Prompt 6
If we conclude that there is some knowledge we should not pursue on ethical grounds, how can we determine the boundaries of acceptable investigation within an area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge
“You cannot have a boundary-less existence because your neighbor has his own boundaries, and who is going to give you the ethics between both boundaries? If there is no objective moral law, relativism will take hold, and relativism ultimately will lead to self-destruction.” – Ravi Zacharia [1]
The above quote puts into frame the entire argument of this prompt spectacularly. As humans, we need to have certain boundaries, without them there could be chaos and anarchy. While on the one hand, investigation into the unknown is at the very essence of human behavior, on the other, sentiments and beliefs founded on humanitarian and ethical grounds should be respected, and possibly be off limits (in some cases) for investigation or exploration that could have the potential to violate certain values leading to discord and disharmony and even humaneness.
Morals and ethics are heavily shaped by culture, upbringing and the insatiable need for knowledge , which make it difficult to reach a compromise in the face of disagreements between people with varying views and opinions. This discussion is a difficult yet crucial one as curiosity is human nature, as is basic human decency and respect for other peoples’ sentiments. The blurred lines between ethical and unethical practices makes it difficult to accept either theory. Through exploration of natural sciences, we will discuss here situations wherein ethical restrictions could limit the effective production of knowledge and whether the absence of it could pose more harm than good.
There is no doubt that the use of animal experimentation has taken the development of medicine to newer heights allowing humans to enjoy a better quality of life. But do the benefits to humanity outweigh the sufferings that animals go through as a result of these experiments? The use of animals in the laboratory has enabled research improving the effectiveness and safety of new drugs and their treatment modalities [2]. There are some diseases and their treatments that can only be better understood by studying cellular physiology in the body as a whole and may provide partial or unreliable information if studied on organoids or computer models. Animals like rodents, guinea pigs and chimpanzees exhibit almost 85-95% human-like cellular activity and responses. By testing drugs and procedures on animals we can identify and minimise their risks and resultant fatalities in humans. Does the above argument justify causing pain and suffering to animals when technology today has several options like sophisticated computer models, human tissue and cell cultures to study the same responses of drugs and diseases? Maybe not.
Animal researchers argue that stopping experiments on animals will mean impeding the flow of knowledge thereby dramatically affecting development of new treatment modalities; or an alternative could be to test these on humans, and availability of human volunteers will only become that much more difficult. In the 1930s, a drug called Elixir Sulphanilamide killed hundreds of people because its toxicity of humans was unknown at that time and the drug was released for use in humans. While there are laws against using drugs on humans before they are tested on animals, most animal researchers argue that if better or more reliable alternatives were available, they would be happy to adopt such methods.
On the other hand, lack of ethical self examination by people involved in approving or carrying out animal research IA common. This may lead to denial of the fact that there is pain and suffering result aging in the demonisation of researchers and degradation of their work [3].
But we haven’t yet discovered a substitute with complexities similar to the organs and circulatory system as in the human body. Until such a discovery is made, we may not have an option other than animal experimentation. Arguably so, major breakthroughs in the field of diabetes, HIV, vaccines and antibiotics have been possible only through experiments on animals. Animal rights have been in place since the seventeenth century and have undergone several modification across the world. Today, It is obligatory for researchers to adhere to strict guidelines in accordance with local and federal laws. These laws have been in place to protect rights of animals factoring the pain and fear that animals feel. The three Rs in the Principles of Humane Experimental techniques must be followed strictly to refine, reduce and replace animals for research wherever possible[4]. The way we treat animals in our laboratories is an indication of our attitudes and us as moral beings. In the absence of good and effective alternatives, does it make sense to wait or postpone the research until such alternatives are available or do we give in to our urge and desire to obtain knowledge or in some cases, recognition. The principle of proportionality talks about our responsibility to carefully balance the suffering of animals with the benefits to humanity [5]. Researchers need to substantiate whether the possible benefits of the study will yield relevant scientific benefits.
