Essay on Ethics of Biotechnology is published for informational purposes only. The free papers are not written by our writers, they are contributed by users, so we are not responsible for the content of this free sample paper. If you want to buy a quality Essay on Essay on Ethics of Biotechnology at affordable prices please use our essay writing services offered by EssayEmpire.

There can be no doubt that biotechnology represents a major breakthrough in scientific research and a triumph of human ingenuity. It will be the most powerful ally in our fight against diseases and disabilities, hunger and poverty on a world scale. It will help us cope better with the devastation of nature brought about by the earlier industrial revolution and over-population in the wake of what has been described as 'the demographic explosion' ( Paul Kennedy).

However, the downside of biotechnology has largely to do with this unprecedented power, its use and its control. The implications and social impact of biotechnology have been compared to those of the splitting of the atom and the technological exploitation of nuclear power. As with nuclear technology, biotechnology has put enormous power in our hands. Yet, power is essentially ambiguous, it can be used for good and evil purposes. And there is growing concern that this new technology may redefine our relationship to nature by irreversibly and detrimentally changing nature's course. In altering natural evolution through human tampering with the gene pool, biotechnology would cause incalculable risks for human integrity, well-being and freedom.

This ethical concern is reflected in an increasing number of publications which cover a wide range of issues. There is also the fear that biotechnology might even have begun to change the rules of ethical decision making. In the past, ethics was based on widely (and frequently cross-culturally) shared beliefs about human nature, personhood and social responsibilities. The consequences of individual actions were never as dramatic as they are now; in addition, they were usually confined to one's own life circle. Clearly, this situation has changed, since we are now capable of literally blowing up the whole planet, destroying its ecosystem and changing humanity beyond recognition. Hans Jonas has pointed out that for the first time in history it is up to us to decide whether mankind should be at all; for the first time, the very existence of humanity is put in our hands. In the past, ethics never had to deal with such daunting questions, instead it operated on the assumption that nature was not within the reach of man but ultimately inviolable. Her self-healing powers were thought to always prevail and out-do the damage man could possibly inflict on her. Certainly, this can no longer be taken for granted.

A sober reflection on the ethical implications of biotechnology as such is therefore, above all, confronted with two fundamental questions:

Firstly, does biotechnology represent a qualitatively new step in the history of science which calls for a new ethics, or is it something that can and should be understood along the lines of traditional values and within the well-established framework of moral philosophy. To put it differently: Has biotech just opened a new chapter in the long history of the scientific conquest of nature, or has it effectively closed the old volume and begun to write the first lines of an entirely different story? This text would be as much about the conquest of nature as it would be about its potential devastation, its manipulation and re-creation; in any case, it would be about changing nature's course altogether.

Secondly, what impact should we allow biotechnology to have on the hidden assumptions as to how we view ourselves? Can we utilize its potential and carry on with our familiar worldviews and religious interpretations of the world, or is biotechnology in itself some sort of new ideology which challenges our traditional place in nature? Is it endowing us with the creative powers of God, or rather reducing us and the mystery of life to mere genetic components at the molecular level?

Strachan Donnelley very aptly summed up the ethical problem of biotechnology as follows: 'What should be the ethically self-imposed limits, if any, to our interventions into nature, for what reasons, in service of what moral values?'

Apart from ethical considerations on our general relationship to high technologies, most notably biotechnology, a number of research areas have attracted particular attention. They combine most of the features of complex ethical dilemmas with a relatively well-defined research activity within the larger framework of biotechnology. These areas of biotechnological research include the following: 

- human genetic engineering 

- genetic screening and testing 

- the engineering of transgenic plants and animals 

- the patenting of life forms  

The ethical issues with regard to the Human Genome Project which will ultimately lead to a full map of the genetic information as it is encoded in the human DNA concern not so much the project itself but the potential use of the information thus acquired. Since it will be possible to produce the genetic profile of any individual, the ethical questions revolve around issues of privacy, confidentiality, ownership and autonomy: 'How should information be protected? Who should have access to the information and under what circumstances? What rights, if any, do employers, insurers, and family members have to an individual's genetic information?'

Yet, the larger question looming in the background is related to human gene therapy. Although there seems widespread agreement that somatic cell gene therapy poses little ethical concern, germ-line gene therapy is highly controversial and generally rejected on ethical grounds. Whereas the former therapy could be understood along the lines of traditional medical intervention such as organ transplantation, the latter is different. It allows that changes could be made in the genetic information which would be passed on to all future generations. It raises also questions about how to understand what is normal and what is abnormal, what is deviant or deficient, and what is genuinely human.

