b5media.com

Advertise with us

Enjoying this blog? Check out the rest of the Health & Wellness Channel Subscribe to this Feed

Genetics and Health

Genetic Enhancement Not A Human Right

by Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD on September 16th, 2006

In the Guardian’s comment is free group blog, Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton, comments on the “alarming implications” of genetic selection.

But avoiding this outcome will not be easy, for it will require that selection for genetic enhancement is either available to no one or accessible to everyone. The first option would require coercion, and - since countries will not accept that others should gain a competitive edge - an international agreement to forego the benefits that genetic enhancement can bring. The second option, universal access, would require an unprecedented level of social assistance for the poor, and extraordinarily difficult decisions about what to subsidise.

I disagree that we should guarantee equal access to genetic enhancement. There have always been disparities between and within countries when it comes in healthcare, education, and overall quality of life. It’s too PC to say that it should be all or none. Certainly, everyone deserves to have a basic level of health and safety, whether or not it is achievable, but where do we draw the line between a human right and a privilege?


We will always have people who are smarter, richer, and healthier than others. Same goes for societies. That’s called diversity. Some children will be born to parents with “good” genes and others born to parents with “bad” genes. To achieve equality, should we offer a social healthcare program offering gene therapy to those who were unlucky enough to inherit a BRCA gene, for example? If so, then we’d better be prepared to offer the same to everyone because everyone has defective genes of some sort or other. And that’s not going to happen.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Share This

Related Stories

POSTED IN: Genetic Future

21 opinions for Genetic Enhancement Not A Human Right

  • Deb L
    Sep 16, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    I believe that people by our nature tend to separate ourselves into some sort of heirarchy. And that the control we have over it is how much compassion for each other we express.

    I’d rather see genetic enhancement for some, than none. And I don’t believe we’ll see a day when there is genetic enhancement for all. We haven’t even yet seen a day where there is indoor plumbing for all. Until societies can solve those basic quality of life issues, it’s silly for people to think that cutting edge technology can be shared out socialistically around the globe.

    :)

  • gr8face
    Sep 16, 2006 at 7:50 pm

    No, it’s not a right, but the wealth feel it is their right. Unfortunately, what they want drives science.

  • river2sea72
    Sep 16, 2006 at 7:56 pm

    This is not one of Peter Singer’s better pieces. It almost looks to me like he is working out an idea and it’s not finished yet. There doesn’t even seem to be a real argument here….

  • Genetics and Health » Gene Talk #11: Cello, Et Cetera
    Sep 17, 2006 at 1:31 pm

    […] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. […]

  • Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
    Sep 17, 2006 at 1:37 pm

    Deb L: You got it. As much as we “haves” want to help the “have nots,” there are plenty of factors the conspire to keep us from doing so. Despots and dictators come to mind. >:(

    gr8face: Good point. Money is at the crux of most everything.

    river2sea72: Maybe it’s because he was posting in a blog?

  • Rebecca Taylor
    Sep 17, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    I think there is a difference between genetic therapy and genetic enhancement. The former would be to cure a disease, the latter would be to take an otherwise healthy individual and make them “better than human” in intelligence, strength, height etc. We need to make a strong distinction now. I am all for gene therapy as part of good medical practice. I do not think genetic enhancement is ever ethical and should never be allowed for rich or poor.

  • Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
    Sep 18, 2006 at 6:31 am

    Rebecca: That’s an important distinction. I hadn’t explicitly separated that ou in my mind until you pointed it out. Thanks.

  • Deb L
    Sep 18, 2006 at 7:43 am

    People who practiced medicine when surgery was in its infancy were risking their own lives to cut people open. The prevailing mindset of the time was that cutting open the human body was abomination. There are people today who shun many medical practices because they believe them to be morally reprehensible. I am not one of these people. If genes can be adjusted to correct what we deem as defects, then in my opinion people should have the choice to pursue that. Yes the wealthy will be able to afford to get correction for all manner of things from the serious to the trivial, while the poor will be lucky to ever save up enough money to correct something more people would accept at being worthwhile to correct.

