Our Posthuman Future Francis Fukuyama Part I Chapter 1: A Tale of Two Dystopias Fukuyama talks about two dystopian futures and how technology empowered them: Information technology in the form of the telescreens from 1984 and biotechnology in Brave New World. The personal computer and Internet revolutions that began in the 1980’s in fact decentralized society and diminished the power of government. [Drexler’s concerns about nanotechnology abuse?] The spread of modern information-sharing devices undermines the state’s monopoly on information. However, the technologies central to Brave New World (in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, psychotropic drugs, genetic engineering) are here or on the way. It has yet to be known what effect they will have on society. Brave New World is a different and more challenging dystopia since everyone’s needs are superficially met. The people in the novel have been dehumanized and don’t even realize it. That is what makes it dystopian. Fukuyama counters that human nature is dynamic and has changed over our history, so there is nothing inherently sacred about our present condition. Fukuyama’s thesis is that biotechnology will alter human nature, moving us into a new, “Posthuman” state of being which will destabilize our core values and sense of identity, threatening liberal democracy—a system Fukuyama believes to be the ideal for humans. Fukuyama observes that biotechnology mixes the benefits and evils together in a single package unlike any other technology. Bill Joy’s concerns about weaponized nanotechnology are overblown since the threat is obvious and people have a good track record dealing with their machines. [Not sure it can be dismissed so easily…] Fukuyama also similarly views advanced biological weapons as a minimal threat and instead focuses on what biotech therapies have the potential to do to the human race. Three dystopian scenarios that may come to be in the next generation or two: -Advances in neuropharmacology and genetics allow the creation of drugs intended to temporarily alter a person’s personality without significant side effects. As a result, people are able to change themselves at will into whatever type of person they choose. There is no longer any excuse for people to be unhappy or introverted. [Many people are happier and more outgoing when mildly drunk, and people can go through the day in this state with few side effects, but normal people don’t do this because there is a social stigma attached to the behavior.] -Advances in stem cell research allow for the artificial regeneration of aged and malfunctioning tissues and organs, extending human lifespans well above 100 years. As a side effect, older people become mentally fixed in their habits and opinions [further advances in brain science would remedy this] and problems occur as they fail to find one another attractive and seek out younger romantic partners [again, advances in biotechnology would solve this problem eventually as the aging process were reversed]. The elders also refuse to step aside from positions of authority and power, disenfranchising younger generations [competition from other organizations?].
1
-Human genetic engineering exacerbates class divisions since only the wealthy can afford the procedure [Wrong—see Naam’s hypothesis on the matter]. The splicing of animal and plant genes into the genomes of some people also creates “hybrids” that are not fully human. Different hybrids have different qualities. Fukuyama states that the concept of political equality central to liberal democracy is based upon the “empirical fact of natural human equality.” [Debatable, for instance, is a severely retarded person in a vegetative state “naturally equal” to a Nobel-prizewinning intellectual who is also highly athletic? Fukuyama is the one deciding to judge peoples’ “rights” based on their natural abilities.] Fukuyama implies that genetic engineering would create ruling elites and slaves. He fails to realize that the coming impact of advanced nanotechnology and A.I. will obviate this long-term scenario. Fukuyama believes that national and international governments must control biotechnology, and that it should be left up to such authorities to discriminate between good and bad uses of biotechnology and to regulate accordingly. Because biotechnology has both potentially good and bad applications, a middle ground must be reached between banning all research and permitting all research. [An important point— Fukuyama differs from McKibben in this respect] While Fukuyama in general praises deregulation and minimal government intrusion, be believes biotechnology is an exception. Fukuyama claims that it is possible to regulate biotechnology internationally and points to the fact that private development of biochemical weapons or experimentation on human subjects are crimes all over the world. [But in both cases, universal human morals are clearly threatened. The “threat” from biotechnology is—in Fukuyama’s own opinion—much less obvious. Not every state will be convinced, though coercion is possible from more powerful states.] It is unfortunate that the debate over biotechnology in the U.S. is currently between the scientific and religious communities [wrong because man created in the image of God] because there are secular reasons to oppose biotechnologies. Fukuyama believes that human nature inherently demands liberal democracy, hence the current prevalence of that political system. Liberal democracy is the world’s dominant political system because it does not run counter to human nature. Fukuyama, like Kurzweil and Drexler, agrees that humanity is on the brink of the most momentous period of technological advancement in its history. An understanding of brain chemistry and the genetic causes of behavior will allow for real social planning that was never achieved even under the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Fukuyama believes that debate over biotechnology must move from merely the moral discussion to the formation of actual regulatory bodies because the advances are much closer than people believe. [Naam shares the same sense of urgency.] Chapter 2: Sciences of the Brain The biotech revolution draws on advances in the fields of: molecular biology, cognitive neuroscience, population genetics, behavior genetics, psychology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, and neuropharmacology. Fukuyama seems to believe that there is a slippery slope between therapeutic and enhancement uses of biotechnology.
