User:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 3/Truth/Gene Editing

International Interdisciplinary Observatory on Gene Editing (Opinions)

Philosophy and Biology Approach
In order to contribute properly at the observatory of gene editing, first I have to question the morality of this principle. Therefore, my philosophical knowledge helps me analyse if the observatory in the matter is the right thing to do. As the philosopher Nietzsche said: "what is useful has always been defined as good, therefor usefulness is goodness as value" and "the value or the non-value of an action was derived from its consequences, if the experiment has a major contribution to humankind and it will help our future development, the question of morality is explained. On the other hand, this increase of technology can not only harm our world, but destroy it because of the new gene editing technique we do not yet master. Another discipline I can contribute with is human anatomy and physiology. My knowledge of cell development and molecular biology help me understand the basic principles of gene editing and not only apply them, but also perfect them in order to improve the observatories results. The truth in biology is actually that there is no truth. Although there is no denying that science is the best procedure yet discovered for exposing fundamental truths about the world, is being sustained by the evolution of ideas, as every new discovery becomes are now truth. Science springs from humanity and exercises it in all its endeavours. Truth invariably prevails in science even though the road to it is not always straight. Furthermore, every culture shapes its own truth, basically shaping its own reality and perspective on the natural sciences. The truth in philosophy has a totally different approach, as philosophy itself is the discipline that studies truth from different perspectives. In this case, we analyse truth by reviewing philosophers concepts about this abstract subject and develop our own personal conclusions. Philosophers have long wondered whether we really know the truth, but few really ask whether we should to know it all. What value does true adds to believed? Nietzsche says: "Here. I touch on my problem, on our problem, my unknown friends...in us the will to truth becomes conscious of itself as a problem." Will both truths combine harmoniously together and work in a dynamic way? Yes. As philosophers study every aspect of life, biology is part of them. There is one condition in order for the two to work together without any inconvenient. The lead scientist of the experiment has to be cognising of the moral dilemma between cloning people and helping the human race. For example, if the person considers that only God can change the world, then the truths can't work together, as "gene editing" is breaking the human nature rules.

Environmental Science Approach
The impact of gene editing on the environment and its ecosystems is a topic that must be considered before implementing such techniques in the real world. As gene editing has a potential of completely changing the ecosystem and environment, looking at gene editing from the point of view of environmental science can reveal more truths of its potentially large impacts.

For example, there has been a success in the effort to eliminate the population of malaria-carrying mosquitoes through the use of gene editing. The female mosquitoes carrying the edited genome wouldn’t be able to reproduce or suck human blood, while its male counterpart will develop normally and pass on the edited genome until eventually, the whole population goes extinct. This new discovery in the field of gene editing seems entirely beneficial as it eliminates the threat of malaria, which is known to be the most deadly disease in the world. However, using the basic truths of environmental sciences, further implications of the study can be revealed.

The first truth in environmental sciences is the idea of the interconnectedness of the various aspects that make up our environment. This represents itself, for example, in the idea of ecosystems. Each species in the ecosystem has its role, and the altering of one species can have a potentially disastrous effect on both the other animals in the ecosystem and on the environment in which it lives. This truth can be applied to see the effects of potentially removing the entire species of malaria bearing mosquitoes. They have the role of subduing other potentially harmful mosquitoes by occupying the most dominant position as well as serving as food for species of fish. Wiping out the mosquitoes can also wipe out or heavily alter the lives of the fish, thereby altering the ecosystem.

The truth that environmental science brings to the table can also be used to improve the function and lower the potentially disastrous effects of gene editing. By bringing to light such potential downsides to the idea, it can then be used to make sure to keep the ecosystem intact or approach the problem from a different angle.

Moral Philosophical and Social Equity Approach
Ethics and morals are often wrongly used interchangeably. Ethics actually refers to what is 'right' within the established laws and norms of a society, while Morals deals with what is 'right' within one's personal interpretation of actions. Thus, the argument that utiiity (or usefulness) is a measure of how 'good' an action is is an ethical justification but not a moral one.

Let us consider a hypothetical society with no legal constraints on the limit of gene editing, and sufficient technology to enable all gene editing conceivable. We can say with complete certainty that cancer is eradicated, malaria a thing of the past and sickle cell a distant memory. Utilitarians say that the morality of an action should be determined by the total amount of good it does; thus, gene editing is infallible. In this hypothetical world, there will again, without a doubt, be those who curate their unborn children to have blonde hair and blue eyes, have a zero percent chance of being born with dwarfism and other birth 'defects' and be naturally intelligent. A Deontologist would say that the morality of an action should be judged based on whether that action itself is right or wrong within a given set of rules, rather than on its consequences. Curating your unborn's child racial features to what you perceive as ideal would be today called supremacy - and thus, morally wrong under deontology, and while it is difficult to be a dwarf, this is ony the case because we live in a society that does not cater to them - not that the condition itself is hard. There are those who would argue that dwafrism is not a disease to be eradicated or defect, but just an anomaly. To these people, gene editing out dwarfism would be not only morally wrong, but offensive.

