Home › For Citizens › Issue Guides: Medical Research › Consider the Choices

ISSUE GUIDES: Medical Research

CONSIDER THE CHOICES

 

PERSPECTIVES IN BRIEF

Scientists should be free to pursue genetic research
Treat the sick, but dont change our genetic future
Leave humans as God and nature created them

Science thrives - and humanity benefits - when researchers are free to pursue knowledge and follow the trail of its discoveries, wherever they may lead. Prohibiting research into areas such as cloning and genetic alteration may allay the public's fears, but could also cut off progress that would benefit millions. It's immoral to block research that could improve so many lives. Besides, who gets to decide what knowledge is good and what is bad? Pursuing knowledge is a basic human freedom, and controlling knowledge is a favorite weapon of any tyrant. In reality, people will inevitably pursue new ideas, with or without government approval. Forcing such research underground or overseas is no answer. It is better for society to learn to handle new knowledge and its social implications than to try and outlaw it.
Scientists should learn how to treat diseases using stem cells and gene therapy. But they should never try to engineer the genes of future generations. Scientists can and should use new knowledge to treat individuals who have fallen ill, even by repairing an individual's genetic flaws. But letting any changes to the genetic code be passed on to future generations could have consequences that no one can even imagine. There's just no way to anticipate the kind of damage this might cause. Eliminating one genetic disease might leave our grandchildren vulnerable to another disorder, for example. Trying to make people taller, or smarter, or more beautiful could carry a similar risk. Genetic perfection is tempting, but it's just too dangerous to attempt.
Human life is sacred and should not be treated as just another laboratory in which to conduct experiments. By manipulating genes, we will be playing God and attempting to circumvent the laws of nature that govern creation. Stem cell research sounds harmless, but taking cells from human embryos is an unacceptable sacrifice of potential life to save another. For better or worse, humans are created with a set of genes that have evolved over hundreds of generations. Even our imperfections may have a purpose. If science gives us the ability to cure people who carry different genetic traits, eugenics is one short step away. Who decides what's a bad gene that must be fixed? Do we want to breed human beings like we breed cattle?

PERSPECTIVES IN DETAIL

Scientists should be free to pursue genetic research
Treat the sick, but dont change our genetic future
Leave humans as God and nature created them


What should be done?

  • Lift bans on federal funding for embryo research, including stem cells and fertility problems.
  • Allow scientists to conduct research into correcting defective genes that cause disease, especially in cases where a fatal gene flaw could be inherited by the next generation.
  • Repeal bans on cloning
  • Encourage wider use of genetic screening
  • Enact privacy rules controlling the release of genetic test results to employers or insurance companies
  • Ensure that public health agencies have access to information about the collective health of their citizens.
  • Explore the prospects of gene therapy to treat disease, but ban genetic changes that can be passed to offspring
  • Regulate cloning of human cells and organs for gene therapy, but ban cloning of entire people
  • Allow federal funding of stem cell research
  • Ban discrimination on the basis of genetic profiles
  • Require insurance companies to cover genetic screening and treatment
  • Ban all forms of human cloning
  • Ban federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and discourage it in the private sector
  • Focus on improving existing infertility treatments, such as in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination, and promote adoption as an alternative.
  • Limit genetic testing to cases where doctors can actually offer treatment, and keep test results strictly confidential


    • Arguments For This Approach

  • Scientific discovery and knowledge cannot simply be banned; someone will inevitably move forward on these fronts.
  • Banning cloning would create a dangerous precedent because it would mark the first time an entire medical research field has been prohibited. In the U.S., government restrictions against scientific methods have only been upheld to protect the rights of others, such as allowing informed consent.
  • Many scientific discoveries have been made inadvertently. By probing genetics to its full extent, we might make important advances that might otherwise have never been known.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court has held that procreation is a basic civil right. Cloning is just another reproductive tool, and the 15 percent of Americans who are infertile should not be denied the right to procreate.
  • Genetic testing is no different from other medical information insurance companies already access. Wider use of screenings could in fact help lower premiums for many people if they test negative for certain diseases, as premiums would be based on levels of risk not on the law of averages, as they are now.
  • We ought to explore every promising avenue to treat the sick people in this world, but we would be arrogant to assume we can try to control nature without some consequence.
  • We simply don't know enough about how genetics and nature work to be able to assess the risk and make informed decisions.
  • Cloning on a large scale would reduce biological diversity, potentially endangering humankind. The smaller the gene pool the likelier we are to be genetically susceptible to a new disease or strain.
  • Human cloning is simply too risky to attempt. Fewer than 3 percent of all animal cloning attempts succeed, and even those who come to term are stillborn, have severe deformities or die within a week.
  • Human evolution could come to a halt because without sexual reproduction genes would not mutate through the generations.
  • The ramifications of medical technology, no matter how well intended, can turn dark. In the early 20th century, 30 states enacted laws to protect children from possibly being born with physical or mental retardation, leading to the forced sterilization of certain U.S. citizens.
  • Some parents are already trying to select their children's traits using existing fertility technology, which shows the potential for misuse.
  • While stem cells hold great potential in medicine, they should be taken from adult tissue, not embryos, because it's unjustifiable to snuff out one potential life to try and help another.
  • Screening people for genetic markers of disease when there is no treatment available is cruel, potentially discriminatory and will create a fatalistic attitude toward life.
  • Each human is unique, but the concept behind genetic manipulation is that some of what makes us unique needs fixing. And cloning would create humans with confused identities and no sense of individuality.
  • We allowed physicists in the 1940s to go ahead with their scientific discoveries on the atom. Haven't we learned our lesson already about unintended consequences?


