Abstract
Biotechnologies are transforming human existence and their potential ever increasing. The discovery of the DNA double helix in 1953 paved the way for genetic medicine and even the possibility to alter the genetic makeup of human beings. Since then, the capacity of the human being to learn about and intervene in his own biological makeup has not ceased to grow.
This chapter attempts to offer an overview of biotechnologies applied to human life, tracing its development since the 1950s to the present day and its close link to society. Accordingly, it is divided into two parts. The first one is concerned with the way in which human biotechnology interacts with society, taking as a starting point some recent events related with biotechnology applied to human life. The second part analyses what could well be the most serious question that biotechnology pose for human beings: the possibility to completely recreate oneself by these means. My aim is not to deal with all the ethical issues involved, but to simply express some doubts about the solidity of the arguments posed by those who favour the “enhancement” of human beings by means of germline intervention.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
For a review of the philosophical foundations and historical antecedents of post-humanism, see Ballesteros (2007), pp. 21–46.
- 2.
See Bostrom and Savulescu (2010).
- 3.
See Sánchez Ron (2000), pp. 253–299.
- 4.
Both Nature and Science published editorials and articles by leading scientists to celebrate the anniversary and assess achievements since those dates. The tone used was one of caution, and even reserve, in contrast to the euphoria that surrounded the presentation of the HGP in 2000. See Editorial 2010. This issue included articles by both Francis Collins as well as Craig Venter. In addition, The New England Journal of Medicine, the most important medical journal in the world, echoed the anniversary and pondered on the foreseeable development of genetic medicine; Varmus (2010).
- 5.
Some of a particularly hyperbolic nature, which are now in every-day use are: “the language of life,” “the book of life,” “the Holy Grail of life,” “the language of God,” etc. But if we leave aside the religious or theological metaphors, those which reign are of technocratic nature that speak of “programme,” “control,” “code,” “map,” etc. For further reading on different types of HGP metaphors and their impact on the citizen health culture, see Davo and Alvarez Dardet (2003).
- 6.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2010/press.html (accessed on March 25, 1013).
- 7.
The two Bush mandates had maintained the prohibition on public financing of research which used cells obtained from human embryos. The most influential scientific journals were highly critical of this measure, on the basis that science was being driven by ideology; see Nisbet, Brossard, and Kroepsch (2003).
- 8.
“Next, we are restoring science to its rightful place. On March 9th, I signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. Our progress as a nation – and our values as a nation – are rooted in free and open inquiry. To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life”; http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-National-Academy-of-Sciences-Annual-Meeting/ (accessed on January 17 2012).
- 9.
The front cover of Time magazine, on February 8, 2009, was dedicated to stem cells with the following heading: “How the Coming Revolution in Stem Cells Could Save Your Life.” In issue number 24, January 2009, Time echoed approval of the first clinical trial on human embryonic stem cells with the following heading: “Cautious Optimism for the First Stem-Cell Human Trial,” http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1873825,00.html (accessed on January 17, 2012).
- 10.
The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine was set up in 2005 to compensate for the lack of public funds set aside for research into human embryonic stem cells by the Bush administration. To date, the only clinical trial with these cells financed by the CIRM was begun and abandoned by Geron. An in-depth and critical monitoring of the work done at this centre since it was set up can be found at http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/ (January 23, 2013).
- 11.
“Geron discontinues stem cell program, CIRM optimistic about future of stem cell therapies.” CIRM, Press release, November 14 2011; http://www.cirm.ca.gov/PressRelease_2011-11-14 (accessed on January 17, 2012).
- 12.
See Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (press release), “HFEA Agrees New Policies to Improve Sperm and Egg Donation Services,” http://www.hfea.gov.uk/6700.html (accessed on February 1, 2012).
- 13.
