Difference between revisions of "Team:HebrewU/Ethics"

How does atheist movement see Genetic Engineering in general?

The majority of Atheists see themselves as part of the Enlightenment movement and the scientific revolution. The movement is in favor of any type of technological development (and genetic engineering in particular) that will benefit humanity. That being said, like many other technologies genetic engineering has the potential to give rise to harmful results and should be developed carefully.

Don't you think that advocating for any type of technological advancement can, in potential, lead humanity to catastrophe?

It is tempting to see my approach in that way, but I think it is too pessimistic. For example, in relation to the use of atomic bombs, humanity managed to stop the development in that direction. In modern times, humanity even represses technology too much, like in the context of nuclear energy. I think genetic engineering technology could potentially cause damage, both inherently and due to its high costs [which e.g. promote the formation of monopolies]. Still, I think the benefits that we can attain with this type of technology are plentiful. I further think that if we decide to stop developing this technology, someone else will do it in a way that would be less careful. That's why our society should still engage with this technology in a careful way.

What potential downsides do you see as a byproduct of the development of genetic engineering?

The use of one good crop with specific genetic attributes can be devastating when it is found to be sensitive to a certain disease or specific pests [GMOs could hurt biodiversity in food crops]. Also, being expensive to properly develop, it can foster the rise of giant monopolies in the food industry, which I oppose.

Do you support the use of genetic engineering for the production of food and medicine and for solving environmental issues?

Yes. However, In each of the fields that you mentioned, there are different safety guidelines that should lead us through the development of new applications for the technology. For example, in agriculture, we should pay attention to the fact that some solution could give rise to ecological issues, such as the [unintended] dispersal of genetically engineered plants. We should test these kinds of solutions with great scrutiny, and take into account the unexpected consequences of these proposed solutions before rolling them out.

As for medicine, there are well-documented regulations concerning approval of treatments. It becomes more complex when considering the idea of trans-humanism. Hypothetically speaking [beyond medicine], genetic improvements of human capabilities of specific [economic] classes could lead to significant social stratification.

How do you think our society should regulate the use of this technology?

It's important to teach those who are engaged in synthetic biology topics like ethics and ecology in order to create a diverse cohort of experts. These experts can then offer informed opinions when we deal with the issue as a society. To further good regulation, we must also have biologists that can shed light on public misconceptions. When creating regulations, we should seek a balance between effectiveness [of regulation] and development [of the technology] so we don't hinder the progress in the field. A too-strict regulation would cause the development to be done elsewhere, while a too-lax or inefficient regulation will be ineffective in preventing harm.

Can we begin with a short introduction to Buddhist morality, to give a framework for the dilemmas we will speak about?

The thing about the dharma is that it is very situational. We can have rules of thumb, but we always look at the particular circumstance and conditions. This is not unique to the dharma, but what is unique is that don’t really have a code of ethic rule for social justice. We have ethical rule for the monks, but not for the social system in the early scriptures.

So how can we look through this lens at the realm of biological research and genetic engineering?

I think ethical question is a utilitarian one, what is the benefit and what are the risks? There is a system of values that we take into account[…] so one of the leading principals is human dignity. In western society, we are much more careful about interfering with human beings than we are with other creatures, for example there is the issue of experimentation on animals.

How do you see the issue animal experimentation with in the utilitarian view? Obviously as a Buddhist I feel empathy for living creatures, including for instance a mouse in a lab, so how does this fit into developing medicine, which can reduce overall suffering?

So one issue is that when we weigh the benefits, we are looking at the goals, what we hope to find- to discover. Here already, there are legitimate goals and illegitimate goals; in dharma language I would say proper or improper, skillful or unskillful. For example, the purpose of the research should not be destruction, it should not be to personal power or personal gain. I think there is also a huge distinction to be made between commercial goals and social goals… Its not only about what you do, but what are your intentions.

So in your eyes, or Buddhist eyes what do these moral questions boil down to?

The first question is what is the motivation? Why are you doing this? Secondly, what do you expect the product to be- that is the potential benefit. Then we must restrain yourself and consider how this is going to affect others? What are the risks? Among other things you ask how you can reduce the risks, not only the long term risks but how do you get there, so the design is to minimize harm. A question of equal importance is who is at risk vs who might benefit?

So if we look at for instance, the possible reality of being able to grow human organs in other mammals, how should we proceed with that venture from an ethical stand point?

That was what stem cell research was about. Stem cell research was about the fantasy (beyond) that we could develop lines of cell, but the idea was that we could actually grow a kidney, so we would not need a donation[…] I think that kidney donation is a beautiful act of altruism, really extraordinary. I also personally feel that my life is not that important. There is the option to say I’ve lived my life. I have taken advantage the modern medicine has to offer, we cannot solve everything- we are mortal. We die for different reasons and circumstances. I personally think I would prefer to die I think I would say no. I don’t know… I think that the principle of “do no harm” from a Buddhist world view the same way that I wouldn’t likely kill a mosquito or other animals, I think I would personally not do it. I don’t know what harm it does to the animal.

If we look at it through the lens of the ethical questions you were proposing before we can begin to make deductions of what should be ok and not.

It does raise the issue of our attitude to other forms of life on the planet and our superiority complex. I think there is an attitude of dominion over animals and I think that that is a misguided attitude, I think we should be much more respectful of the other forms of life and the same way that we don’t exploit other human beings, I don’t think we need to (grow organs in other animals). I think are other ways, there must be better ways of answering our needs then enslaving animals.

So I agree and for instance don’t take part in factory farming, but is the benefit of saving a life as opposed to eating a steak is greater, so is it worth it?

I’m not saying that saving lives is not important. But saving lives has become this sacred goal that justifies everything, I am one in 7 billion, yes, my life is important and unique but its one of 7 billion. No there are no absolute values what is the price for saving this life what are the alternatives? We have alternatives it all this dependence on technology and we think the medicalization is so great that were no ever given the opportunity to actively die at the end of our lives. To actually experience the dying process we are constantly being told try this and try that, and we don’t get to experience the process of dying. We think that death is a moment- a split second- but dying is an active process we are part of an unfolding process. The medicalization of death wants to conquer death and it denies death a denial and silencing of death but its actually a natural process that we can experience if we allow ourselves to- which is more of a spiritual decision than an ethical one.

How should we a society regulate the use of the emerging technologies?

There is always an element of uncertainty. I think the hubris of the scientific community which, is reflective of the postmodern mind, is that we can control our lives. I think it is a hubris of science, though not everyone is drunken with this hubris, but I think it is important to understand that whatever we do, we think we can control all things we really don’t know what is going to happen, so you always have to take into account that element of not knowing which is a very Buddhist outlook.