Subscription 790/year or 190/quarter

Genetic human production

If we humans can transform ourselves – should we? Professor of Philosophy Benjamin Gregg is working to find answers to the social, political, and moral questions associated with a new form of genetic modification of humans.




(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)

 

"Genetic modification raises very fundamental questions about our identity as a species," Benjamin Gregg told Ny Tid. "Changing biology will be fundamentally confusing – but will it be bad for us? The answer does not come by itself, we have to construct it. " Ny Tid meets Benjamin Gregg at the Norwegian Center for Human Rights, where he has held a seminar on genetic modification from a human rights perspective. "I am struck by the pace of development," says Gregg. "I would like to see biotechnology as a tool for social progress, but it also carries with it a threat of setbacks. We must regulate this, but then we must first agree on some definitions. I think the question should be formulated in this way: What kind of human nature should we desire when the goal is just societies? We must also be binsisted that this is not a global conversation today, even though this is technology that will have consequences for all people. "

Race research and class differences. That human biology is changing is nothing new – but with genetic modification we get a completely different speed and precision in evolution than before. Then also the political issues become far more combustible, Gregg points out. There is no doubt that the pitfalls are many when genetic modification of humans becomes a reality. “We know from history that humans can abuse technology. For example, we have a history of eugenics, so we know a little about what the dangers are, ”says Gregg. «Genetic determinism, the idea that we er our genes may end up actualizing racial discrimination. For a given genetic difference, one can always ask whether the genes in question are distributed differently in different racially defined groups. We can easily imagine that some would explore such a question in ways that could justify racial discrimination – or support a fatalistic acceptance of an observed difference at one time as an unchanging biological reality. ”

Access to gene therapy is also a difficult question. Gregg sees it as likely that those who already have the best health and are most privileged will have the easiest access to the new technology. If they can choose embryos with, for example, higher intelligence and less disease, their descendants will have even more benefits. This is how technology can amplify class differences. "We can almost imagine a genetic arms race for those who have the means to participate," says Gregg. “Poor people usually have poorer health and will probably have poorer access to the new technology. If a significant minority gets access to these improvements, it will make the rest of the population even more vulnerable to human rights violations. ” If, in the future, we find a way to extend our lifespan by means of genetic modification, we can also imagine that existing power relations between classes, genders and ethnicities will be petrified and take longer to break away.

"There is something immediately authoritarian about having people in their image."

Benjamin Gegg (PHOTO: private)
Benjamin Gegg (PHOTO: private)

Identity and diversity. The ability to change an embryo before it becomes a human also brings with it important issues of consent and identity. "We humans er our identity in many ways, and if our identity is shifted or taken away from us, we are destroyed in some way, ”Gregg explains. “Imagine the scenario that a couple of parents decide they want to modify their child to become very good at music. When the child reaches puberty and starts thinking about the world, dressing in black and reading Nietzsche, she might look at herself and say to her parents: 'I has a body, but me er not my body. This is their body that you chose for me, I would never have chosen this body. "It's an open question whether our freedom as individuals depends on not being predetermined by third parties beyond what happens when two people choose to have a child together."

Ny Tid asks Gregg if it is conceivable that the military, sports clubs or industry will pay to breed people who can perform better in their fields. "I think we can very quickly reject such contempt for individuals only as a means to achieve something else," says Gregg. "There is something immediately authoritarian about creating people in their image."

Another possible trend is a trend towards the alignment of human traits, and thus less diversity. According to Gregg, some types of diversity are more important than others. "It wouldn't have been so good if everyone was blonde and blue-eyed, but if we can eradicate diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, then that's fine." Disabled people are at the forefront of diversity. “Some people with disabilities feel threatened by genetic modification because they interpret it as a downgrading of their lives. If the technology had existed before, they might not have been who they are, ”says Gregg. “Some deaf people want their children to be deaf too, because they believe that deafness is not a disability, but a culture. This is both a matter for parents and for society. Should parents be able to deny a child genetic treatment that can prevent deafness? My point is that these questions can only be answered by constructing ideas and values ​​that we collectively agree on. ”

Lacks basic driving rules. According to Gregg, we lack basic driving rules for what is ethically justifiable to allow for genetic modification in humans. One of the questions is well known from the abortion debate, among other things: Just when does an embryo turn into a life that can be a bearer of rights? "The definition established in Roe vs. Wade in the 70s was that this occurs when the fetus can be viable outside the uterus – but we have seen that this point can be moved by technology, ”Gregg points out. "It's hard to establish a definite point." We also have no rules on how an embryo should be treated before It is defined as a person. Gregg tells of a case in which a newly divorced couple quarreled about the embryos they had frozen in connection with fertility treatment. "The woman would donate them to couples who couldn't have children. The man would not, as it was his DNA. In his understanding, he would then be the father of the child. The court had trouble handling this case. If a fertilized embryo is property, the property should be distributed. If the embryo is a person with rights, it becomes like a divorcee. Both interpretations are problematic. ”

Gregg believes that both parents and children can be rights holders, but not embryos or fetuses. Gender modification must also be discussed in the light of the political community. "It is conceivable that there may be a conflict between the rights of the parents, the child and the community. Parents should not have complete decision-making power over their children; they should be bound by social guidelines. Human dignity is a key concept in that sense, ”says Gregg.

Especially giving a few selected special genetic benefits will be problematic in a societal perspective, according to Gregg. “One group's benefits always come with disadvantages for another group. Creating an exceptional human being cannot be defended from a human rights perspective. Instead, one can construct a human right that provides equitable distribution of gene modification as a social good, a kind of genetic communitarianism ”.

Tori Aarseth
Tori Aarseth
Aarseth is a political scientist and a regular journalist at Ny Tid.

You may also like