Team:SJTU-BioX-Shanghai/Human Practices/hp-humanity
Philosophical Research
Empirical studies such as questionnaires and in-depth interviews provide us with direct information on the public's perception and acceptance of genetic editing techniques, as well as the public's complex attitude toward this immature new technology.
But the more important question is, how should we rationally view gene editing technology? Should we continue to develop genetic editing technology? How should we develop and use gene editing techniques? These problems have been deepened to the level of "normative science". Research in the field of science and technology or investigation at the empirical level is not enough. For this reason, we have discussed the genetic editing from the philosophical level and investigated the current corresponding laws and regulations of the country.
We read related bioethical papers and philosophy books, and conducted in-depth exchanges on the related ethical and social issues of genetic editing with Associate Professor Wang Qiu and Associate Professor Fan Muyou of the Institute of Science, History and Science and Culture. They discussed various arguments about genetic editing and expressed their opinions.
On the basis of literature reading and teacher communication, the main controversies related to gene editing are as follows.
- Proponents of gene editing believe that any technology needs a process from immature to mature. The history of science is the history of trial and error. The development of technology always requires experimental products. It is impossible to hinder the opportunities of technological development because of ethical disputes.
- Opponents of gene editing believe that gene editing technology is not yet mature, and security is difficult to guarantee, especially the existence of off-target problems. Moreover, modern technology has developed so rapidly that its power is so great that we cannot afford the cost of "trial and error." We can't try things like hydrogen bombs, so we must be cautious at the beginning of technology development.
- Proponents of gene editing believe that any new thing is accepted by the public and requires a process. Historically, vaccination, organ transplantation, and test tube babies have been controversial at the beginning.
- Opponents of gene editing believe that gene editing technology is different from the above-mentioned technologies. It directly modifies the gene material of living things, has high risk, is irreversible, and involves the violation of the basic dignity of life. It is impossible to accept this - it is the "bottom line."
- Proponents of gene editing believe that, as the scorpion said, “Is it useful to use it for the sake of heaven and earth?” Humans edit genes for other organisms, just like gene engineered bacteria, bioreactors, etc. Serving human production and life is beneficial to human development.
- Opponents of gene editing believe that life is a very complex system, and human cognition of life is still very limited. Even the genome of E. coli cannot be said to be fully understood. In this case, it is a manic act to start artificially transforming genes by relying on "incomplete information." They quoted the ancient story of Oedipus the King. Oedipus knows the fate of his "killing father and mother", but he does not know who his own parents are. Under the influence of this "incomplete information", he fled the foster parents' home and thought he had escaped his fate, but he was getting closer to the end of his life. They use the metaphor of Oedipus the King to explain that people making arrogant decisions under "incomplete information" often fall into dangerous situations and edit with such genes.
- Opponents of gene editing believe that gene editing is a human life system that artificially intervenes in nature. It is the gene material that artificially transforms organisms. It is the role of human beings as "God" and is a violation of natural laws.
- Proponents of gene editing believe that mutations and metastasis of genes are constantly occurring in nature. Man himself is also a part of nature, and it is also a factor of nature. Man and nature cannot be separated. There is no such thing as "the heavens" and "humanity". There is no such thing as "violation of the laws of nature."
- Opponents of gene editing believe that gene editing of other organisms has the potential to increase mutations and gene transfer, resulting in ecological risks. And once it is used by terrorists to transform biological weapons such as "superbugs", the consequences are unimaginable.
- Proponents of gene editing believe that human mutations and metastasis are already occurring in nature, and human beings are also a natural factor. This ecological risk is preventable and controllable. As for the use of terrorists, the mistake is not in the technology itself. What is needed is that we strengthen supervision rather than restrict technological development.
- Opponents of gene editing believe that "all lives are equal", people have no subject-to-object rights to other creatures, and humans' transformation of other organisms' genes violates the rights and dignity of other creatures.
- Proponents of gene editing believe that "human is the purpose" and "human is the measure of everything", and talent should be the starting point and the foothold for all considerations. Lion hunting cows is not a violation of goat rights. Goats escaping from lions are not violations of lion rights. This is the natural law. As long as gene editing can be beneficial to people, it is justified and acceptable.
- Proponents of gene editing believe that technology itself is neutral, and the outcome depends on the people using the technology. Gene editing technology itself does not matter right or wrong, as long as the right place is used, it can benefit mankind.
- Opponents of gene editing believe that technology itself is not neutral. The knife has the purpose of "cutting". The atomic bomb is enormously devastating, and the technology has its own internal logic. Gene editing technology itself is dangerous. Without He Jiankui, Li Jiankui will appear. Monsters like "Frankenstein", their creators themselves will lose control.
- Proponents of gene editing believe that people are free and should not be constrained by necessity. Since a person has this technology, when it is impossible to prove that its risk is greater than the income, it should be "no guilty assumption", use it, and practice it.