2
Genomics—the understanding of the functions of genes—will enable many future technologies. Behavior genetics involves the study of monozygotic twins raised separately and of genetically unrelated children raised together to determine the influence genetics has on behavior and other characteristics. Cross-cultural surveys of traits and activities will indicate that something has a genetic cause if it occurs in human societies all over the world. While this is of limited usefulness, it has indicated that some customs, perceptions and behaviors are universal and thus likely hardwired into the human genome. Our knowledge of human genetics is certain to improve. Genes for intelligence and other traits will be identified, as they already have been in animal experiments. The Bell Curve analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and proposed that intelligence was largely genetic and that genes for intelligence were unevenly distributed among the races, with blacks being the least intelligent, northeast Asians the smartest, and whites in between. Conservatives like the idea of innate differences in ability because it justifies existing social hierarchies. Liberals hate the idea because it suggests there are natural limits to individual abilities that cannot be overcome. The possibility of genetic differences between individuals also raises the possibility of differences between races, which is anathema to the left. A number of prominent studies of intelligence have shown that some degree of the trait is inherited. Fukuyama believes that liberal attacks against the notion of hereditary intelligence have been flawed yet succeeded because it is still politically incorrect to believe in social Darwinism. Mainstream estimates put intelligence at 40-70% genetic. [In a C-SPAN BookTV interview, Fukuyama alluded to a belief in the existence of race-based differences in intelligence.] Fukuyama personally admits believing that intelligence is partially genetic, but also emphasizes the strong role environment plays. Though he tries to word his statements carefully, it seems as if he also believes differences might exist between races. Future improvements in our knowledge of which genes cause intelligence will prove conclusively that there is a causal relationship, to the disdain of liberals. Like Kurzweil, Fukuyama believes that advanced brainscanning techniques will allow us a much better understanding of how the brain works, and that this in turn will allow an understanding of how biology influences intelligence. Twin studies have also shown a possible genetic correlate for criminal behavior. Fukuyama believes that criminal acts of all varieties may stem from innately poor impulse control abilities and from irrational thinking. The fact that males are more violent than females across all societies very strongly supports the idea that criminal behavior has genetic roots. This, however, implies racially based propensities for criminal behavior since more blacks commit crimes. Liberals have consistently attacked research into the genetic causes of criminal behavior for this reason. Studies have shown differences between the innate abilities of males and females. Early behavior is also different in the same ways across cultures. Feminists oppose this idea since it suggests that strengths and weaknesses are not the products of cultural programming. Homosexuality may have two biological causes. First, if genetic, it could be part of a balanced polymorphism. Second, if not genetic, it could result from prenatal assault. In either case, the
3
continued occurrence of homosexuality throughout history in spite of the fact that homosexuals are naturally disinclined to reproduce is explained. Twin studies have shown rates of heritability for homosexuality are 31-74% for males and 2776% for females. Structural differences in the hypothalamus have been noted in gay men. Chromosomal region Xq28. With homosexuality, the reverse situation occurs with the Right arguing it is a lifestyle choice while the Left argues it is a natural condition. The existence of bisexuals indicates plasticity in sexual orientation. [We will probably one day discover that people exist on a continuum of sexual orientation: Almost everyone is “gay” to a certain degree] While modern science has proved the difference between the races and sexes are much smaller than previously believed, it has upheld the fact that some differences do undoubtedly exist. In the future, we will have an understanding of the genetic causes of certain traits, and we will also have the means to alter these traits. Moral questions will be raised as parents engineer their children. Gays, for instance, might shrink in number and become a less powerful minority if it becomes possible to “prevent” homosexuality. Chapter 3: Neuropharmacology Freudian psychology began to decline in 1949 with the accidental discovery of the positive psychotropic effects of lithium on manic-depressives. It was discovered that many mental problems had simple biochemical causes instead of complex cognitive sources. Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil are antidepressants that have revolutionized the treatment of depression. The drugs have been known to profoundly change peoples’ personalities, and 28 million Americans have taken them. These drugs are SSRI’s. The neurotransmitter Serotonin has been linked to depression and mania. Prozac may have a number of serious, long-term side effects that are currently not understood. However, the finding that Prozac has no side effects would have more serious societal consequences. Prozac is said to affect self-esteem. Self-esteem is simply the desire for recognition from other people. This is a foundation of human nature and affects individual, group, and even national behavior. Studies on chimpanzees have shown that serotonin levels are low in members ranking low in social orders, but increase with the chimp’s group status. Since the beginning of human history, the desire for recognition has driven people to work hard, to compete, and to suffer. By providing an easy serotonin high, Fukuyama believes that SSRI’s could give everyone high self-esteem and eliminate incentives to work. [Yeah, right. People are still not going to be satisfied in a society such as ours that worships overachievers and competition.] Fukuyama only objects to the use of Prozac for cosmetic pharmacology: normal people taking the drug to feel “better than good,” or to treat mildly bothersome personality or behavioral deficiencies that could be cured with hard work. [Directly opposed to Naam] Ritalin is a stimulant used to treat ADHD. While ADHD is a mental disorder recognized by the DSM, some questions its status.
