August 6, 2009
UNIT 1: Introducing BiologyWhen Knowledge and Ethics Collide
Scientists can change an organism’s genes. Should they?
Our ability to change living things grows as we learn more about life. But sometimes biotechnology makes us question whether we should change organisms just because we can. Maybe the technology is dangerous or maybe it challenges our values. Consider the greenish pig in the photo. A gene from a fluorescent jellyfish was added to its genome by genetic engineering. Genetic engineering holds great promise for medicine. But how and when should we alter an organism’s genes?
What is Bioethics?
A short answer is that bioethics is the study of the moral questions that are raised as a result of biology research and its applications. But what do questions of ethics have to do with biology? It might seem better to leave questions about values in a philosophy or social studies class. However, today’s cutting-edge research often prompts discussions about some of our most basic values. In the end, you might find that biology class is the best place to consider any number of ethical questions.
Ethical questions require all of us to make decisions about "the right thing to do." Often, the right thing to do is very clear. The decision benefits ourselves, our families, and our society, and it follows the accepted values of society. However, many times a decision about an ethical issue is not so obvious. It is in these cases when strong feelings on different sides of an ethical question can produce conflicts—in ourselves, our families, and our society. Can we rely upon biology, or any other scientific field, for our decisions?
For better or for worse, science can only provide us with information. The knowledge that comes from scientific research is very useful, and often necessary, in helping people arrive at decisions, but science only provides part of the answer to ethical questions. All of the advances in science have given us the ability to do many wondrous things. But bioethics asks us to question whether we should actually do all of those things.
We can add new genes to an organism’s DNA. We can clone animals. We can extend human life expectancies. We can test people for genetic diseases. But should we, as a society, do all of these things? And who should decide whether we use all of our technological advances? Should these decisions be left to researchers? to universities? to corporations? Should the government make laws to cover bioethical issues? In the end, any decision based on a bioethical question will likely come down to a combination of scientific knowledge, personal values, and law.
Bioethics and Society
Many bioethics issues place an individual’s right to privacy against the right of a company to conduct business, against the need of a community to have access to health information, or against the need of scientists to share research. In March of 2000, for example, Iceland’s government sold the genetic and medical records of its 275,000 citizens to a Swiss drug manufacturer for $200 million. The money helped Iceland’s economy, and any medications or tests for genetic diseases that result from the medical records will be provided for free to all Icelanders.
However, the government’s actions could also be considered to be very troubling. Even though the citizens were given the option to not be included in the database, were the Icelanders’ rights to privacy over their genetic records violated? Does anyone other than the individual have the right to be given access to this very personal information?
Health insurance applicants are screened for preexisting conditions, such as HIV. If a condition is found, companies might offer insurance to a person at a higher cost. Should insurance companies be allowed to do genetic screening to detect whether people have genes that might increase their risk of developing cancer or alcoholism? If not, should healthy people have to pay more to make up for higher costs the company has to pay for people who refuse to be screened? From the company’s point of view, its responsibility is to make a profit for its shareholders. With genetic testing, the company can protect itself from potentially large costs. As you can see, a company’s policy based on its ethics may differ from what others see as ethical.
Science alone cannot answer bioethics questions. When these questions arise, we all need to weigh the issues for ourselves. As biotechnology continues to advance, you will face new bioethics questions throughout your lifetime. Will you be ready?
Questions to Consider
- Should scientists do all of the things that technology has made it possible for them to do?
- Who should decide how biotechnology is used?
- Should scientific knowledge and personal beliefs play equal or unequal roles in decisions about biotechnology?
Updates: Straight from the Headlines
- Extra Embryos: Destroy or Donate to Research?
- A New Meaning to "Smart Dresser"
- The Ethics of Sequencing an Individual’s Genome
- Can You Tell A Bully By His Genes?
- Researchers Recommend Ethics Guidelines for Whole-Genome Research
Technology
Genetic Testing
Genetic testing is used in many ways. We can identify disease-causing genes, determine the guilt or innocence of crime suspects, and reunite families that have been separated. But should genetic testing be used by employers to make decisions about employees?
Suppose that a company secretly obtained and tested DNA samples from some of its employees. Because of rising medical insurance claims, the company wanted to know if the employees had a gene that increased their risk for developing a certain medical condition. Does this seem like a plot for a television show? It isn’t. In 2002, a company had to pay more than $2 million in damages for testing the DNA of employees without their knowledge.
Consider another case. In 2005 a basketball player named Eddy Curry missed the end of the season due to a potential heart problem. His team wanted to use a genetic test to find out if he had a life-threatening condition. Curry refused because the test results could have ended his career. The team refused to let him play. Both the team and Curry made choices. Who do you think was right?
Careers
Geneticist in Action
Dr. Charmaine Royal
Title: Professor, Pediatrics, Howard University
Education: Ph. D., Human Genetics, Howard University
Many bioethicists focus on the ethical implications of technology. Dr. Charmaine Royal, however, is concerned with the ethics of experimental design and the applications and implications of biological research. Dr. Royal, who is a geneticist at the Human Genome Center of Howard University, points out that some scientists in the past tried to use genetic research to justify treating non-Caucasians as inferior. She also notes that although there is no biological basis for any meaningful differences among races, many African- Americans are still suspicious of genetic research. Many, for example, have been discriminated against when an insurance company or a prospective employer finds out they have sickle cell anemia, which is a relatively common genetic disorder in African-Americans.
Dr. Royal, who is Jamaican, wants to ensure that African-Americans are included and treated fairly in research studies, and that they receive the benefits of genetic screening and genetic counseling. In 1998 Dr. Royal helped start the African-American Hereditary Prostate Cancer Study, the first large-scale genetic study of African-Americans to be designed and carried out by an almost entirely African-American research team.
Comments
Comment from: Charles J. Caboose
March 6, 2009 12:40 PM [#]
who are we to say we have rights? rights are imaginary and to the government, non-existent so there isn't a lot you can do about it.
Comment from: Caleb
September 5, 2009 02:09 PM [#]
I like green pigs..... to me, testing on animals and plants is fine as long as it remains that way and doesn't go as far as testing people.
Comment from: connor
September 30, 2009 03:19 PM [#]
i think it is wrong to change that genes because then they just look funny
Comment from: garrbear
October 1, 2009 05:26 PM [#]
i think that its booring:)
Comment from: garrbear
October 1, 2009 05:43 PM [#]
i think that scientist should decide on biotechnology because they know more than regular people and they should only because too many issues would occur if any one could look at it. Insurance companies would be able to see who is going to get what cancer then they would not let people get certain insurances. Also you would be altering the natural death cycle. Garrett Kazar
Comment from: Peter S.
October 1, 2009 07:02 PM [#]
I believe that scientists should work on trying to find ways to do anything that can result in helping people. Not everyone should have their records exposed to researchers however. Everyone participating should be volunteers and never forced to participate. If you do not believe in this, you don't have to participate.
Comment from: flobear
October 11, 2009 07:41 PM [#]
Im not quite sure if I agree with this article yet. there is too much to consider and I definately do not agree with testing that could harm animals and/or people. However, I found the article very interesting and enjoyed the comments;)
Comment from: kelsey
December 3, 2009 05:06 PM [#]
I loved the article. Yet it is an issue, however for us to live on this planet, will we need to become ruthless and the domiant class of species in the biodiversity of earth. Some people might not like it, even i dont, but the real question is how far will you go to save your lives and the lives of the next generation? nothing in this world is full proof, living is a double-edged sword, this is just another sharp bump that cuts societies fingers around the world. Thats what I got to say, Crow out!