Genetic engineering is a hot topic of conversation because of its controversial implications. With athletes using drugs to give them an edge in sports and people getting plastic surgery to change their appearance, we are already altering our bodies. The only real difference between this and genetic engineering is that with genetic engineering, people would be born with enhanced traits rather than altering them later in life. The competitive nature of humans leads us to always strive for something better. As James Watson put it while talking about human germline engineering in 1988, “No one really has the guts to say it, but if we could make better human being by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn’t we?”(Shock 12).
With each day that goes by, we work to make humans more like machines and machines more like humans. Prosthetics have been around at the most basic stage since as early as the fifth Egyptian Dynasty (2750-2625BC) (The History of Prosthetic Devices). Functional prosthetics however, are a much more recent development. According to the University of North Carolina’s Prosthetics History Webpage, in the 1960’s, “the Russians created a functional moving fake hand. Soon after, Americans successfully developed an entire working arm. Prosthetic limbs are not the only mechanical pieces restoring broken bodies back to “normal” function. Shock describes that “physicians have implanted electrodes in specific locations in the body-the cochlea of the ear, for example, or even the brain stem, to restore rudimentary hearing-and patients sometimes recover a significant amount of sensory function” (Shock 21). ). Mechanical and electrical devices are being used to simulate both moving body parts and human senses. These devices are not, however, being used to enhance the human body, at least not yet. They are only being used when the human body is broken and not functioning correctly. Shock suggests that “the road to our eventual disappearance might be paved not by humanity’s failure but by its success. Progressive self-transformation could change our descendants into something sufficiently different from our present selves to not be human in the sense we use the term now” (Shock 4). As shock states, “Not everything that can be done should or will be done, of course, but once a relatively inexpensive technology becomes feasible in thousands of laboratories around the world and a sizable fraction of the population sees it as beneficial, it will be used” (Shock 5). Professor Silver also describes:
The problem is that once we tinker with the genes in
the sperm and the egg, we give somebody the ability to be able to pass on these
new genetic elements that have never been present in human beings before and
they get passed on to the next generation, they can get passed on to generation
after generation for untold number of generations and, so, in a sense, it gives
us the ability to completely change the human species. (“Designer
Babies-Comments by Princeton Professor Lee Silver”)
“If we start to do genetic engineering in humans,
it’s possible that what are now simply economic class differences could turn
into separate species. If the poor could
not afford to have their babies’ genes altered, only the rich would be able to
have super babies. Overtime, the differences
could grow so drastic as to be classified as different species. Genetic engineering would actually
disadvantage those who could not afford it” (“Designer Babies-Comments by
Princeton Professor Lee Silver”).As discussed earlier, prosthetics are becoming more frequently used when a given body part is not functioning. Where do we draw the line on what is ok and in what case? Technology has made it so that, in some cases, athletes with prosthesis may actually have an advantage over their competitors. In the ESPN article, it is mentioned that “if anyone can predict what sports will look like in 2050, it’s Herr, who lost his legs 26 years ago in a climbing accident. Herr wears robotic limbs with motorized ankles and insists he doesn’t want his human legs back because soon they’ll be archaic. ‘People have always though the human body is ideal,’ he says, ‘It’s not’”…”Next-gen research will shift from replacing the human leg to improving it, just as pharmaceuticals have shifted from restoring to enhancing. Why stop at a better hairline when we can make a better thigh” (Adelson). Prosthetic body parts are quickly approaching being as good as the real thing; once there, it will only be a matter of time before they can outperform and out endure human body parts. Especially in sports, where do we draw the line with what is acceptable? In one case, “On January 14, the IAAF banned South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius from the Olympics because tests found that his Cheetah Flex-Foot legs, which look like J-shape spatulas, give him an advantage over runners with human legs(Adelson). In another case, Nike’s carbon sole shoes that Americans wore during the Sydney Olympics are being questioned as to if they are acceptable. While similar to Pistorius’ legs in their effect, the shoes are being considered simply because they are external. Both swim caps and Speedo’s new LZR Racer are legal, even though they give advantages to the athletes who wear them (Adelson).
Should we continue on with genetic engineering? Where do we draw the line? Could genetic engineering really change the
human race as we know it? If so, will we
split in to two different races (those that can afford the genetic engineering
and those who can’t)? If we can improve
the human race through genetic engineering and the continuing development of
prosthetics, should we? Are the
consequences too high?
Adelson,
Eric. "Let 'Em Play." ESPN Magazine n. pag. Web. 8 Apr 2011.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3357051>.
"Designer
Babies-Comments by Princeton Professor Lee Silver." Web. 8 Apr 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN9ep4B9Hw0>.
Stock,
Gregory. Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Print.
"The
History of Prosthetic Devices." University of North Carolina, n.d. Web. 8
Apr 2011.
<http://www.unc.edu/~mbritt/Prosthetics%20History%20Webpage%20-%20Phys24.html>.
Toffler,
Alvin. Future Shock. New York: Random House, 1970. Print.
The only problem I see with genetic engineering is your no giving the choice to the person being engineered. It would be the parents choice and there is no was of knowing what the child wants, but I hypothesize that eight or nine times out of ten the grown child would say they were happy with the choice of improvement. As far as the divide between those who can and cannot afford the procedure, there would still be breeding between the two groups and the next generation of children from those couples would close the divide so I don't think the difference would be too large five to six generations down the line.
ReplyDeleteFor prosthetics, absolutely continuing advancing the technology, if we can give an amputee as much of there normal life back as possible, maybe even more, I cannot see a drawback here. In term of athletic competition, the playing field would need to be kept even so if a limb was considered an advantage the decision to keep the individual out of competition should not be challenged. If the problem becomes big enough separate classes could be made to consider those who are cast out.
Outside of sports, do you think that if advancements make the prosthetics stronger and more capable than the actual human body part, that people will start voluntarily start "upgrading"?
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to say where we draw the line. If we ever are able to directly alter genetics before a child is born, then soon it will be a crime to bear a child with hereditary disease. Depending on how religious institutions react to this (altering life at that stage is already a touchy issue), the implication is that there might be a major showdown between religious and political groups over medicine. And those that are born "natural" would be a such a significant disadvantage. What company would invest money in their training when there's always the risk of health problems? It could end up separating the "naturals" and the "altered" into two classes... and it'll be clear who will be dominate.
ReplyDeleteWhat's interesting about genetic engineering - and the ability to graft mechanical and biological implants - is that it heralds a new stage in human evolution; a critical point where the species has evolved so much that it is now capable of taking its future development into its own hands. Goodbye "natural selection" and hello direct intervention!
Benjamin,
ReplyDeleteYou make some very good points. I had not thought about the religious side of this, but I can only imagine that the reaction would be like fight against abortion, but even stronger because people would basically be "playing god".
Kathryn,
ReplyDeleteIt could go a couple of different ways. Inevitably, some religious folks would be offended; and then, others might see it as a genuine health longevity procedure. In fact, they might be supportive of it because there are a large number of abortions performed today on fetuses that are predicted to have some sort of disease. It's one of those things that it really difficult to predict until we get there.