultivation (e.g. into rain forests) and can allow poorer soils to be returned to a natural state.