OPINION & EDITORIAL
Moral boundaries needed in research
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Wasim Salman:
- Humanity must prevail in Gaza (January 30, 2008)
- Suicide bombing inherently ineffective, not representative of Islam (December 13, 2007)
- Hamas must be part of discussion (November 30, 2007)
- Madison's history proud, not for sale (November 15, 2007)
- Graffiti speaks to urban condition (November 2, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Cures not simple (October 14, 2004)
- An epic milestone (November 27, 2007)
- Amended bill to hurt stem-cell research (April 22, 2005)
- Stem-cell research should receive funding (August 8, 2006)
- Green exploits scientific debate (September 7, 2006)
by Wasim Salman
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Recently, scientists at Newcastle University in England created a three-parent embryo using the DNA of one man and two women. This is the latest step in embryonic research programs that hope to cure hereditary, chronic or degenerative diseases.
This most recent success in the U.K. follows a plan declared in 2006 by Newcastle University to create hybrid “cow-human” embryos in hopes of furthering stem-cell research. Such developments in the field of genetics and embryonic research have polarized opinions of scientific morality.
For those who support such programs, this sort of progress is usually seen as only good. The argument follows that if this type of research is going to lead to the curing of hereditary, chronic or degenerative disease, then it is going to save many lives and can therefore only be good.
Also, the tenacity of development has thus far been checked by governmental regulations both in the U.S. and in the U.K. For instance, Newcastle’s “cow-human” embryo project must be authorized by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority before receiving a three-year license. Now that guidelines exist, we do not have a case of rogue science on our hands.
For those who do not support such programs, the argument follows that this is in fact an immoral, slippery slope that will lead to a world of designer babies and man playing God. The religious right has long expressed this view across the world. The idea is that man is attempting to play God and is not, in fact, searching for cures, but rather seeing how far the limits of science can be pushed. This view, by its very nature, presupposes that government regulations currently in place are not enough to check such “immoral science.”
I believe the proper view lies somewhere in between these two. The first question that must be asked is: Are current governmental regulations enough? Probably not; however, it is important to note that we are on the threshold of a new field, a new technology. Because of this, we cannot be quick to condemn the current standards without allowing them to advance with the field. Take, for example, the creation of the automobile and traffic law, or the Internet and copyright law. New regulations and enforcement appear as research and development progress.
The second question, then, is the bigger one: Is such research actually moral or immoral? I do not believe this can be determined currently. If people condemn it as immoral, yet in the near future it cures some terrible diseases and saves lives, they would be wrong. However, if others see such research as only moral and it, in fact, does lead to a future where couples can choose what they want their babies to look like or a world where human clones are created and harvested for organs, then they would be wrong, too.
The question of morality can only be answered on a case-by-case basis. With every step forward we can only ask ourselves: Is this leading us toward the best or the worst of our future?
We cannot be quick to judge something we do not understand, yet we have to be patient, and we have to remember that with every step forward in both research and judgment, we hold many lives in our hands.
Wasim Salman (salman@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in international relations.
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 12:29pm):
The Judeo-Christian tradition says that we were created in His image. To me, that sounds like we were given the keys to the car. "Playing God" is always attached to negative ideas, but it's our duty.
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 1:06pm):
I can think of few things less relevant than this.
Anonymous (February 13, 2008 @ 4:19pm):
This technology, as stated, is merely pushing the limits of what we as humans can do. Initially, i believe the intentions of this technology were in a sense, good, as we seeked to improve the lives of those suffering or doomed to suffer from serious diseases. Yet there comes a point where our intentions become less defined, and potentially, immoral. Evidently, this point has been reached.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
