Bio Ethics

From Biohack

First, do no harm.

When considering the ethical implications of new technologies and new ideas, we can gain a lot by studying the relatively mature field of medical ethics.

Medical ethics tells us when it is ethical to test for disease, when a potentially deadly treatment is acceptable and the answer to other questions like that. The question remains, however, as to wheather this formalism (such as it is) can be brought to bear on the pressing issues facing society today.

What philosopher was it who talked about the dissaperance of our entire moral and ethical framework because of the fall of religious doctrine... he said that the entire language of our moral thought was based on a preconception that we had subsequently abandoned, leaving us, without realising it, without a consistent philosophy of good and bad.

The reductionist study of genes and genetics promises to address a different but equally weighty moral thing, the question of identity. Scientists will soon be able to answer the question of 'who am I' at the molecular level, and not just in a trivial, meaningless way, but at increasingly profound levels of understanding. The molecular basis of disease is just the tip of this iceberg.

Thinking about;

• Discovering how we think;
  • how we solve problems (classifying sets of techniques over sets of problems)
• Markers and mechanisms of intelligence
  • See DECIPHER
• Mapping behavioural tendencies
  • Currently focused on 'disease' states such as anxiety, depression, ADHD, etc.

Moreover, we will soon be able to look at 'societal behaviours';

• Mapping the Gay gene tests for sexual preference (a bit of a dilema for pro-life fundamentalists)
• Mapping 'crime genes'

Additionally, technological developments in neurotechnology promise

• Mind reading
  • At a crude level this already exists

Some questions that need to be addressed;

• If a crime gene exists, are you guilty of your crimes?
• Who owns your DNA?
  • Should you patent yourself?

• How do we cope with 'genetic discrimination'?
  • An interesting example of this was highlighted on a radio program - It turns out that almost every sucessful mountinear has a very efficient heamoglobin gene. This gene allows them to cope much better than others at low oxygen levels, allowing them to continue mountineering. NASA seeks similar qualities in its astronauts - the mission to Mars will require 'just enough' oxygen (+ a safety limit) and no more. The less the astronaugts need the better! So why not screen them directly? Seem almost reasonable right?

How do we even begin to systematically address these questions?

What are the implications?

Are we too late? Is the ethics of genetics a waste of time - cloning was done before it was really debated - genomes were sequenced before we thought about ownership. When you get your genome sequenced, will you release it publically?

etc. etc.