Ethics and genetics. A quick view
| Autor | Josep Santaló |
| Cargo | Unitat de Biologia Cel·lular, Facultat de Ciències, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. |
| Páginas | 40-45 |
Page 40
There are some general aspects to be considered when talking about the ethics related to Biotechnology; concerns that can be argued to almost all the biotechnological procedures we will discuss later. These ethical aspects are: availability and the caution principle (also referred to as the slippery-slope principle).
In general, Biotechnology is a high technology field, so it is time consuming and expensive, making it available only to well developed countries or to economically powerful people. These economical implications produce a drift in the way Biotechnology evolves, often leaving some interesting research apart due to profitable criteria instead of general well-being ones. Such is the case of the research on malaria vaccine or the development of transgenic rice producing vitamin A precursors (golden rice). Therefore we have to be aware that although distributive justice applied to Biotechnology is generally accepted, it is not always exerted.
Although caution principle could be applied to any new technology, it has been especially invoked in Biotechnology.
Caution principle states that no new technology should be used (or even developed) until enough guaranties that it is harmless are obtained. This principle, although sound, can impair scientific progress if applied to its extreme. Most technologies have dual aspects and misuse of them towards undue or perverse objectives should not impair their development. Emmanuel Kant (1784) already consecrated the necessity of scientific improvement in its essay "Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment " when he wrote "An epoch cannot avert or commit itself to put the following one in a situation that will be impossible to expand its skills (in particular those of maximum urgency), purify them of errors and, in general, further progress in the Enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature, the
Page 41
original destination of which lies precisely in this progress ..." meaning that, since present knowledge and technologies are based on the knowledge developed by precedent generations of scientists while present science becomes the groundwork of future knowledge; banning some research can cause delays and undesired effects on future generations. For instance, transgenic technology or somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning) in humans have evolved much more slowly due to this prevention.
Therefore it seems clear that, although not everything that can be done should actually be done, invoking the caution principle may impair the development of new technologies that might offer better live conditions to future human generations. Seeking a balance between advantages and risks (proportionality principle) seems to be the soundest approach to this apparent conflict.
Referring to humans, Biotechnology offers the possibility of developing personalized medicine (pharmacogenomics, toxicogenomics) which provides genetic information of the individuals. The use of this information can be done by the same individual (self genetic information) or by others.
In general, the ethical aspects of using self genetic information are envisaged as less relevant because it is assumed that having this information can be regarded as a right to be exerted by persons. The main questions to determine are to which extend people have the right to achieve this self-knowledge, a knowledge that is expensive and difficult to be obtained (at least at present), and who should assume the cost of providing this information. Availability is thus the key point to be addressed in this topic.
Although knowledge (and especially self knowledge) is generally viewed as something positive it can also have negative aspects thus arising the right of not knowing. This situation appears when the person is at risk of suffering a genetic disease for which no cure is available. Under this situation, revealing the information without an appropriate consent should be considered as ethically unacceptable.
By contrast, it is generally accepted that the use of personal genetic information by third parties (other persons, companies or institutions) has important ethical and social implications. Ethical concerns in this field are mainly derived either from its commercial use (exchanging personal genetic data between companies) or from discrimination exerted due to this knowledge (for instance people losing their jobs because a genetic predisposition to some kind of cancers or paying extra fares to insurance companies for the same reason). All these preventions are pondered at Article 10 on Private life and right to information of the Oviedo’s Convention (Council of Europe, Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, 1997).
Finally, some people fear that getting genetic information specific for some human populations may recover old concepts such as human race, thus acting as an intellectual support to new forms of racism.
Genetic engineering refers to the modification of the genetic characteristics of species other than humans (either bacteria, plants or animals; generically referred to as GMO -genetically modified organisms- or transgenics) to adapt them to the interest of human beings. In fact, it can be considered as a sophisticated form of domestication having the advantage of being faster and more straightforward. However, concerns have appeared related to the use of this technology. Ethical concerns are mainly related to the general aspects already mentioned such as availability and, especially, the caution principle.
While a direct influence of transgenic technologies on the human health has been almost discarded, the caution principle has been mainly invoked because the threat GMOs may represent to environment. Although this is a long debate in which scientists and...
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba