Hybrid HW 6 / Ethics and the New Genetics Questions

1. Science is fundamentally not spiritually-based and could even be considered the opposite of religion, as one of the major features of religion is faith (as opposed to proof). At the end of the article, Dalai Lama  states that our ethical response to the dilemma of biogenetics is to “check our motivation and ensure that its foundation is compassion.” In fact a consistent echo of compassion flavors much of his argument throughout the essay. What role, if any, does compassion play in designing ethical standards for biogenetics and genetic manipulation? Much like Yoshino’s “new civil rights,” compassion cannot be mandated. Does Dalai Lama’s role as a spiritual leader enhance or detract from you getting on board with his unique perspective? And lastly, is there room for religion-in-science and science-in-religion? Why or why not? (200 words)

Throughout the essay, the Dalai Lama’s main point is that we have to use our humanity and compassion when dealing with the new ideas of genetics. The Dalai Lama brings up really good points such as that this is very new and powerful technology to be dealing with. I think that since we have never been capable of this much power before, we should handle this situation with compassion. Many people will have different opinions on what this technology should and shouldn’t be used for, and if we add kindness into the mix, the situation will be handled civilly. I think since the Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader, it enhances my perspective of what he is saying. He spends his life devoted thinking about and doing what is right for this world so he has some credibility. Finally, I do think there is room for religion in science or science in religion. I think both are important aspects of our culture and should be treated as such. There just needs to be a good balance if they are going to work together, you don’t want to stray to far away from science because then the research may be ethically wrong, and you don’t want to stray too far from religion because then there are no facts to back up your reasoning, so there needs to be a middle ground.

2. You’ve just been offered the position of ethics coordinator of Bell Labs, a position competitively sought after here in 2032. This position was hotly contested, as several top-notch scientists did not agree with the value of such a position in one of the most innovative research companies in America nor with the starting salary [$345,000 annually]. However, those who feel ethics still has a say in how science is carried out rallied for the position to ensure that Bell Labs will never be accused of losing its “moral compass.”
   
   Your first order of business is to meet with a small, advanced and extremely intelligent team of scientists who are seeking additional company funds for their research. As ethics coordinator, they need your approval on the financial application and before they can apply for a study license. Their revolutionary product? A pill that can alter the genetic code for people with Bechet’s disease that essentially reverses the symptoms of the disease as well as changes the genetic predisposition for future generations. What are the ethical responsibilities you will discuss with this team who must now exhibit “ethical Bell Lab standards?” Part of your job is to play the “naysayer” in order to sniff out non-ethical procedures. As you play “devil’s advocate” what questions will you pose to the team to make sure they have thought of all of the repercussions of such a pill? (200 words)

This is a really difficult question to answer, I think some of the ethical worries would be that you don’t want to mess with the genetic code of future generations. Many people may be wary of a pill that alters something so natural as our DNA. I can rightfully see this because our DNA is part of what makes up who we are as people. Any alteration to that might also bring up the concerns of what else is that pill altering? Since this has never been done before, we should be careful and have a lot of testing to make sure it is not doing anything else to the genes of the person who is taking the pill. It would be terrible for that person to have side effects with their genetic code messed up. Another ethical concern could be the argument to just let nature take its course. One might ask, who are we to interfere with future generations and change what they might have before they even exist? Yes it is knocking out a bad disease but what if we wipe this disease out and an ever worse one arises because of that. There are so many things that are uncertain because something like this pill has never been created before.

3. On page 69, DL urges us to find a moral compass and suggests that “[we] must begin by putting faith in the basic goodness of human nature and we need to anchor this faith in some fundamental and universal ethical principles.” He then presents a list of “ethical principles”: “..recognition of the preciousness of life, an understanding of the need for balance in nature and the employment of this need as a gauge for the direction of our thought and action, and—above all—the need to ensure that we hold compassion as the key motivation for all our endeavors and that it is combined with a clear awareness of the wider perspective, including long-term consequences.” Do you agree with this list? Is it complete, in your opinion? What would you add, or change? Why or why not? Is it comprehensive enough to address the dilemma of ethical standards in science and research? Where could he get more specific? (200-300 words)

I think I agree with this list for the most part. I think compassion is a really big part of our humanity. If we use that for a starting point with anything, we can go into new situations with an open mind and work together to solve a common problem. This compassion lets us see our differences in terms of strengths rather than weaknesses, and we can move forward together because of that. I like that he adds that we need a balance for nature, I agree with this thought, however I think that he could also add that we need a balance for religion and ethics too. I don’t want to take away from this that we always have to be cautious in our every move we make, sometimes I think it might be good to take risks and learn more on the side of nature. This is the only way that new inventions have been created, someone has taken a step a little outside of the comfort of ethics and religion and to something new. This is how we keep moving as a species and how we have already gotten to where we are now. I’m not saying that we should completely forget the ethics, but use it in places it needs to be where things should be evaluated, but always start with good intentions and a good heart for everything that we do.