Usage Of Genetic Engineering And Cognitive Enhancers example essay topic

The Problem In his article entitled "Tweaking the Genetics of Behavior", Dean Hamer provides a detailed account of a couple, Syd and Kayla, in their journey to genetically engineer a child. The article says, "Because Syd and Kayla were both women, they were going to clone a baby... ". (Hamer, 62). In their quest to structure a near-perfect child, they take several factors into consideration. These factors include characteristics such as features and build, intelligence, personality traits and temperament (i.e. altruism and happiness), and aversion from mental illness and alcoholism.

Although, ideally, to genetically structure a child with both positive predispositions to certain behaviors and aversions to negative actions, ensures some level of comfort, it does not fully address the ethical ramifications and social backlash of such a practice. The Debate Hamer says that, "Kayla knew that despite her choice of genes, a good home and the best education, a lot was left to pure chance. Experience and environment would richly texture her daughter's personality, and much of that life history would be a matter of serendipity". (Hamer, 62). This assertion is quite correct, however Hamer fails to further expound on the significance of experience and environment in shaping personality. In his article, "Cognitive enhancement raises ethical concerns", James Butcher claims that. ".. if we substantially improve our overall cognitive functioning, we may also alter aspects of our identity that are fundamental to who we are".

(Butcher, 133). By the phrase. ".. aspects of our identity that are fundamental to who we are", I am most certain that Butcher is referring to human nature and personality. Although Hamer acknowledges that intelligence is based significantly on genetics, he does not address the risks of intelligence-based alterations being accessible to only certain socioeconomic classes of society. According to Hamer. ".. intelligence is one of the most heritable human traits".

(Hamer, 64). Butcher, on the other hand, states in his essay that "Perhaps the most worrying issue is the effect cognitive-enhancing drugs might have on social justice and equality". (Butcher, 133). Furthermore, he quotes Judy Isles, a researcher at the "Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics and Department of Radiology, Palo Alto, CA, USA". (Butcher, 132). Butcher says that she. ".. is concerned about what would happen if the level of 'normal' cognitive performance is increased, yet only the wealthy have the means of attaining this new level of normal".

(Butcher, 133). While her argument is certainly a valid one, it is often countered by those who have similar views as Martha Farrah, .".. an expert on the neurology of cognition, emotion, and development at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience". (Butcher, 132). According to Hamer, Farrah says " 'Education is a cognitive enhancer that is very inequitably distributed, but society is not against education...

". (Hamer, 133). In his article, Butcher says "Ethicist's worry that if cognitive enhancers were used en masse, human society, and the values it cherishes, could drastically change". (Butcher, 133). Hamer, in his article, even agrees with this assertion to a certain extent. He says, "Because the brain is so delicate, minor genetic changes that throw metabolism even the slightest bit out of kilter alter its function".

(Hamer, 65). Butchers argument is further expounded upon in his example of the value that society (more particularly, western society) places on hard work. He says. ".. in the past few decades, western society has become increasingly averse to suffering and many people are willing to take shortcuts rather than dedicate the time and resources that were previously needed to achieve a goal... ". He further states that. ".. overcoming adversity and learning from difficult experiences contributes to what it means to be human". (Butcher, 133).

My Position I am opposed to the usage of genetic engineering and cognitive enhancers because of its limited availability to the upper class, wealthy sector of society. If only the rich people have access to cognitive enhancers and neuro implant cybernetic devices, then that leaves the middle and lower classes no choice but to be intellectually inferior. In a society where there is a clearly defined caste system, this process would only further perpetuate a cycle of poverty and lack of education among the poor and furthermore sharpen the distinction between the classes. The "haves" would all-the-more disproportionately own most of society's wealth (if that's possible) while the "have-nots" would be comprised of more people that would essentially live in destitute poverty. The probability of this technology falling into the wrong hands also presents grounds for my opposition.

While science and technology has provided some advancements in society that are irreplaceable, it has also been used for negative reasons. In this example, I am reminded of the Tuskegee Experiment where black men were purposely given syphilis by their doctors in order for them to study the effects. I am also reminded of the atrocities that Hitler ordered to be imposed on the Jews in Nazi Germany, all justified as being for the benefit of science and technology. Although these are two obviously atrocious, and perhaps extreme, examples, they do, nonetheless, represent the hateful deeds humans are capable of in the name of science and technology. Butcher believes that cognitive enhancers may cause. ".. the creation of population homogeneity and loss of diversity".

(Butcher, 133). In accordance with Butcher, I believe that cognitive enhancers, and more specifically, genetic engineering could create a society where people were all the same. Although this process would obviously take place over a very long period of time, it is quite possible. There are certain traits that, if given the chance to ensure them for ourselves and our children, everyone would choose. In my opinion, these traits would be physical characteristics that the media has propagandized to society as the standard of beauty. (Although one might deny the existence of a standard of beauty, there certainly is one, all you have to do is look on the covers, or open the pages of any popular women's magazine.) Society would be very dull and boring if everyone was physically the same, and socially imbalanced if everyone had the same level of intelligence.

Genetic engineering and cognitive enhancers run the risk of disturbing the balance of nature. There are certain inherent traits about humans that, although they may not seem beneficial, provide some sort of balance to our function. By altering any aspect of what it means to be a human, after natural selection has taken its course, we could experience a mass dying off of humans and run the possibility of the extinction of mankind. Although this theory may seem far-fetched, it is quite possible, and is evident in other animal groups that have been genetically altered and re-released into their natural environment. The mere idea of growing up as a genetically engineered child is something that I couldn't even fathom. There would be several questions that I would raise to my parents.

Would you still love me if I wasn't this particular way? Why did I have to be genetically engineered, why didn't you leave my existence up to pure chance or the will of God? And finally, If most of my existence is based on chance or the will of God, what was the point of genetically engineering me in the first place?

Bibliography

Butcher, J. (2003).
Cognitive enhancement raises ethical concerns. The Lancet. 132-133. Hamer, D. (1999).