4
Fukuyama believes it is more likely that ADHD is the extreme end of the normal behavior spectrum. He notes that the classroom environment is an artificial one that many normal children find constraining. Ritalin improves concentration, attention span, and produces euphoria. While not as addictive as other stimulants, it still has the same essential effects on the user. Students without ADHD have been known to abuse the drug because it improves their academic performance. Attempts to explain all behaviors and propensities as biological in origin absolve people of blame for their own shortcomings and eliminate the incentive for self-improvement. ADHD is an example of this. When human genetic engineering becomes possible, the situation will get worse. Pharmaceutical companies have spent fortunes trying to get ADHD classified as a mental disability. With ADHD now considered a disability, students with the disorder can have large amounts of extra time to complete standardized tests (again, there is less incentive for the student to improve themselves). Fukuyama also objects to ADHD’s classification on moral grounds: society has decided that in ADHD—a disease with both psychological and biological causes—the biological cause should predominate in importance. [Society doesn’t have the right to make this decision?] Both Ritalin and Prozac push people towards a socially acceptable median of behavior and personality. Fukuyama sees this as homogenization, and the drugs remind him of “Soma” from Brave New World. Current research indicates that the drugs of the future may be able to more powerfully and precisely affect human psychology in pleasurable and positive ways, though the moral and social effects will be negative (according to Fukuyama). The spread of psychotropic drugs demonstrates three powerful political trends that will reappear with genetic engineering. -The desire for people to medicalize as much of their behavior as possible to absolve themselves of personal responsibility for their condition or for their self-improvement. -Pressure from powerful interests (biotech companies and citizen lobbies) to further this process. -Expansion of the realm of pathology to encompass more conditions that people find distressing and the consequent increase in compensatory public expenditure. Pressures from different groups—not from the government—will increase the level of social control exercised over the populace. Fukuyama believes that America’s confused legal stances towards different drugs are a problem. In general, a drug is tolerated if it does not produce negative changes in personality, if it is not intoxicating at normal doses, and if it is not injurious to health when used in moderation. However, this can still harm societies since a drug like Soma would, under our criteria, be allowed. Even without genetic engineering, drugs will allow people to alter themselves. [This was a good chapter that I really got a “feel” for. Consider reading it again for effect.] Chapter 4: The Prolongation of Life Life extension will have serious social and political consequences for the world. Gerontology (the study of the aging process and its causes) has advanced and grown as the population has grayed.
5
-Evolutionary biologists believe that aging is a complex phenomenon caused by the actions of many genes, so no shortcut to longevity exists -Molecular biologists examine the reasons for aging at the cellular level. Fukuyama mentions progressive DNA damage, the Hayflick limit, and telomere shortening. Dolly the cloned sheep has the shortened telomeres of an adult. Germ cells, cancer cells and some stem cells are not subject to the Hayflick limit and do not age because they contain telomerase, an enzyme that prevents telomere shortening. Fukuyama mentions caloric restriction’s activating effect on the SIR2 gene, which reduces waste buildup in cells and prolongs cell and organismal life. Some geneticists have suggested that artificial activation of the SIR2 gene in humans could thus prolong lifespans. Others claim that aging is a complex process with many simultaneous causes, and no one change alone will alter the process. A biotech company has already patented the telomerase gene, and research into stem cells for therapeutic cloning is underway. While Fukuyama is not sure whether major breakthroughs in senescence science such as a lifeprolonging pill will occur, he expects the current trend of gradual increases in lifespan to hold. As life expectancies have increased, fertility rates have dropped. Fukuyama talks about the graying of the population. Current estimates of future age distributions do not take into account breakthroughs in medical science, and may seriously underestimate the degree to which older people will predominate. It is possible that some countries in the developed world will have majorities of people retirement age or older by 2050. Germany, Japan and Italy will be among the worst. While the graying of the population will have repercussions on social welfare programs, this is just the start of the troubles. Divisions will increase between natives of the developed and undeveloped worlds as age becomes another separating factor. Voting age populations in the developed world will become more feminized as women outlive men and following along the natural progression of female participation in politics. Elderly people and females are less prone to support warfare and military expenditures. Furthermore, the graying of the population will decrease the available pool of useful military manpower. [But war will also become more efficient thanks to advanced technologies like unmanned fighting vehicles and greater automation in general] The Third World will increasingly be dominated by young, angry men while the First World will be in the hands of older women. Current estimates of population decline are based on assumptions that there will be no mass immigration. Fukuyama believes that economic concerns will motivate developed nations to take on immigrants. [Europe might be turning the other way soon][How would the advent of cheap, effective robot workers affect the demand for immigrant workers? Does anyone really doubt we’ll have such robots in 50 years?] He notes America’s historical ease with assimilating new people and casually declares that we will have no serious problems, while the same will not be true for Japan or Europe. Normal problems caused by social differences will be exacerbated by age differences. Longer lifespans will cause more problems as useless old people cling to positions of power and arrest progress and impede efficiency. Rich dictators will take advantage of life extension technologies, blocking political progress in many countries.