The problem with gene editing is wheere do we draw the line? And who gets to decide?

The social equity argument is simple: when gene editing is developed and eventually perfected, it will only be available to the those who can afford it i.e. the rich.Is it morally justified to deny anyone a life-saving procedure? Do we already do this anyway?

Theology/philosophy - is it within our power/right to actively take part in that which is divine? What gives a human any control over another?

Ethics/morals - what are the potential outcomes of this? (perhaps designer babies or the human race becoming more homogenous)

Immunology - drawing on the concept of 'systems' what if humans are made immune to some diseases through their DNA but instead another issue arises as an 'accidental' result of this? We could potentially wipe out the human race.

Cost - how expensive would this treatment be? And touching again on ethics and drawing into economics, would it be worth the cost? Are there other problems that take priority and are more easily solves? Why do we even need gene editing in the first place? What does it seek to resolve?

Scientific research - there are some disorders where we there is dispute over whether or not they're genetic - could this provide 'evidence'? Perhaps exploration of gene editing at different stages of development may enable us to come up with 'cures' for what are thought to be life-long disorders.

These questions arising from different disciplines cannot necessarily be answered easily and so the 'truths' are more difficult to understand.

Artistic Approach
As gene editing can be seen as an improvement of our life conditions, some people, including artists, perceive it as a threat to mankind and thus try to depict the fear they feel when they face this issue.

Released in 1997, Gattaca is an anticipation movie which depicts a world where gene editing has become mainstream and so widely used that people are afraid to have babies “naturally”. The movie describes a cloned society where only these perfect human beings have access to decent employment, and normal individuals who are not killed before their birth are less valued than clones because they are full of natural defects. The movie tries to make us understand that even if we are capable of producing genetically perfect individuals, they will not necessarily be better than their natural counterparts, and that in any case, by “playing the role of Nature”, we are finally going to lose our humanity.

Another way of feeling how gene editing is often seen as a threat is a cover of the Newsweek magazine published in 2004, which headline reads “Boy or girl, now you can choose, but should you, the new science of sex selection”. This document shows that technology and science have progressed so much that today, even the most natural aspect of life can be altered by progress. Science now allows to “manipulate” the natural process of having babies, allowing to choose the gender, getting rid of some imperfections, and selecting a few features, such as the color of the eyes, hair, body type, etc. Science clearly influences what used to be natural odds, and people are scared about it. Ethics and moral considerations are taken into account, and the magazine clearly shows it as it directly asks the reader "should you?".

The cartoon named Clones R Us, published in 2012, is an anticipation cartoon in which we can see an assembly line with 5 individuals on a speedwalk. 4 of them are strictly identical, tall and muscular, with perfect body features. The fifth one is much smaller and thinner, and the machine above them picks him up to eliminate him from the line. He is put in a crate for rejects. It can be considered as the genesis of a new era of eugenics. This cartoon can be considered as a warning: if in 2004 it was only possible to see basic commercial implications of cloning, in 10 years, preoccupations have considerably evolved: we are not excited anymore about choosing a baby’s eyes color, but we are scared that if technology keeps on evolving, it could constitute a threat to mankind; threat that would result in a uniform society, where difference would be seen as bad, and thus eliminated.

Through these three examples we can see how artists, in various artistic disciplines such as cinema or drawings, can scare people by sharing their pessimistic vision of gene editing and its future.

(Wikibooks didn't allow to add links to the previously cited documents)

 Social, environmental and moral approach

The truth on social sciences resides in empirical evidence, acquired by the observation of facts. From this perspective, we can see gene editing has a positive impact on people’s welfare in everyday life. The greatest contribution of gene’s editing to civilisation might be our modern food production system. It is one of the main enablers of the industrialisation of agriculture and livestock farming. Besides it made possible to nourish adequately the increasing population it could prevent famine, a major issue through human history.

However, natural science to which is often attributed the monopoly of truth because of its proceeding method, has provided us key information to criticise gene editing. From theory of evolution we know species have specific reasons to be the way they are, including diversity. But gene editing modifies the natural characteristics destroying the diversity within the specie and exposing it to extinction. Moreover, this practice is one of the main factors that originated the industrialisation of food production, a major cause of the sixth extinction wave.

From a relativist perspective we can see that all the damage caused to the environment is due to a specific use of gene editing. In medicine, as an example of adequate use of progress, gene editing in human beings has transcendent perspectives. It could make possible immunotherapy, an advanced treatment for cancer, as well as the cure for other genetic diseases. Therefore, the moral issue concerning this scientific practice is more about the use we give it than gene editing itself.