    • Arguments Against This Approach

  • Because the cost of genetic manipulation is exorbitant, we could end up with deeper social divisions, based not just on money, but biology as well.
  • Widespread genetic testing could lead to some people being excluded from life or health insurance plans, or subject to high rates simply because they carry a certain gene.
  • Animal cloning is highly experimental; some are born severely deformed and die within a week. Its immoral to take those kinds of risks on humans for the sake of experimentation.
  • The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has said that cloning as a treatment for infertility does not currently meet the standards of ethical acceptability because too much about it is unknown.
  • Banning genetic experimentation will simply drive science underground where there will be fewer safeguards and less oversight, leading to potentially more dangerous results than if the research were conducted out in the open.
  • We shouldn't regulate science because of fear. Hypothetical what ifs aren't enough reason to stop scientific progress.
  • Cloning technology is no more dangerous than other fertility technology; in fact, it may be safer. To get Dolly, all 29 embryos were implanted into 13 sheep (about 2 per sheep). The success rate of one healthy offspring per 13 sheep is better than the early in vitro fertilization rates.
  • If we can eliminate diseases like hemophilia in future generations, don't we have a moral obligation to do so?
  • There's nothing wrong with genetically alike people, and in fact, identical twins are more genetically alike than clones.
  • Barring genetic and stem cell research may unwittingly halt scientific progression that could lead to life-saving and life-enhancing treatments.
  • The U.S. has a strong history of reproductive rights, where government does not interfere with people's freedom to become parents. Prospective parents, and their doctors, have almost always been the ones who decided how much risk is acceptable, not the government.
  • It's immoral not to try and ease human suffering if we have the opportunity to do so.
  • Banning scientific discovery is tantamount to endorsing ignorance as a matter of public policy.


    • QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: HOW THE PERSPECTIVES DIFFER

    Scientists should be free to pursue genetic research
    Treat the sick, but dont change our genetic future
    Leave humans as God and nature created them

    Q: What would this mean for infertile couples?
    A:
    Procreation is a human right that should be granted to everyone, especially infertile couples. Genetic technologies are reproductive tools, simply another means to help more infertile couples conceive.
    A:
    Infertility is a disease and should be treated as such. Medicine should continue to explore causes of infertility, including genetic causes.
    A:
    Infertility is an unfortunate cruelty of nature, but that doesn't mean couples can't become parents via a wide range of options--in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination or adoption--that don’t require genetic manipulation.


    Q: What is the role of the federal government?
    A:
    The government's central concern is with advancing human knowledge and medicine to their furthest reaches.
    A:
    Government officials are most concerned with balancing the need to treat sick people through emerging technology with their responsibility to future generations.
    A:
    Government has a mandate to protect the weak, including the tiniest life forms and its citizens who would be subject to genetic alteration. It must also protect nature as it was intended.


    Q: What does this mean for stem cell research?
    A:
    Researchers should have unfettered access to study stem cells. Humanity can't advance unless scientists are free to pursue knowledge.
    A:
    Stem cell research must continue because stem cells hold untold promise for healing people with debilitating illnesses, such as diabetes and Parkinson's.
    A:
    The problem is not with stem cells themselves, but where they come from. Research should be done on stem cells harvested from adult tissue. But public money should not be used to research stem cells that come from embryos because the process destroys the embryos.


    Q: Should I be allowed to choose my children's traits?
    A:
    Supporters of this philosophy believe there shouldn't be any obstacles to developing medical technology, and people are free to use the new knowledge as they choose.
    A:
    It depends on whether the chosen traits have the potential to be passed on to the child's future offspring, which could cause unforeseen problems in the future.
    A:
    No, it's immoral to use technology to circumvent nature and create "designer babies," especially when the selection has nothing to do with the health of the child.