Genetic Engineering

[Kia ora]

What if we had the ability to make a person faster, stronger, more beautiful or even simply make it so that none of us ever had to wear glasses again, using genetic engineering? How about if we could eliminate autism, deafness, cystic fibrosis, Down's syndrome and other such physical traits? Is this a sort of world you'd like to live in?

Edited January 16, 2012 by Kia ora

[Laudate_Dominum]

Why not? Assuming genetic modification can be carried out in a way that is ethical.

[Kia ora]

Presumably genetic engineering is going to be expensive. Only rich people will be able to afford it, at least at the start. So they'll get the advantages. Poor people won't. Won't employers prefer to hire someone who is 50% smarter (assuming intelligence has some genetic component) or stronger than baseline humans?

Maybe I've watched too many sci-fi movies.

[Papist]

It's that what Hitler tried to do?

[arfink]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1326815997' post='2370495']
It's that what Hitler tried to do?
[/quote]

Genetics and Eugenics are very different. The OP is thinking less of manipulating the gene pool through "family planning" or outright killing of undesirable gene groupings, like what Hitler did, and is instead asking if using artificial gene manipulation would be moral.

I don't have a full understanding of what it would take to make a human being with a specifically modified genome, but the most obvious path science sees for doing this actually is considered to be immoral by the Church. If you understand a little of how your genes work then you know that once you are conceived your genes cannot be altered without siginifcant risk of mutations, cancers, etc. AFAIK there is no known method of doing this safely to a living creature. The best way to do this, then, is to select the desired genes and then implant them into an egg, which would then be placed into a surrogate mother. This procedure is the one used in cloning.

Cloning humans is wrong. So is in-vitro fertilization, whether by male semen or by an artificial DNA sequence which immitates the normal mechanism. So is surrogate motherhood.

[Papist]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1326818484' post='2370513']
Genetics and Eugenics are very different. The OP is thinking less of manipulating the gene pool through "family planning" or outright killing of undesirable gene groupings, like what Hitler did, and is instead asking if using artificial gene manipulation would be moral.

I don't have a full understanding of what it would take to make a human being with a specifically modified genome, but the most obvious path science sees for doing this actually is considered to be immoral by the Church. If you understand a little of how your genes work then you know that once you are conceived your genes cannot be altered without siginifcant risk of mutations, cancers, etc. AFAIK there is no known method of doing this safely to a living creature. The best way to do this, then, is to select the desired genes and then implant them into an egg, which would then be placed into a surrogate mother. This procedure is the one used in cloning.

Cloning humans is wrong. So is in-vitro fertilization, whether by male semen or by an artificial DNA sequence which immitates the normal mechanism. So is surrogate motherhood.
[/quote]

Not the his means, but rather his ends that I was referring to. His goal was to achieve the most desired human being. The problem with that is who defines what is the desired criteria. Why is person A better than person B b/c A runs faster than B.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Papist

[arfink]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1326820693' post='2370520']
Not the his means, but rather his ends that I was referring to. His goal was to achieve the most desired human being. The problem with that is who defines what is the desired criteria. Why is person A better than person B b/c A runs faster than B.
[/quote]

Well, I'm not an expert philosopher, and I'm not going to concern myself with what could be, but what is. It's conceivably possible that eventually we'll be able to manipulate people's genes while they are alive, but as it stands right now we can't. Any gene manipulation we do with today's science will be precluded by Catholic morality.

Now, if we should come to the point where we can modify people's genes while they are alive then we'd have whole new questions to consider. Alot of this problem, IMO, has to do with how the technology will turn out. We can't make moral decisions about a problem that doesn't exist yet. I would think that very cheap, low-risk, accessible gene modification would probably be as acceptable as getting your hair cut or dyed, in itself. Of course, even in that case you'd have people doing dumb things for vanity's sake, just like they do now with hair, cosmetic surgeries, etc. BUT, gene modification is not there yet. Right now it implies high-risk, morally dubious procedures, mainly cloning.

[arfink]

As an added note of clarification, I would evision moral uses for non-cloning-based gene modification, just as there are legitimate uses for cosmetic surgery. Certain kinds of genetic conditions could finally be corrected, and I'm sure gene therapy would have a bazillion uses we can't even think of yet. If my reading on the subject is correct (Wikipedia), gene therapy already has a few successful applications, but they do not completely change your genetic makeup and are usually only temporary treatments, so making a superman with genetic manipulation won't be coming any time soon.

[Papist]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1326822069' post='2370525']
Well, I'm not an expert philosopher, and I'm not going to concern myself with what could be, but what is. It's conceivably possible that eventually we'll be able to manipulate people's genes while they are alive, but as it stands right now we can't. Any gene manipulation we do with today's science will be precluded by Catholic morality.

Now, if we should come to the point where we can modify people's genes while they are alive then we'd have whole new questions to consider. Alot of this problem, IMO, has to do with how the technology will turn out. We can't make moral decisions about a problem that doesn't exist yet. I would think that very cheap, low-risk, accessible gene modification would probably be as acceptable as getting your hair cut or dyed, in itself. Of course, even in that case you'd have people doing dumb things for vanity's sake, just like they do now with hair, cosmetic surgeries, etc. BUT, gene modification is not there yet. Right now it implies high-risk, morally dubious procedures, mainly cloning.
[/quote]

As long the object, the end/intention and action/method are ALL moral then you should be good. CCC 175?

[stevil]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1326818484' post='2370513']
Cloning humans is wrong. So is in-vitro fertilization...
[/quote]
Is that right? Does the Catholic Church consider IVF to be immoral?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326832879' post='2370583']
Is that right? Does the Catholic Church consider IVF to be immoral?
[/quote]
Yeah.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html"]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: [i]Dignitatis Personae[/i][/url]

[url="http://old.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/98rlphaa.shtml"]USCCB: [i]Begotten Not Made: A Catholic View of Reproductive Technology[/i][/url]

[url="http://www.ncbcenter.org/"]National Catholic Bioethics Center[/url]

[stevil]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1326835811' post='2370613']
Yeah.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html"]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: [i]Dignitatis Personae[/i][/url]
[/quote]

[quote]
c) the specifically human values of sexuality which require “that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses”
[/quote]
Oh my, seems pedantic.

Edited January 17, 2012 by stevil

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326844134' post='2370676']
Oh my, seems pedantic.
[/quote]
I figured you wouldn't like it. hehe.

[stevil]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1326845535' post='2370698']
I figured you wouldn't like it. hehe.
[/quote]
I am a most disagreeable person
As long as it is not enforced on others by law, then, well, I guess it is up to each Catholic person whether they will risk performing this immoral act or not.

[GregorMendel]

While you are correct to question the ethical nature of such technology, gene therapy and genetic engineering are very promising fields which have drastically affected our world in very subtle ways (ie. nearly 90% of soybeans, cotton and corn grown in the US are genetically modified). The ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering as it relates to humans have evolved much faster than the capabilities of the field itself, which I suppose may offer guidance to internal review boards and granting institutions, but shouldn't seek to stifle such research. A very recent example of the promise of gene therapy in humans is the recent development of a new treatment for Hemophilia B (link below). In reference to the initial comments, a perfect movie (albeit dramatize and slightly alarmist) concerning the universal application of genetic engineering in the human population is Gattaca (IMDB does a far better job of describing the plot than I ever could). In short, dont knock it until we've tried it.

[url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/"]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/[/url]
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/health/research/hemophilia-b-gene-therapy-breakthrough.html?_r=1&ref=geneticengineering"]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/health/research/hemophilia-b-gene-therapy-breakthrough.html?_r=1&ref=geneticengineering[/url]