    I personally would love to be taller. There are many areas of my life where an extra few inches would mean a lot less hassles. Genetic correction for vision seems much preferable to surgery, but how many people would consider eyesight to be medical rather than cosmetic? And where exactly does one draw the line between what is considered illness, defect, or vanity? I believe that line would vary by whom we were to speak with.

    I can think of other useful reasons for genetic enhancement as opposed to therapy- one of them being longterm deployment in space.

    I am much less concerned with who gets to fix what after gene therapy is a viable field with medical practices offering services; than I am with wondering what kind of oversights are in place now to monitor how this is being developed and who/what is being used as test subjects. I am concerned for the people who in their desparation to deal with illness, are willing to be guinea pigs, and may fall victim to unethical or unscrupulous researchers.

  • Mendel’s Garden #7: The science policy edition « Ouroboros
    Oct 2, 2006 at 10:59 am

    […] • Hsien Hsien Lei at Genetics and Health discusses the ethics and economics of rationing genetic enhancement technology, taking a firm position in the title of the post, Genetic Enhancement Not A Human Right: I disagree that we should guarantee equal access to genetic enhancement. There have always been disparities between and within countries when it comes in healthcare, education, and overall quality of life. … Certainly, everyone deserves to have a basic level of health and safety, whether or not it is achievable, but where do we draw the line between a human right and a privilege? […]

  • Genetics and Health » Personalized Medicine Is Too Expensive
    Oct 23, 2006 at 10:51 pm

    […] It reminds me of the discussion we had last month about genetic enhancement not being a human right. Is personalized medicine a human right or is only a right of those who can afford it? (The same argument could be made, of course, for healthcare in general.) At what point should patients be encouraged to undergo genetic testing to improve the efficacy of their treatment, e.g., the 2D6 gene and Tamoxifen? […]

  • Stefy Narvaez
    Nov 26, 2006 at 8:56 pm

    I completely oppose what has apparently been defined as genetic enhancement. Genetic therapy is more acceptable given that medicine today IS already some sort of therapeutical temporary cure. Now, I simply dont understand people who at any point support modifying ones genes. Yes, its true that many illnesses run through “bad” genes and that we react emotionally to them. However, technically speaking, the population in the world is increasing to overpopulation everyday and natural resources are being exploited more and more. What is making us so confident about the survival of future generations to come? Life has cycles for a reason. If we start tampering with our genes and improving them to be “better than human”, we might just have a great problem.

    Besides the world population living more than its supposed to, a psicological approach to this issue is that people will start to take their lifes for granted, there will be no variety in the world whatsoever, and society will become more selective. What makes human kind so unique is precisely its variety. Different personalities contributing to their environment in different ways. What is there to expect when people start chosing who they want to be like? Women who have always wanted to be like that girl in the cover of cosmo will have it. Will there bee an overflow of blondes walking down the streets one of these days. And, as society always tends to do, there will be so many customers for genetic enhancements that its not going to be a secret anymore, it will even be encourage and more than accepted.

    Offcourse a “perfect”, utopian society can only lead to one thing which is ruthless high standars and judgement; and there is where the division between who has accesibility to technology and who doesnt comes in.

    The issue of genetic manipulation is a very delicate and consequential one. Before getting too ahead of ourselves we need to think about the many economic, social, psicological and emotional ways we could be affecting our society with.

  • Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
    Nov 26, 2006 at 10:43 pm

    Stefy: Thanks for your comment. The reality is, as you pointed out, genetic enhancement will never be accessible to everyone whether it is limited by cost, healthcare, politics, etc. There are also differences in the number of children born to people living in various cultures and situations so I believe the human race will continue to have great variety. :)

  • Jessica
    Jan 4, 2007 at 1:48 am

    I think Genetic Enhancement is completely wrong. It isn’t fair that some rich person could take this advantage and the poor can’t. Besides, God made you the way he wanted you to be and you shouldn’t change it. Everybody should be happy about the way they look. Now I’m not saying that getting eyeglasses to improve your eye vision is a bad thing because that is a necessity.