In November 2007 the Shinya Yamanaka team announced they had obtained human induced pluripotent cells (iPS), cells which have the same potential as embryonic stem cells but which were obtained without having to destroy embryos. It is worth noting that the editorial in the The New York Times basically consisted of claiming that embryonic stem cells, were like “the gold standard for measuring how valuable the new cells will be.” Editorial, “Behind the Stem Cell Breakthrough,” The New York Times, December 1 2007; http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/opinion/01sat1.html (accessed on January 23, 2012).
- 14.
See Vogel (1999). In the article he says: “We salute this work, which raises hopes of dazzling medical applications and also forces scientists to reconsider fundamental ideas about how cells grow up, as 1999s Breakthrough of the Year,” p. 2238.
- 15.
Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) was, along with Geron, one of the pioneering companies in working on embryonic stem cells. In January 2012, 2 months after Geron announced it was abandoning clinical trials using these cells, The Lancet published a study on the first positive results of a clinical trial with human embryonic stem cells financed by ACT to treat certain eye injuries. The experiment was carried out by two people. There is a certain degree of doubt surrounding the trial since the sponsor, “has been criticized in the past for overstating results, in part because it has been desperate to raise money to stay in business”; Andrew Pollack (2012) http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/business/stem-cell-study-may-show-advance.html (accessed on January 23, 2013).
The clinical trial is presented as “the first description of hESC-derived cells transplanted into human patients”; Schwartz et al. (2012), In: http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673612600282.pdf (accessed on January 28 2012).
- 16.
For an interesting review of the background and main arguments that have dominated debate on human embryonic stem cells since 1998, see Nielsen (2008).
- 17.
The editor of Science published a passionate report urging the House of Congress not to legislate against cloning humans as, “it would interdict a wide range of experimental procedures that might, in the near future, become both medically useful and morally acceptable”; Kennedy (2001), p. 745.
- 18.
Although almost forgotten now, when they are remembered, they seem more like vendors at a trade fair than premier league scientists. We must not forget that these people were called by the National Academy of Science in the US to speak at a symposium and their statements were given prime space major newspapers around the world such as the New York Times; see Stolberg (2001), http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20010809thursday.html (accessed on January 18, 2012).
- 19.
From the pages of Science came the call to avoid the term cloning when referring to the nuclear transfer aimed at obtaining embryos for research into stem cells, and only use this term to refer to cloning embryos to be used for giving birth to human clones; see Vogelstein et al. (2002).
- 20.
It should be remembered that in the false cloning announced by Dr. Hwang the information about the way in which the eggs used in his experiments had been obtained was at first conspicuous by its absence, and was only obtained after the investigation undertaken by the Seoul National University, where he worked.
- 21.
This last one has not yet entered into force.
- 22.
Regulations with effect at a supranational level to guarantee human dignity and human rights with regard to biomedicine, which is the purpose of the Convention and its additional protocols, have not been generally approved. Many sectors have criticised its efforts: those which put State sovereignty before international regulations; those who consider that in the area of science and technology the legal systems should give primacy to scientific self-regulation; those who consider that the term human dignity is of no use and it makes no sense to set up international regulations to protect it; etc. See Mori and Neri (2001).
- 23.
Sinsheimer (1966). Years later, at the time when the Asilomar moratorium was adopted in 1975, he expressed himself in the same terms: “As individuals men will have always accept their genetic constraints, but as a species we can transcend our inheritance and mould it to our purpose –if we can trust ourselves with such power. As geneticists we can continue to evolve possibilities and take the long view”; Sinsheimer (1975), p. 151. Although Jeremy Rifkin holds that Sinsheimer evolved towards more critical postures regarding the power of biotechnology, in my understanding he still retained his unfailing faith in the capacity of human beings to guide their own evolution through biotechnology; see Sinsheimer (1994b), pp. 145–146.
- 24.
See Sinsheimer (1966), p. 10. Although he does not cite this in his book, John Harris follows in the footsteps of Sinsheimer when giving the title to his book on human enhancement Enhancing Evolution. The Ethical Case for Making Better People, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2010.
- 25.
“Indeed, it may be supposed that even the deepest mystery, the nature of mind and sensation and consciousness, will be understood in the end as a natural consequence of matter in a certain state of organization.” Sinsheimer (1966), p. 9.
