 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Previous
article
| Next
article
The Heslington Lecture is an annual event as old as the University itself, dedicated to the discussion and consideration of ‘Religion in the Modern World’. This year’s controversial subject of genetics was explored by two speakers: the highly regarded scientist and developmental biologist, Dr. Anne McLaren FRS and Dr. John Habgood, the Archbishop of York until he retires later in the year. Continuing advancements in medical genetic research, and their implications, provided wide scope for debate about what problems seem to occur and the ethics involved, Christian or otherwise.
For the benefit of those in the audience who couldn’t tell their DNA from their B.Sc. Dr. McLaren began with a brief and simple explanation of genes, chromosomes and the rest, particularly how they can pass certain diseases on through family generations. She also referred to research that has been going on in the shape of the ‘Human Genome Project’ which has developed in three areas of impact: gene therapy — using DNA as a drug to treat inherited disease such as cystic fibrosis, genetic testing — examining the DNA of those known to be at risk from a genetic disease, and genetic screening — blanket testing of whole sections of the population, such as checking for Rhesus negative blood group in pregnant women. Such work is obviously intended to benefit society and improve our medical future, but it also raises many ethical questions for doctors, parents and society in general.
Dr. McLaren went on to highlight some of the problems that seem to arise from a medical point of view. The safety aspect of genetic testing for example, and the false hope it may give to sufferers expecting a ‘miracle cure’. Confidentiality also has to be considered in a society where diagnosis of a disease might affect a person’s employment prospects or life insurance. Furthermore, in the case of pre-natal testing, the doctor has to decide how much to tell the parents. The test may only reveal a minor defect not greatly affecting the child’s development or health, or it may even prove that the father can not be the father — information which, if disclosed, would be of great consequence. However the most severe dilemma is reserved for those cases where a serious genetic disease is found by pre-natal testing. The parents then have to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or give birth to a disabled child who may not live long. The difficulty of such a choice need not be spelt out.
There are certainly problems and drawbacks, as well as benefits in the genetic breakthroughs of recent years, and they perhaps complicate the issue of how much this new knowledge will improve our lives. Indeed Dr. Habgood took pains to emphasize this, saying how behind such research is “the presumption that more and more knowledge is desirable and the belief that (this knowledge) will be used responsibly.” This is worth bearing in mind more all the time as the research advances, and consequences need to be thought about carefully. He suggested that as techniques for diagnosis improve, and more people are aware of their genetic ‘defects’ and what they may mean for the future, there will be an ever increasing need for counselling on the subject — difficult in terms of money and personnel, as well as for those being counselled, faced with the possibility of inherited health problems that may not surface till later in their lives. Moreover, as the age for pre-natal diagnosis is pushed back and diseases discovered when the foetus is far less developed, Dr. Habgood argued that the pressure for abortion would increase — “the diagnosis improves but the treatment doesn’t.”
In the wider picture too it seems there are many moral questions that need to be asked now that it is possible to find out what is genetically wrong in a person — starting with how exactly we define ‘wrong’, and what the difference is between that and normal human diversity. This seemed to be another point Dr. Habgood wanted to stress, combined with the importance of preserving our differences: “It is our variety, our diversity, our God-givenness which makes us interesting.” Perhaps this has even more significance in another area of research, that of ‘germline therapy’ which means changing the actual genetic structure of an embryo. This of course has very serious ethical implications in the way it is basically using human beings for “largely untried experiments” and would affect a person’s entire descendants through their changed genes, rather than remaining a therapy for one generation and one specific defect. Such research also opens the way for further manipulations, for instance eye colour or super-intelligence, and ultimately the ‘fantasies’ of a perfect, defect-less baby. As Dr. Habgood pointed out, ideas like this leave a lot to say about a possible society where genetic ‘defects’ can no longer be tolerated. It also leads to notions of humans being “pro-creators with God” which takes the ethics of the debate onto a completely new plain.
The lecture ended with a suggested set of rules that highlight how necessary it is to tread carefully in all genetic research, despite the continuing need for medical advancement: it should be remembered that human beings are more than their genes; genes are simply a set of instructions, and while it is right to respect the assumption that diseases should be cured when possible, the diversity of human nature is also a value that demands recognition. Dr. Habgood thus urged us to be wary of making changes to human nature, and more importantly of those who believe they know how it ought to be changed.
In the questions that followed various points were raised as to the cost of genetic research, its prominence in agriculture as well as medicine, and how those with disabilities might be viewed in the future. As to the ethical side of the debate, perhaps Dr. McLaren summed it up best: human nature and the morals we have are surely shaped by our upbringing and education far more than through our inherited genes. Therefore it is true that a great deal more than our genetic makeup has to be taken into account when we look to the advancement of us each individually, and of society as a whole.
Previous
article
| Next
article
|
|
|
|
|
Last modified: 25th November 2005