The myth of genetic enhancement

Abstract

The ongoing revolution in molecular genetics has led many to speculate that one day we will be able to change the expression or phenotype of numerous complex traits to improve ourselves in many different ways. The prospect of genetic enhancements has generated heated controversy, with proponents advocating research and implementation, with caution advised for concerns about justice, and critics tending to see the prospect of genetic enhancements as an assault on human freedom and human nature. Both camps base their arguments on the unquestioned assumption that the science will realize either their dreams or nightmares. In this paper, I show that their beliefs are based upon two fundamental mistakes. First, they are based upon an unwarranted reliance in a genetic determinism that takes for granted that the traits that we might most want to enhance, like intelligence, aggression, shyness, and even athletic ability, can be causally directed by specific genes. In so doing, character descriptions are reified to be concrete and discrete entities, in this case, genes. Second, they have accepted on faith that there is, or will be, a science to translate their hopes or worries into reality when, in fact, that is unlikely to occur because of the irreducible complexity of phenotypic expression.

Limits to human enhancement: nature, disease, therapy or betterment?

“…The debate on human enhancement is characterized by licentious speculations where the proponents advocate research and implementation, with caution advised (only if at all) for concerns about safety and justice, and critics see the prospect of HE as an assault on humanity as such. Both tend to rely on unwarranted preconditions (biological determinism) and strong beliefs [ 91 ].…”

Mapping ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)

“…First, by other conceptual (critical) articles, which doubt the technological feasibility of using genetic selection to promote specific traits and thereby enhance human life. They mention the complex role of the genes in the context of brain, behavior, or athletic ability, and therefore criticize genetic determinism, and warn of unknown long-term health risks of PGT and ART in general [80,81]. Second, three articles transferred knowledge from clinical data and technical experts in order to try answer such questions empirically, acknowledging that the number of available embryos for testing will, at least in the near future, remain limited and that, as much as testing and screening will enable more information, attempting to avoid all possible genetic risks might leave the physician/patient with no embryo available for transfer.…”

Challenges of using next generation sequencing in newborn screening

“…Does adherence to determinism not lead them into a sense of meaninglessness and helplessness regarding their child's fate and actions? Thus, in choosing NGS newborn screening and administering this test early on, we will be breaking the commitment to free choice (Chadwick, 2011;Rosoff, 2012;Botkin et al, 2014;Gannet, 2014).…”