FORUM : The Cutting Edge: COMPUTING / TECHNOLOGY / INNOVATION : Mixed Ideas on Ethics of Biotech
Last week, The Cutting Edge published a story about the difficult ethical issues posed by the biotechnology revolution. We also asked for readers’ views on the following questions:
* Should life forms, including but not limited to animals and plants that are genetically altered, be patentable?
* Should a person who has a genetic defect be allowed to undergo a procedure to remove the defect? Should the person be allowed to undergo a procedure to ensure that the defect will not be passed on?
* Should scientists be allowed to conduct research that might result in altering or improving characteristics of the human species?
* Should scientists be allowed to conduct research that would enable parents to create “designer children” by specifying genetic characteristics?
* Should insurance companies and employers have access to information on a person’s genetic makeup to help determine the risk of medical problems?
* Should the United States pressure developing countries to adopt U.S.-style property rights laws so that seeds and drugs developed through genetic engineering are protected--even if widespread use of those products would vastly reduce hunger and disease?
Nearly all of the respondents agreed that people should be allowed to fix genetic defects in themselves or their offspring, and nearly all opposed permitting insurance companies and employers access to genetic information. On the other questions, responses were very much mixed, with a number of people offering support even for the creation of designer children and others opposing most types of research. This is a selection of the responses:
*
Something to make life more livable is moral. I say yes to all the posed questions. It gets “iffy” with employment and insurance, but a small price to pay for the benefits reaped.
I am on Betaseron for multiple sclerosis. Thanks to biotechnology, my disease is in a holding pattern until something better comes along . . . through biotechnology. Am I biased? Yes! Do I want this for all people? Emphatically yes! I wish I had the power to convince the religious leaders how right-minded this approach is.
BARBARA BUFFINGTON
La Crescenta
*
The proper title for the article should have been “The Non-Ethics of Biotech.”
The biotechnology industry has chosen this most delicate field to be just another business. The ability to alter life forms and to possibly create new life forms should at the least be very rigidly controlled, and probably should be totally banned until a reasonable ethical background has been developed.
Biotech is anxious to patent animals and plants because they see commercial value. Is it best for a pig to have no feet and just lie around and eat and get fat for slaughter? Well, they might just see that as a beneficial characteristic or alteration. I am too frightened of the possibilities to give scientists a free hand.
No, the many examples of poor scientific judgment or faulty reasoning prevent us from giving scientists approval for these genetic alterations. No, scientists should not be conducting research that might result in improving characteristics of the human species. Who defines improving characteristics ? Is it being white? Being tall? Being IQ-intelligent?
If the same number of years that were devoted to genetic engineering were devoted to genetic ethical considerations, then we might have a chance for change that is acceptable.
PHILIP GLASER
Laguna Niguel
*
If God created human beings, he obviously made some bad mistakes. Possibly worst of all, judging from events going back to time immemorial, God created a monster who continually indulges in violence and war.
Happily, I believe that God has given us the potential to work this miracle through biotechnology. Soon we will be able to modify our genetic heritage to become peaceful and constructive. This is just one of the many wonderful “miracles” soon to be possible through biotechnology.
All these advances are terribly upsetting to the naysayers and scaremongers. Despite the doubters, it is our “sacred” duty to make sure that we use science for the better: We must use it to promote human welfare. We have no right to retreat into a dark age of denial, resisting progress toward a much better world.
QUENTIN C. STODOLA
Redondo Beach
*
If you have a genetic defect, it’s your choice whether to alter your own genes or not. If you want to improve the genes of your offspring, it ought to be the parents’ choice.
Like all industrial inventions, the inventor should be able to protect their hard work as is done in hardware or software.
Why should genetic makeup be any more of a secret for risk assessment and management than what is in your blood?
Why would anyone be content with human genes or any other life form’s genes the way they are? It is clear great advances can be made through genetic research and design. If someone is too timid to face the future, they should stand off to the side and not get in the way.
JOHN MARCUS
Los Angeles
*
Jackbooted thugs plus white-aproned thugs makes me very uneasy.
VIJAY MALANI
Buena Park
*
Life forms should absolutely not be patentable. Scientists should definitely not be permitted to research or change the genetic makeup of human beings. They are not the creators of man--only God has that right. Biotechnology is moving in a highly unethical and immoral direction.
ANNE VANDERLIP
Palos Verdes Peninsula
