Question

Australasian Science (2016). Second Genetically Modified Human Embryos. Vol 37(4) May 2016.

Hesman, T. (2015). Breakthrough Gene Editor Sparks Ethics Debate. Science News, Vol 188(13), December 26, 2015.

What do you think, considering the concept of ‘Technological Determinism’, are the implications (social, economic, ethical, and economic) of genetic modification of human beings?

Answer 1

Introduction (Overview of Technological Determinism (TD)):

Technological determinism (TD), simply put, is the idea that technology has important effects on our lives. This idea figures prominently in the popular imagination and political rhetoric, for example in the idea that the Internet is revolutionizing economy and society. TD has also had a long and controversial history in the social sciences in general and in organization studies in particular. Critics of TD argue variously that technology itself is socially determined, that technology and social structures co-evolve in a non-deterministic, emergent process, or that the effects of any given technology depend mainly on how it is implemented which is in turn socially determined. Given the proliferation of new technologies in modern capitalism, the TD debate is continually renewed.

Technological determinism has been asserted at several levels of analysis. At the broadest level, TD has informed many analyses of changes in socio-economic configurations: the transition from feudalism to capitalism, changing occupational and skill structure of the labour force in the 20th century, the emergence of post-industrialism in the post-World War II era, the subsequent emergence of the “information society,” “post-Fordism,” and globalization. For some, technological progress represents the promise of the gradual emancipation of mankind from the burdens of unnecessary sickness and labour. For others, this same path represents a loss of our very humanity, ensnaring us in ever more elaborate, alienating, and dangerous technological webs.

Implication of Technological Determinism in Genetic Modification of Human Beings

Medical technology has been presented as a driving force behind a range of social changes, both positive and negative. These changes include escalating health care costs and inequalities in health care outcomes, the deskilling and hyper skilling of health care practitioners, and increased human longevity and quality of life. Medical technology is sometimes clouded by mystique in that each new drug, device, or machine tends to appear as a thing with a life of its own, as if the technology not only arrived independent of social, cultural, political and economic forces but was also the driving force for social change. By not considering the emergence and adoption of a medical technology as a social process, the resulting social change appears as a natural consequence of technological innovation. This has been termed technological determinism.

Genetic engineering can simply be explained as the alteration of an organism's genetic, or hereditary, material to eliminate undesirable characteristics or to produce desirable new ones. Several works have been done on genetic engineering with major focus on its importance ranging from increasing plant and animal food production, diagnosing disease condition, medical treatment improvement, as well as production of vaccines and other useful drugs. Methods in this techniques involve the selective breeding of animals and plants, hybridization (reproduction between different strains or species), and recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA).

Social, economic & ethical implications of genetic modification of human beings:

"Playing God" has become a strong argument against genetic engineering. Several issues have also been raised as regards the acceptance of this technology. These concerns range from ethical issues to lack of knowledge on the effects genetic engineering may have. One major concern is that once an altered gene is placed in an organism, the process cannot be reversed. Public reaction to the use of rDNA in genetic engineering has been mixed. The production of medicines through the use of genetically altered organisms has generally been welcomed. However, critics of rDNA fear that disease-producing, organisms used in some rDNA experiments might develop extremely infectious forms that could cause worldwide epidemics.

As more human genes are being used in non-human organisms to create new forms of life that are genetically partly human, new ethical questions arise. For instance, what percentage of human genes does an organism have to contain before it is considered human and how many human genes would a green pepper for example have to contain before it can be eaten without qualms. Human genes are now being inserted into tomatoes and peppers to make them grow faster. This suggests that one can now be a vegetarian and a cannibal at the same time. For meat-eaters, the same question could be posed about eating pork with human genes. What about the mice that have been genetically engineered to produce human sperm. The question is ‘what psychological effect would it pose on the offspring?

Critics have questioned the safety of genetically engineered bovine somatotropin (BST) to increase the milk yield of dairy cows (BST) for both the cows that are injected with it and the humans who drink the resulting milk; owing to the fact that it increases a cow’s likelihood of developing mastitis, or infection of the udder, and it also makes cows more susceptible to infertility and lameness.

Transgenic plants also present controversial issues. Allergens can be transferred from one food crop to another through genetic engineering. Another concern is that pregnant women eating genetically modified products may endanger their offspring by harming normal fetal development and altering gene expression.

In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences released a report calling for a legal ban on human cloning. The report concluded that the high rate of health problems in cloned animals suggests that such an effort in humans would be highly dangerous for the mother and developing embryo and is likely to fail. Beyond safety, the possibility of cloning humans also raises a variety of social issues like the psychological issues that would result for a cloned child who is the identical twin of his or her parent.

Another frightening scenario is the destructive use of genetic engineering. Terrorist groups or armies could develop more powerful biological weaponry. These weapons could be resistant to medicines, or even targeted at people who carry certain genes. Genetically engineered organisms used for biological weapons might also reproduce faster, which would create larger quantities in shorter periods of time, increasing the level of devastation.

Conclusion

Despite all of these current concerns, the potential for genetic engineering is tremendous. However, further testing and research will be required to educate society on the pros and cons of genetic engineering. There is no doubt that this technology will continue to present intriguing and difficult challenges for 21st century scientists and ethicists, and education and meaningful, respectful discourse are just the starting point of what is required to tackle such complex ethical issues. With the newfound breakthroughs in cloning, the capabilities of changing human characteristics are unpredictable. We can then anticipate intense cross-disciplinary debate and discussion as new life forms are emanating through science and medicine.