6
Fukuyama seems to suggest that, while old people may remain basically competent, they will still be fixed in their ways and will slow progress and new ideas. [Brain implants a solution?] He gives some good examples to support his case. Fukuyama believes that the solution is to mandate continual re-training and remedial education to ensure that older workers remain competent. He believes that the notion of a person learning all necessary skills in their 20’s and remaining competent for the next 70 or 80 years with just that education is “preposterous.” [I agree, and so does Kurzweil] Medical advances must not only extend the length of life, they must also improve the quality of life. Otherwise, society will be saddled with the expense of large numbers of debilitated old people. The ethics and legality of euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide is likely to become a bigger issue in the future. Fears of ageism will mute critics of future social hierarchies dominated by the elderly. The mass media will shift emphasis from young people to the old. Young people will become a tiny minority. Older people will be incapable of reproducing for the last several decades of their lives, so the ties and obligations to family will diminish. Occupations will be elective rather than incumbent to support a family. [Radical advances in fertility treatments could change this—Fukuyama is not thinking flexibly] Fukuyama argues that a diminished emphasis on family, a much prolonged retirement period, and a long vegetative state in the final years of life will make peoples’ lives emptier and lonelier. [Technology will give people ways to adapt] Peoples’ attitudes towards death will also change once it becomes possible to prolong life indefinitely. Self-sacrifice will arguably decrease. [There are always going to be testosteronepumped young guys willing to sacrifice themselves for some cause. Self-sacrifice among soldiers will also become less important as more and more autonomous robots and remotely controlled fighting vehicles are used. The trend toward this is clear, and there is no chance it will stop.] Chapter 5: Genetic Engineering All of the previous consequences described will come to pass without genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is already used on plants. The Human Genome Project was massive and funded by various governments. It determined the locations of all the human genes, as well as the locations of noncoding regions of the genome. There is still disagreement over how many genes humans have. The Project was completed way ahead of schedule in June of 2000. [Kurzweil’s predicted advances in genetic scanning techniques] Proteomics is the study of how genes code for proteins and how the proteins fold. Fukuyama observes the same trend cited by Kurzweil and Naam when he mentions the fact that the ability to sequence DNA and to understand protein folding is dependent upon computing power. This synergy between computing and the study of biology has caused a new field to arise: bioinformatics. The study of diseases rooted in genetics has so far only harvested the lowest-hanging fruits: Diseases in which just a single gene is responsible are understood. The future of genetic research will be much harder since it will require scientists to deal with diseases in which multiple genes, combinations of genes, and genetic-environmental interactions are the causative factors.