    Different people is what makes our world special.Think how boring it would be if a couple people in your class got an enhancement and they all got straight A’s on all their tests. It wouldn’t be fair. You shouldn’t change yourself because everbody is special in their own way!

  • Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
    Jan 5, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    Jessica: Thanks for your comment! I do agree that everyone is special and unique. Most likely, gene therapy won’t change that because humans are so complex but it does mean that we’ll have a lot more high performing people in this world. Could get pretty annoying!

  • Genetics and Health » Genetics and Health in 2006
    Jan 11, 2007 at 10:10 am

    […] September 2006 - Genetic Enhancement Not A Human Right (Nothing’s fair in genetics and health.) […]

  • DNAmelia
    Jan 16, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    I aprectiate everyone’s oppinion on the subject but really the fact is you cannot tell people that it is not their right to change themselves. You are your own person and whatever path you choose, it is your decision and it will lead you somewhere new, maybe challenges, perhaps success, who really knows? Illness is becomming such a huge issue in our modern day world and i believe that people have every right to change or alter their DNA or genes or take any other risks to be able to save themselves or prevent disease in their body and for the generations to come. As far as cosmetic surgeries go to change your physical appearance, I say go for it! If surgery is the solution to self esteem or confidence issues that are a result of how you see yourself and how you feel about yourself, then i believe that humans have every right to it. It is their choice, it is their life. Let them lead it.

  • 16id-My Health Mart is an online | Gene Talk #11: Cello, Et Cetera
    Aug 30, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    […] genetic enhancement were freely available and many disease genes identified and understood, how many people would […]

  • Lord Tyriel
    Sep 9, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    it is a right. Its our lives that were enhancing not anyone elses. listen if i was to make myself More stronger or make myself be able to grow faster such as my brain cells, Strength, being faster then others, etc its not your choice it is mine. If we make it public then everyone won’t have diceases either, and at the rate were going diseases are at a high. So why not? Hell maybe some people will hate you for being better then them, but its the norm. If your better then someone then they will always try to be better the you, it is human nature. but this is my reason, i hope you take it to heart.

  • Proxy
    Jun 11, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    I think theres a flaw in this article respectfully the ethical debate presented is nothing knew and there are some good points regarding where we draw the line, the problem however is more evasive than one topic can cover. It is my understanding that whether the FDA or health system passes genetic enhancement as a human right or not, we are looking at a global market that produces a re engineered product in a lab and does a great job making money off of it. All research and study this far into genetics as a whole seems prompt attention, whether that attention applies or not really doesn’t matter. The simple fact is when something like this has been going on for who knows how long there is really nothing political or ethical that can prevent something like this from eventually becoming a reality, personally I hope it does become a reality. It offers more solutions than problems as some might argue but that in itself is whole other debate!!

  • Taylor K
    Jun 28, 2008 at 12:34 am

    Stefy Narvaez, i agree that genetic enhancement is a delicate topic, and that we need to analise as many outcomes and consequences as possible before we make any firm decision, however, i disagree with the idea that genetic manipulation would limit diversity. If only the “haves” can afford genetic manipulation, then the ‘have nots’ will be the same as the ‘haves’ of today, without genetic enhancement, and the ‘haves’ will be something completely different. Not something as dramatic as two divergent species, but considerably different.

    On a different note, i also disagree that we should refrain from genetic enhancement unless it is available to the rich and the poor. Life will never be fair, we can make it as fair as possible, with universal health care and welfare and the like, i endorse that, but i think its stretching it to have ‘universal genetic enhancement’ ; this is unrealistic, (as mentioned before, we dont even have universal plumbing yet), and i think its wrong to deny people who have the means to improve themselves the right (or privilege) to do so, simply because other people cant.

  • goatse
    Jul 30, 2008 at 4:27 pm

    There is no “Human Rights” what a bunch of crap. You are lucky if you get any rights at all.

Have an opinion? Leave a comment: