Genetic engineering and adjacent fields have opened countless possibilities for scientists to, essentially, play God: from changing future generations of entire species to fixing genetic defects in humans to potentially be able to create new life from scratch. But what does the future hold? Well, most importantly, it holds a lot of questions to be answered. In fact, the future of genetic sciences is less of a scientific question and more of an ethical, economic and political one.
Biologist Normal Borlaug, who has been called “The Father of the Green Revolution” and who is essentially responsible for saving millions of lives from famine thanks to his spearheading of GMO crops, capable of growing here organic counterparts failed was awarded a Nobel Prize for his contributions to the development of mankind. In his Nobel Lecture, given in 1970, he said:
It is a sad fact that on this earth at this late date there are still two worlds, "the privileged world" and "the forgotten world". The privileged world consists of the affluent, developed nations, comprising twenty-five to thirty percent of the world population, in which most of the people live in a luxury never before experienced by man outside the Garden of Eden. The forgotten world is made up primarily of the developing nations, where most of the people, comprising more than fifty percent of the total world population, live in poverty, with hunger as a constant companion and fear of famine a continual menace.
He has outlined a grim, yet accurate picture. Although he talked most about food sources, the implication is bigger than that. The rich are the ones who can afford new technology – they are the ones that drive science by financing research they feel they need. Matthew Booker, Associate Professor at North Carolina State University, notes the dual nature of genetic sciences which aim to improve our lives:
There's also a very strong and interesting argument within ethics that humanity should use these tools, because they are tools which can reduce suffering. If we know that a child is going to develop a rare genetic disease, then isn't it morally reprehensible, isn't it wrong to allow the child to grow up to die? My biggest concern as a historian is the ethics, the fairness, the equity of these tools. Who gets to have access to them?
Ethical questions are often resolved slower than scientific conundrums – that's just the way our society works. Professor Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University highlights that science will keep pushing forward.
We'll continue. There's never been a period when we stopped science or at least those efforts to stop science had never really succeeded. Genetic testing is going to grow… The idea of taking each person's immune system and building antibodies so that they can target a tumor is very much part of the research agenda now.
So there you have it. Science without a moral compass is not something we would want happening – just remember World War II. On the other hand, both science and ethics go hand in hand when it comes to the development of the human society – and both influence each other. Although one could ask the question: what would happen if science was not bound by ethics – but it's best left unanswered.
So there you have it. Science without a moral compass is not something we would want happening – just remember World War II. On the other hand, both science and ethics go hand in hand when it comes to the development of the human society – and both influence each other. Although one could ask the question: what would happen if science was not bound by ethics – but it's best left unanswered.