7
Higher-order conditions and behaviors such as intelligence, aggression and sexuality are poorly understood and are the sum of the effects of many interacting genes and environmental conditions. Some genes constantly turn on and off and influence each others’ (in)activation. Fukuyama mentions preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Human cloning is already a possibility since it is much simpler than genetic engineering. Fukyama mentions the difference between somatic and germline genetic engineering. The possibility of adding artificial chromosomes to the human genome has been discussed as a bridge between PGD and germline engineering. Descendants would not inherit the new chromosome, and the engineered person could decided to activate [or deactivate] the chromosome at the age of consent. Obstacles to human genetic engineering: -The genome is extremely complex and it will take time to fully understand it. The facts that many genes have multiple functions and produce different proteins present a further complication. -Bans of human experimentation hinder progress. Trying to engineer humans is unethical since current techniques are so imprecise (there were 270 failed attempts to clone the first sheep before Dolly was created—with shortened telomeres and shortened lifespan—and more than 30% of all animals successfully cloned since then have abnormalities). [Kurzweil agrees with the current ban] Fukuyama believes that the Law of Unintended Consequences would rear its head when human genetic engineering first begins, as genes with unknown secondary functions are altered but don’t cause problems until later in the person’s life. Like McKibben, Fukuyama concedes that genetic engineering would have a minimal impact on the human race [at least initially] and on human nature since the population is so vast. Reasons to doubt that the preceding obstacles will prevent human genetic engineering in the future: -Scientific and technological developments happen surprisingly fast, and single breakthroughs (sometimes to the point of being paradigm shifts) can accelerate the entire pace of progress in a field. During the 1980’s, there was a firm consensus among geneticists that it was impossible to clone a mammal from adult somatic cells, [Research this] but Dolly was created in 1997. The Human Genome Project was projected for completion sometime between 2010 and 2020, but was finished in 2000. Fukuyama also mentions the use of complex adaptive models of the human brain as an example of an unexpected shortcut that could suddenly yield revolutionary results. [Fukuyama here is agreeing with Kurzweil’s take on the non-linear progression of technology] -Pharmaceuticals are today approved without a full knowledge of all distant side effects, so it is possible that genetic engineering will likewise be allowed even in spite of the possibility that it may cause complex, unwanted changes. [Good point—if genetic engineering is to be held to an absolute standard of reliability, why not do the same for all drugs? Clinical trials must go on for decades to make sure nothing bad happens, and children of subjects must be examined for changes as well. Medical progress would be arrested due to the unreasonable constraint.] -People suffering from serious genetic diseases will likely volunteer for experimental trials of gene therapies, opening the door for some level of human experimentation. [Such desperate people already volunteer for experimental drugs that may kill them. What about the ethics of denying terminally ill people the chance at gene therapy when there is the possibility it could cure them?]
8
-The eugenic effects of genetic engineering could become sufficiently widespread in the population to alter human nature (i.e.—so many people are engineered for intelligence that average population IQ increases) if the technologies become cheap enough for everyone. [It is here that Fukuyama and Naam differ on whether or not cost-performance can increase fast enough] Fukuyama cites a current precedent “for new medical technologies having populationlevel effects as a result of millions of individual choices” in East Asia and India, where culture places pressure for couples to produce male heirs and access to cheap sonograms and illegal abortions allows selection for boys. As a result, male-female ratios in these regions are very lopsided in favor of males. [Note how this has occurred even though abortion for the purposes of sex selection is illegal in all of the countries. The same will be true even if genetic engineering is outlawed.] Fukuyama proposes that the state could once again enforce a eugenics program, not by forcibly preventing “inferior” people from breeding, but by ensuring (subsidizing) access to genetic engineering technologies whose promise most people will find irresistible. [Naam mentions that this will also be in the national interest since a smarter, healthier population is better for the economy. Also note that the citizens themselves may demand the government pay for the genetic engineering since poorer people will feel disadvantaged.] China’s lopsided number of males will have serious social consequences beginning in the 2010’s since 20% of the young male population will not be able to find mates. Unattached young males are a recipe for disaster. [What about growing environmental problems and political problems in China as well?] Females may also gain more power since they will have a wider selection of mates to choose from. Fukuyama cites the abandonment of hydroelectric power as proof that new, seemingly valuable technologies can be abandoned once side effects become evident. [I’d like to see more than one example. I’m also not sure if hydroelectric power has been “abandoned”: What probably happened in the U.S. is that all the best rivers that were feasible to dam were dammed. Had there been more, the construction probably would have continued in spite of environmental objections.] Fukuyama believes there is the possibility that human genetic engineering may take 50 to 100 years to become feasible, and that it may in fact prove impossible. [Kurzweil would agree that this is true, only if one assumes the current rate of science/technology progress continues. In reality, the rate of advancement will accelerate as time passes, so genetic engineering will happen much sooner than Fukuyama thinks. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.] Chapter 6: Why We Should Worry Fukuyama is again careful to point out the fact that biotechnology has serious benefits for humanity, and therefore that stricter regulation, not total abandonment, is the correct path. Unfortunately, people still associate genetics with eugenics. In the early 20th century, government eugenics programs enjoyed support from both prominent conservatives and liberals in many Western countries, including the U.S. Since the revelations of the Nazis’ extreme eugenics programs, most other Western countries have become totally unsympathetic to the idea and some European nations have very strict laws on genetic research. In East Asia, the backlash has been very muted. China practices eugenics on a mass scale with its “one-child per family” policy. A 1995 law also constricted the right of low-IQ people to reproduce.