- Opponents of gene editing believe that high-tech, such as gene editing, has great risks and uncertainties. If it cannot prove that the benefits outweigh the risks, it should be “guilty assumption” and prepare for the worst possibility. It should be careful and avoid risks.
- Proponents of gene editing believe that gene modification can selectively remove some unfavorable disease-causing genes, which is a means of human evolution. They believe that human beings are also part of nature and a choice of natural choices. People's choices of themselves are essentially part of natural selection.
- Opponents of gene editing believe that, first, the evolution of gene editing is actually the so-called "pros and cons" of artificially determining genes, which is risky to racism and Nazi; second, our understanding of gene banks is still very Limited, some superficial genes may not be of use to humans, and the transformation will have serious consequences. Third, each person's life experience should be unique. The so-called gene editing makes human evolution a factory. Like the standardized products produced, it is the "homogeneity" of human beings and the loss of diversity.
- Opponents of gene editing believe that human-oriented gene editing is the alienation of human beings, the "tooling" of people, and the violation of human dignity.
- Proponents of gene editing believe that it is the "tooling" of human beings in the modern division of labor. By enriching human capabilities, gene editing technology can help people achieve "free and comprehensive development", which can get rid of the tooling human beings.
- Opponents of gene editing believe that people who are not ready to accept gene editing may face a range of discrimination and social problems.
- Proponents of gene editing believe that it is precisely the opponents of gene editing that have created this discrimination. In the past, left-handers, homosexuals, organ transplanters, and test-tube babies have also suffered from public discrimination. However, when society generally accepts this phenomenon, such discrimination will cease to exist. Left-handers, homosexuals, organ transplanters, and test-tube babies are also Ordinary people are no different.
- Opponents of gene editing believe that gene editing of embryos violates the autonomy of embryos and is a violation of freedom.
- Proponents of gene editing believe that freedom is relative, and that people are always subject to the times and society. Everyone does not choose to be born into the world, nor has the right to choose their own family. Life is not free. When educating a two-year-old child not to play with knives, a two-year-old child is irrational and has no autonomy. He must accept this teaching, not to mention a newborn baby.
- Opponents of gene editing believe that gene editing can exacerbate inequality. The rich have better resources, will transform their children stronger, and the poor are more socially disadvantaged.
- Proponents of gene editing believe that social inequality itself exists, and even without gene editing techniques, rich children have better resources. To solve the problem of inequality depends on other efforts, and we cannot blame the generation of inequality on the gene editor.
In ethics in Western philosophy, there are three major schools of mainstream: obligation theory, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. Their evaluation criteria are different. To sum up, the first is whether the action is “good”, that is, the risks and benefits brought about by the action; but whether the action is “right”, that is, whether the action conforms to some of our basic moral principles.
However, Chinese culture is not "Essentialism". Chinese culture does not emphasize the search for unchanging essence or universal eternal principles. On the contrary, the Chinese emphasize "special analysis of specific problems". In "The Analects of Confucius", Confucius had the same problem in the face of the sub-path and the devious, but according to the different personality characteristics of the two, gave the opposite answer. Another book "Han-Shi-Wai-Zhuan" said "The constant rule is called Jing, the changed thing is called Quan, the person understands the general Jing, and can grasp the Quan and response flexibly under the specific situation, is the wise man." A balance between Jing & Quan is a basic feature of Chinese culture. Perhaps in the face of increasingly tricky scientific and technological ethical issues, more ancient wisdom of the East is needed.
Legal Research
Since genetic editing technology has only begun to receive widespread attention in recent years, its legislative research has lagged behind. There are no laws and regulations specifically for gene editing in China, but there are several administrative regulations related to gene editing technology.
In addition, some international conventions on human genome research are also closely related to gene editing technology.
Although China has not issued specific laws on genetic editing related technologies, from the perspective of some relevant regulations, the government of China has strict control measures on biotechnology such as gene editing, especially biomedical technology involving human beings. With a cautious attitude, while actively developing the technical level, it emphasizes avoiding risks, avoiding disputes, and ensuring safety.
References
[1]Baltimore, D. , et al. "A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification." Science 348.6230(2015):36-38.
[2]Bosley, Katrine S, et al. "CRISPR germline engineering—the community speaks." Nature Biotechnology 33.5(2015):478-86.
[3]Pugh, and Jonathan. "Driven to extinction? The ethics of eradicating mosquitoes with gene-drive technologies." Journal of Medical Ethics 42.9(2016):578-581.
[4]Rodriguez, Eduardo. "Ethical Issues in Genome Editing for Non-Human Organisms Using CRISPR/Cas9 System." Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics 8.2 (2017): 1-5.
[5]Rodriguez, Eunice Mc Lean. "Ethical Issues in Genome Editing using Crispr/Cas9 System." Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics 7.2 (2016): 1-4.
SJTU-BioX-Shanghai
Contact us: sjtuigem@gmail.com
Bio-X Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Dongchuan Rd. 800