- 26.
“Perhaps we would like to alter the uneasy balance of our emotions. Could we be less warlike, more self-confident, more serene? Perhaps. Perhaps we shall finally achieve these long-sought goals with techniques far superior to those with which we have had to make do for many centuries;” Sinsheimer (1966), p. 10. Although not stated explicitly, he allows for thinking that education and social control might be methods that can be replaced by the superiority of biotechnology. This proposal has been taken up again recently with renewed vigour: see Douglas (2008). Opposed to the possibility of improving the moral behaviour of people through biotechnology, but from a more libertarian view in favour of any kind of enhancement of the human race, see Harris (2011).
- 27.
On the topic of increasing control over choosing the sex of children, Sinsheimer says: “When this prospect is combined with the already pressing problem of the expanding world population, it seems ever more clear that in the future world the right to give birth, as is today the right to take life, will have to be controlled to preserve some semblance of balance;” Sinsheimer (1966), p. 10.
- 28.
Adela Cortina has pointed out the radical difference between recognising the brain science bases of moral conduct, for which the neurosciences are offering priceless information, and claiming that these provide a basis to extract moral obligations, yet another attempt to reduce human beings to their material condition; see Cortina (2011).
- 29.
- 30.
References
Agar, N. 2004. Liberal eugenics. In defence of human enhancement. Oxford: Blackwell.
Annas, G. 2011. Assisted reproduction — Canada’s supreme court and the ‘global baby’. The New England Journal of Medicine 365: 459–463.
Ballesteros, J. 2007. Biotecnología, biopolítica y posthumanismo. In Biotecnología y posthumanismo, ed. J. Ballesteros and E. Fernández. Cizur Menor: Thomson-Aranzadi.
Bellver Capella, V. 2004. Las intervenciones genéticas en la línea germinal humana y el horizonte de un futuro posthumano. In Biotecnología, dignidad humana y derecho: Bases para un diálogo, ed. J. Ballesteros and A. Aparisi, 115–148. Pamplona: EUNSA.
Bellver Capella, V. 2012. Embriones humanos clónicos triploides: Aspectos éticos, sociales y jurídicos. Revista de Derecho y Genoma Humano 36: 25–64.
Bostrom, N., and J. Savulescu (eds.). 2010. Human enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buyx, A.M. 2008. Be careful what you wish for? Theoretical and ethical aspects of wish-fulfilling medicine. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11(2): 133–143.
Cortina, A. 2011. Neuroética y Neuropolítica. Sugerencias para la educación moral. Madrid: Tecnos.
Davo, M.C., and C. Alvarez Dardet. 2003. El Genoma y sus metáforas: ¿Detectives, héroes o profetas? Gaceta Sanitaria 17(1): 59–65.
Douglas, T. 2008. Moral enhancement. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25(3): 228–245.
Editorial. 2007. Behind the stem cell breakthrough. The New York Times, December 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/opinion/01sat1.html?_r=0. Accessed on 23 Jan 2012.
Editorial. 2010. The human genome at ten. Nature 464: 649–650.
Fitzpatrick, T. 2001. Before the cradle: New genetics, biopolicy and regulated eugenics. Journal of Social Policy 30(4): 589–612.
González Quirós, J.L., and J.L. Puerta. 2009. Tecnología, demanda social y medicina del deseo. Medicina Clínica 133(17): 671–676.
Habermas, J. 2003. The future of human nature. Oxford: Blackwell/Oxford.
Harris, J. 1992. Wonderwoman and superman. The ethics of human biotechnology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harris, J. 2010. Enhancing evolution. The ethical case for making better people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Harris, J. 2011. Moral enhancement and freedom. Bioethics 25(2): 102–111.
Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (press release), HFEA agrees new policies to improve sperm and egg donation services. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/6700.html. Accessed on 1 Feb 2012.
Hwang, W.S., et al. 2004. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science 303: 1669–1674.