9
There were two major arguments against the eugenics programs of the 20th century that will not apply to the eugenics programs of the 21st: -Early eugenics programs could not eradicate “abnormalities” in the population since most genetic diseases are carried by recessive traits propagated by normal people and since many social problems were in fact caused by poor living conditions and not biology. -Early eugenics programs were state-sponsored and coercive. Genetic engineering would allow the eventual removal of recessive, disease-causing alleles from entire national populations. Instead of “breeding out” inferior people, the latter would be raised to the same genetic level as everyone else. It is likely that, before it is possible to make “designer babies,” advances in biotechnology will make parents more aware of the genetic features of their children before birth, spurring more abortions of natural births and more discarding of embryos as parents get better warnings of potential problems. It may even someday be the case that no embryos need be discarded to engineer a perfect child. Fukuyama finds three categories of arguments against the new eugenics: those based on religion, those based on utilitarian considerations, and those based on philosophical principles. The second part of this book will focus on the last category. Religious considerations -In the Abrahamic faiths, man is created in God’s image. This has an important implication for human dignity since it sets humans apart from and above all other life: only humans are capable of moral choice, free will, and faith. God has established this as the natural order, and a violation of that order through genetic alteration is a sin. [Contrast this with Eastern religions, which do not draw such absolute distinctions between humans and animals.] -Thus, conservative Christians have consistently denounced abortion, contraception and reproductive and genetic technologies. [But creating a genetically engineered person isn’t necessarily the same as creating something inhuman; it is just a very good human that, ordinarily, would require a very unlikely series of natural genetic events in order to come into existence. Of course, this wouldn’t be the case if the engineered involved the insertion of artificial genes or chromosomes.] They all put humans in the place of God in deciding whether human life should be created or not, and in what form. -Genetic engineering also casts human creation as a quantifiable set of biochemical interactions [which it is] instead of as a divine miracle, leading to further religious opposition. -The stridence of religious opposition creates the illusion that genetic engineering is offensive only on religious grounds, and thus prejudices both neutral observers and proponents of biotechnology. Among the latter, there is the widespread belief that religious conviction is irrational and stands in the way of scientific progress, and that natural increases in education will wither away religious opponents. -Fukuyama claims that proponents of biotechnology themselves share universal values espoused by Christians such as universal human dignity, and that such beliefs are actually articles of faith. [A good point, but then again, what belief isn’t ultimately an article of faith?] -Fukuyama [questionably] observes that industrialization has not led to a reduction in the prevalence of religiosity in Asia and North America, and that only Europe has followed the trend. He correctly states that religious people will not disappear anytime soon and will be a strong social and political influence for the foreseeable future.
10
-The Christian right damaged itself by opposing stem cell research in 2001 on the grounds that it would cause more abortions. In fact, the NIH guidelines were carefully crafted to prevent such a thing. Utilitarian (Economic) considerations -Fukuyama lays out three basic precepts: in a market economy people make decisions rationally, people will not do things to harm themselves or their children, and people will be free to choose whether to use biotechnologies or not. -Predicting the effects of artificially altered multiple gene interactions will be difficult. For instance, changing a person’s intelligence might require 10 different genes to be altered. These genes might be individually used for totally different functions as well, meaning that many other things aside from intelligence would also be changed. Furthermore, deleterious changes might take a long time to detect since some genes do not express themselves until later in life. [Two things should be noted. First, with sufficiently advanced genetic technology, these sorts of germline errors could be edited out in the adult with somatic engineering. Second, while we will doubtless face early obstacles of the sort Fukuyama describes in this passage, scientific progress will inevitably provide us with a full understanding of the human genome someday.] -Human genetic engineering may bear negative externalities: ill effects on third parties. -Contemporary family law recognizes the rights of parents to make life-altering decisions for their children. -Genetically engineering children could be harmful since fickle parents might make decisions based on passing fads or their own strange beliefs. The child would be forever marred. [Again— Fukuyama is not thinking flexibly. Adult genetic engineering or medicines could reverse or mask the original germline modifications. Furthermore, he like McKibben assumes that genes determine everything about a person when in fact they do not: A child dissatisfied with their parents’ genetic choices could rebel and become a much different person] -Fukuyama again mentions the artificial chromosome that can be switched on at 18. -While parents might rely on advice from scientists to guide their construction of designer babies, Fukuyama cautions that scientists have their own agendas. He notes the story of David Reimer, who was accidentally castrated as a baby and then underwent a sex-change operation at the suggestion of Dr. John Money, a vocal proponent of the idea that gender is a cultural rather than biological construct. Reimer could not resist his/her natural biological urges and had sexual reassignment surgery at age 15. While Money could claim for 15 years that Reimer’s case had proven his theories, he was eventually proven wrong. Today, it is known that the development of male and female brains diverges in utero due to differences in hormone exposure. Fukuyama believes that this story exemplifies the dilemmas that will befall parents of the future. Wellmeaning parents will be deceived into genetically engineering their children in ways suggested by scientists with their own agendas. The child will turn out messed up, and the parents will be profoundly sorry. The child will eventually reverse the treatment, which will be a costly endeavor. [But this is just one example. There is no reason to believe such a misfortune would become commonplace.] -A culture that favors boys over girls would suffer if given unrestricted access to genetic engineering technologies. Later in life, many of the males would find themselves unable to find mates due to the lopsided sex ratio, and the society would suffer from more crime and political instability with more unattached males running around. -People making the rational choice to extend their lives through biotechnology will also drain society’s resources, possibly to unanticipated levels.