There are mainly two kinds of ethical arguments against the use of germ line gene therapy. The first one is a consequential argument that doubts the moral right of anyone to induce genetic changes whose potentially harmful consequences cannot be anticipated and whose results will affect future generations. The second argument is categorical (deontological) in nature and rules out as a matter of principle any moral right to tamper with the human gene pool and to manipulate the genetic inheritance of the human race.

Ultimately, germ line genetic therapy leads directly back to the extremely difficult questions which have been raised in conjunction with biotechnology and its impact on our fundamental beliefs about ourselves, our species and human nature as such. To what extent will biotechnology change how we view ourselves? On what ideological assumptions will scientists base their research on the human genome? Will they regard human beings as nothing more than the products of interacting genes, or will they allow for some qualitative differences between the genes and their 'product'?

It seems that the answer to questions such as these will depend on whether we will enter a new era of eugenics where we might not only aim at decreasing the number of harmful or less desirable genes (negative eugenics) but tamper with the genetic make-up of our species by introducing new or altered genes thought to 'improve' the quality of the human gene pool (positive eugenics). Unless we have arrived at an universally shared, normative conception of humanity in the comprehensive sense of the term which can ethically guide this kind of intervention, and unless we can claim solid knowledge about the long-term consequences of positive eugenics, experiments of this nature should not be allowed.

Similar questions have been raised with regard to the development of transgenic organisms. Yet, there are also a number of more specific issues which have become the focus of ethical concern. A research project on the Ethics of Animal Biotechnology sponsored by the Hastings Center has identified three issues of particular significance:

Firstly, the concept of the species and its possible moral implications: The possibility to bridge the species barrier brings to the fore not only the very concept of the species itself but also its significance and function in the natural order of beings. It is noteworthy that in most cultures the crossing of species lines used to be the subject of taboos for humans and was exclusively reserved to superhuman beings. This indicates a strong sense for the inviolability of the natural order and its hierarchy where everything is believed to have been assigned its proper place. The attempt to change this place was tantamount to an attack on the eternal order of creation and a rebellion against its creator. It is not only in Christian inconography that the devil as the embodiment of such a rebellion is usually depicted as some sort of 'transgenic being', which has merged the properties of a number of different species (man, goat, ass, reptile, etc).

It appears then that the question as to whether species are 'real biological entities so inherent in the fabric of nature that we become morally culpable in breaking the barrier between them' requires an interdisciplinary and cross-cultural approach. It would have to draw on the wisdom enshrined in the philosophical and religious traditions of mankind as well as on the discoveries of the biological sciences.

Secondly, the potential pain and suffering caused to genetically engineered animals: This concern is closely related to the more general one of the treatment of animals as subjects of research and experimentation, and raises the question of the moral status and the potential (range of) rights of animals. The commercial benefits of genetically engineered livestock (greater weight, greater feed efficiency, reduction in fat) have frequently been offset by a host of painful side effects such as a high incidence of gastric ulcers, arthritis, cardiornegaly, dermatitis, and renal disease.

It seems that the production of genetically engineered animals on a large scale for exclusively commercial purposes requires a strong justification of the harm done to their well-being and the pain inflicted; at present, such a justification may not be readily available. The extremes of the ethical debate are marked by conservationists and advocates of animal rights who argue against any form of human intervention in the life cycles and the natural habitats of animals, and the defenders of a more anthropocentric approach which would allow for the exploitation of animals if the benefit for mankind clearly out-weighed the harm done to them.

Thirdly, the possible ecological impact: The engineering of transgenic plants has been particularly successful and resulted in a number of new products; their commercialization is about to begin. In the last five years, the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has approved the marketing of nine different types of genetically engineered food. In Britain alone, seven genetically altered organisms are scheduled for release in the fields in the second half of 1995.

Researchers usually point out the many benefits this kind of genetic intervention will bring to mankind and tend to minimize the risks the intentional or accidental release of genetically altered plants could have on the environment. Although our understanding of the potential role and impact of transgenic organisms on the environment is still in its infancy and has so far brought only scanty results, this is no reason for complacency. We should, however, equally avoid falling into the opposite trap of painting risks in too gloomy colours, since this will only foster in many of us a sense of helpless despair in the face of what seems to be the inevitable course history will take. The anticipated dangers may involve: health hazards for humans and animals alike; economic losses especially in developing countries caused by a combination of unaffordable prices for patented crop seeds and changed patterns of soil cultivation (monocultures, cattle breeding); species imbalances or depletion which could lead to a host of subsequent perils ranging from soil erosion and deforestation to climatic changes. . .

Free essays are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can order a term paper, research paper or custom TOPIC at our site which offers professional essay writing services. Get your high quality custom paper at relatively cheap prices. EssayEmpire is the best solution for those who seek help in essay writing related to TOPIC and other relevant topics.