Lecture One: Genetic Engineering and Playing God

Core 155

Spring 2005

I.          Administrivia

A.                 Read the roll.

B.                 SQs for next week will go up tonight.  They will concern the readings assigned for this week and the two that are up on the web for next week.

C.                 Next Thursday might see a change in plan—we may talk about advertising and monstrosity.  We’ll have to see…

D.                 Questions?

II.        What Is Genetic Engineering?

A.                 Taking genetic material from one organism and splicing it into the genetic code of another organism for the purpose of generating new proteins that can aid the new organism. 

1.                  When the new genetic material is expressed, the result is an abundance of protein that enables the cells involved to do something better (e.g., maintain tastiness for a longer period of time) or do something different (e.g., glow in the dark).

2.                  This can be intraspecies or transgenic.

B.                 Our developing understanding of the code of life enables us to “play God”, so to speak.  We can take living beings and fiddle with them, creating new living beings that are not “what nature intended”.  The results have been astounding, with better and more resistant food supplies, among other things.

III.       So What Is the Problem?

A.                 While there are many true believers, including many businesses (e.g., see the Dupont link), universities, and government agencies, there are also many who fear the power and potential of this technological process.

B.                 What are the negative arguments?

1.                  Epistemic:  We don’t know what might come of this, so we shouldn’t do it; after all, it could be really bad (Argument from Ignorance).  Also, while we may have the knowledge we need, we barely understand this, and understanding is what we need to be careful.

2.                  Metaphysical:  Who are we to play God?  Who are we to launch a “second Genesis”?  Also, this is an unnatural practice—we violate the constraints of Mother Nature by doing this.

3.                  Moral:  It is immoral for us to manipulate the genetic code in this way.  This could either be a consequentialist argument, which would render it akin to the epistemic concern articulated above, or a deontological argument, grounded in our moral duties as human beings. 

            C.        Are any of these persuasive?