11
-Fukuyama again posits the “Coming Death Shortage” scenario where old people refuse to die, cling to power, and outnumber the young. [But is it realistic to assume that the current system of dependency would continue when advances allow old people to remain active for decades past their 60’s? Would there be no “defectors” at all among the elderly who would see the necessity of cutting pensions and raising retirement ages for the health of the society as a whole? Would younger nations pose such little competition to older ones that the latter would have no reason to reform?] -Fukuyama also notes the fact that many desirable human characteristics are zero-sum, meaning they are only valuable if they confer a relative advantage. For instance, engineering yourself to be tall is pointless if everyone else engineers themselves to be tall as well: You remain simply average. [However, as Naam notes, engineering people to be smarter or healthier is non-zerosum since it benefits all of society] Fukuyama believes that intelligence is also a zero-sum trait in some ways since the advantages of intelligence are only useful if they are relative (Bell Curve hypothesis—stupider people are always forced to the bottom). However, he admits that a nation with a higher average IQ will be more productive and wealthier. -Fukuyama believes that it is best to defer to nature when it comes to deciding whether to allow human genetic engineering or not: like the ecosystem, the human genome is an interconnected system which we do not understand, and changing one element may have unforeseen repercussions. [But even complex systems can be understood with enough study.] -Genetic engineering of individuals could affect the behavior of entire societies if done on a sufficiently wide scale. For instance, altering human nature to eliminate “undesirable” traits such as aggression might make a nation uncompetitive, complacent, and ripe for conquest by another state. -Libertarian arguments that the “market” for self-enhancement will be self-correcting are flawed: There are such things as market failures, and these commonly stem from just the same sorts of negative externalities that genetic engineering might cause. -Utilitarianism is an incomplete argument against biotechnology. Moral concerns centering around the intangible alteration of human nature are equally important. Fukuyama believes that human nature links all people and forms the basis of universal rights. Part II Chapter 7: Human Rights The concept of human rights forms the basis of liberal democracy and is integral to morality. Human rights come from human nature [badly explained]. Bioethicist John Robertson argues that people have a fundamental right to “procreative liberty,” which gives them the right to have children, to have an abortion, and to modify their children with biotechnology. Ronald Dworkin posits “ethical individualism.” The two tenets are: 1) a person’s life must be successful and not wasted and 2) individuals are responsible for their end situation in life. This somehow commands genetic engineering. [Badly explained] Americans believe that they have a personal right to all sorts of things that should ideally be seen as privileges. This sort of hyperindividualism undercuts efforts to advance the greater public good. Rights are different from interests because most people would never barter or violate the former whereas the latter is far more malleable.
12
Rights can derive from three sources: God, Nature, or Man -Divine rights are not recognized in liberal democracies because few societies are able to arrive at a consensus based on religion, leading to warfare. -Natural rights come from universal aspects of human nature. -Manmade, or positivistic, rights are simply agreed upon by majorities of people (i.e.—if most people believe gun ownership is a right, then it becomes one through law). The problem is, universal political standards do not exist. Fukuyama believes that contemporary philosophers are wrong to discount human nature as a source for universal rights: -Critics first argue that human nature is irrelevant since it makes no sense for a human behavior or craving to be a right simply because it is a common instinct. [i.e. – Just because humans instinctively want to kill plants and animals for food doesn’t mean that it is morally justified for us to do so.] -Second, many aspects of human nature are animalistic, and if codified would lead to a brutish society. -Fukuyama believes that modern critics have oversimplified human nature to a constant effort to reduce pain and maximize pleasure, or to perpetually pursue utiles (units of consumer preference that vary from individual to individual). For example, people feel pain and pleasure in greatly varying qualitative and quantitative degrees. People may pursue contradictory utiles at the same time (a junkie longing for a drug-free life while simultaneously hungering for his next fix). -Fukuyama states that judgments of right and wrong are often inextricably tied to emotions (i.e. —someone will think something is wrong if it elicits a negative reaction) [Weak] -The visceral human fear of death led to the concept of the human right to life. -Rousseau and Kant were the first Western philosophers to propose the idea that human beings were perfectible creatures who were capable of acting counter to their instincts, and that such behavior was often preferable since human nature is brutish. With this in mind, establishing human rights on the basis of human nature and trying to structure a society in a way that most pleases human nature becomes unnecessary. -Kantian ethics shows the beginning of the currently predominating theory that human goodness involves the application of willpower to overcome antisocial human instincts. -Human rights are now derived from reason instead of human nature. -Fukuyama attacks the rationalist philosophers because assumptions about human nature lie at the cores of their belief systems, demonstrating that human nature does indeed have an impact on law, government and society. [Complicated] -The idea of reciprocity (people helping one another with the expectation of receiving help in return) is deeply ingrained in human behavior, and doubtless has become part of our genetic heritage because it confers greater survivability to humans. [Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny] It should make sense that such an integral aspect of human nature should serve as a partial basis for human rights. Dworkin’s theory abounds with assumptions about human nature: humans naturally mature their potential over time, potential requires effort to cultivate, and people and societies have orders of preferences for each person’s potential. Fukuyama believes that too much emphasis has been given on maximizing peoples’ personal freedoms, and that genuine rights have become conflated with wants. Values and the subjugation of individual gratification allow groups and societies to enjoy coherence and to function. [I agree.]