The second argument for regulating investigation into some types of knowledge has to do with genetic modification that comes under the area of human sciences. More specifically, the issue of genetic engineering of the human genome to enhance, lengthen or improve the quality of human life. Since the advent of medical technology, scientists today can treat diseases and perform procedures that were only thought of in the realm of science fiction just 25 years ago. Genetic engineering, popularly known as CRISPR [6], works by physically changing pieces of genetic code of the human genome. One important and highly controversial topic regarding this is that of ‘Designer Babies [7]. Designer babies are genetically modified even before their birth, giving them customized characteristics. Some parents often want their children to look a certain way, or play a certain sport, but with this technology, they can ‘customize’ the baby to their liking, while still being a foetus.
The focus here is whether scientists should be allowed to meddle with an unborn baby’s genetic structure. Genetic modification of embryos could eliminate mutant genes that have the potential to cause life altering diseases. This could mean averting genetic disorders, and an overall improved health condition of future generations. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis [8] is already being used by couples who know that they carry genes for specific inherited diseases. In the long run, this could mean better quality of life and even longer lifespan for future generations. Consequentially lowering the burden on healthcare spending and infrastructure.
On the other hand, using and altering genetic information to predict the type of person an embryo will become is more complex than it seems and is not devoid of challenges. While it may help eliminate pre-determined genetic disorders, the procedure could cause unknown genetic side effects and chromosomal abnormalities that could be passed on to future generations [9]. Furthermore, exploitation of technology by the rich will provide an unfair advantage to edited children as compared to normally conceived ones, thereby widening the gap between the rich and poor. Not to mention a relatively worsened health status of the poor.
There are several concerns and benefits that can be raised in support or claim of genetic engineering. Although technology is not expected to have morals, it is up to us how we use it. We owe it to our future generations to pass on technological advances. Having the right controls and regulations in place will be a key component in ensuring continued benefits, preventing it from falling into the wrong hands and keeping complexities at bay. A great example of how a potentially destructive and dangerous resource has revolutionized the use of energy through strict ethical control is nuclear power. Another example where collaboration and stringent oversight by governments and private companies has enabled swift progress is the field of space exploration and rocket technology e.g., SpaceX and Virgin Galactic [10]. Similarly, in the case of genetic engineering too, we could harness its benefits and use it for the betterment of mankind by developing and growing in this field wisely and with utmost caution.
In conclusion, while our curiosity for animal research will continue till better, more reliable, effective and financially feasible alternatives are widely available to researchers, is imperative we tread wisely by first looking at it humanely and considering the option only if extremely essential and no other alternatives are available. Moving forward with strict guidelines in place, like use of painkillers and anaesthetics wherever possible is one approach. Reducing the number of animals used could lower the burden as would replacing animal subjects with technological methods. As regards to genetic engineering, or more specifically, designer babies, scientific advancement is something that we owe to our future generations. A patient, well-regulated approach with stringent control will be required to ensure that this fascinating technology does not fall in the wrong hands or give birth to issues like newer antibiotic resistance or mutations that would be very difficult to control. Possessing greater knowledge does impose an ethical responsibility on us. Respecting boundaries while continuing with our pursuit of knowledge will require a balanced and well-informed approach to maintain harmony and peace.
References
[1] https://www.greatbigminds.com/ravi-zacharias-quotes/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2002542/
[3]John P. Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. 1, 1991
[4] Zurlo, J; Rudacille, D; Goldberg, A M (August 1996). “The three Rs: the way forward”. Environmental Health Perspectives. 104 (8): 878–880. doi:10.1289/ehp.96104878. ISSN 0091-6765. PMC 1469425. PMID 8875163.
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/08/designer-babies-ethical-horror-waiting-to-happen
[8] https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/273415-overview
[9] bhttps://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/lab-tests-show-risks-crispr-gene-editing-embryos-73902820