Hwang, W.S., et al. 2005. Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science 308: 1777–1783.
Inhorn, M., and P. Patrizio. 2009. Rethinking reproductive ‘tourism’ as reproductive ‘exile’. Fertility and Sterility 92(3): 904–906.
Jonas, H. 1974. Biological engineering: A preview. In Philosophical essays: From ancient creed to technological man, ed. H. Jonas, 141–167. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Kass, L.R. 1985. Toward a more natural science. Biology and public affairs. New York: The Free Press.
Kass, L.R. 2002. Life, liberty and the defense of dignity. San Francisco: Encounter.
Kennedy, D. 2001. Legislate in haste, repent at leisure. Science 294: 745.
Levitt, M., and H. Zwart. 2009. Bioethics: An export product? Reflections on hands-on involvement in exploring the ‘external’ validity of international bioethical declarations. Bioethical Inquiry 6: 367–377.
Marshall, E. 2011. Waiting for the revolution. Science 331: 525–528.
Mori, M., and D. Neri. 2001. Perils and deficiencies of the European convention on human rights and biomedicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26(3): 323–333.
Mouzon, J., et al. 2010. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction 25: 851–1862.
Nielsen, T.H. 2008. What happened to the stem cells. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 852–857.
Nisbet, M., D. Brossard, and A. Kroepsch. 2003. The stem cells controversy in an age of press/politics. Press/Politics 2(8): 36–70.
Noggle, S., et al. 2011. Human oocytes reprogram somatic cells to a pluripotent state. Nature 478: 70–75.
Pennings, G. 2004. Legal harmonization and reproductive tourism in Europe. Human Reproduction 19(12): 2688–2692.
Pollack, A. 2012. Stem cell treatment for eye diseases shows promise. The New York Times January 23. Available in: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/business/stem-cell-study-may-show-advance.html. Accessed on 23 Jan 2013.
Ridley, M. 2006. Genome. The autobiography of a species in 23 chapters. New York: Harper-Perennial. Genome.
Rifkin, J. 1998. The biotech century. Harnessing the gene and remaking the world. New York: Penguin.
Sánchez Ron, M. 2000. El siglo de la ciencia. Madrid: Taurus.
Schuklenk, U. 2010. Defending the indefensible. The UNESCO declaration on bioethics and human rights: A reply to Levitt and Zwart. Bioethical Inquiry 7: 83–88.
Schwartz, S. et al. 2012. Embryonic stem cell trials for macular degeneration: A preliminary report. The Lancet 379(9817):713–720. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60028-2. http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673612600282.pdf. Consulted on 28 Jan 2012.
Singer, P., and D. Wells. 1984. The reproduction revolution. New ways of making babies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinsheimer, R. 1966. The end of the beginning. Engineering and Science 30(3): 7–10.
Sinsheimer, R. 1975. Troubled dawn for genetic engineering. New Scienstist 68(971): 148–151.
Sinsheimer, R. 1994a. The strands of a life: The science of DNA and the art of education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sinsheimer, R. 1994b. The prospect of designed genetic change. In Ethics, reproduction and genetic control, ed. R. Chadwick, 136–146. New York: Routledge.
Spar, D. 2006. The baby business how money, science, and politics drive the commerce of conception. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Stolberg, S.G. 2001. Despite warnings, 3 vow to go ahead on human cloning. The New York Times, August 9. Available in: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20010809thursday.html. Accessed on 23 Jan 2013.
Varmus, H. 2010. Ten years on – The human genome and medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine 362: 2028–2029.
Vogel, G. 1999. Capturing the promise of youth. Science 286: 2238–2239.
Vogelstein, B., B. Albert, and K. Shine. 2002. Please, Don’t call it cloning! Science 295: 1237.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bellver Capella, V. (2015). Biotechnology, Ethics, and Society: The Case of Genetic Manipulation. In: Gonzalez, W. (eds) New Perspectives on Technology, Values, and Ethics. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 315. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21870-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21870-0_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21869-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21870-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)