13
Fukuyama believes that the examination of human nature can reveal hierarchies of natural rights. A universal human drive is to accumulate property, status, and power for the benefit of one’s self and one’s progeny. This pursuit is made more successful when people work together (Fukuyama specifically refers to Robert Wright’s Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny). Human societies have therefore quashed violence in favor of cooperation, with violent behavior increasingly pushed to the fringes of civilizations. Globalization has taken the place of constant warfare. This, Fukuyama believes, reveals an ordering of human nature traits: the desire to cooperate for personal gain is more central than man’s violent impulses. [It would be nice if Fukuyama could elaborate on this theme with more pieces of specific evidence.] Kin-selection theory states that humans will naturally favor blood relatives over other people since they want to ensure their family’s genetic stock is passed on. This therefore suggests that a political system respecting the rights of people to attend to their own family before the rest of society will be most successful. This is why Socialist dictatorships failed—they tried to dissolve the ties of the family and substitute the state. Chapter 8: Human Nature Fukuyama’s definition of “human nature”: The set of human behaviors that stem from genetic rather than environmental factors. Fukuyama admits that not all humans behave and think the same, but that there is a middle range that should constitute human nature. Typical refers to the median. [Kind of weak—geniuses and retarded people are also human, but have intelligence levels far outside the median range.] Characteristics like human behavior usually have bell-curve distributions. Environment can change the spread of the curve or shift it in one direction (i.e.—height changing with better diets). The range of variance is limited by nature. For instance, a biologically normal person cannot grow beyond a certain height even with unlimited food intake, and will die rather than shrink below a certain caloric minimum and physical size. Males are also taller than females due to genetics. All assumptions about human nature are probabilistic ones since there are always exceptions to the rules about human nature. The variance of human behavior is far greater than in any other species because we are social animals. Human language is a feature that distinguishes our species from all others. Noam Chomsky first suggested that our ability to speak, understand and learn languages was genetic and hence integral to all people [i.e. – Babies don’t learn every since word they end up speaking: Much of their knowledge of language comes hard-wired into their genes that code for the language portions of their brains.]. Most experts today agree. Modern cognitive neuroscientists have also abandoned the tabula rasa theory of the human mind and of human behavior advocated by John Locke and B.F. Skinner. Fukuyama uses the example of infanticide to prove that there are universal human morals. While Locke argued that the practice proved that not all societies believed in reciprocity, Fukuyama says that, in fact, all societies have reciprocity as a central tenet but may exercise it in different ways. Furthermore, infanticide always occurs under specific conditions (i.e.—sickly infant, not enough food, preference for a male child) and is distressing for the parents, suggesting that it is
14
indeed universal for parents to care for their offspring. [Is this single argument sufficient proof for the broader one?] [Also the ancient Greeks were considered civilized yet practiced infanticide: The newborn was not considered a true human being unless the father accepted it. The babies were usually left on a hillside to die of exposure. The Roman practice of infanticide was also very widespread, and a baby was not considered a real human being unless the father accepted it. If he rejected it, it was perfectly fine to kill the baby.] The demands of the social environment pressured our hominid ancestors to develop universal morals. There are many other species-typical ways humans think and act. [But do these entitle us to life more than animals? True, humans possess a number of unique characteristics like intelligence, but why is an intelligent animal more entitled to live than an unintelligent one? In making such judgments, we are applying our own species-specific biases.] Animal rights activists do not try to protect pathogenic bacteria species. [Fukuyama’s definition of “human nature” is murky, and it also remains to be seen from his book how biotechnology would fundamentally alter humans.] Chapter 9: Human Dignity The Council of Europe has denounced human cloning on the grounds that it violates human dignity. “Human dignity” is a poorly defined term. Fukuyama defines human dignity as the individual’s desire to be respected and recognized for their specific attributes (race, religion, abilities, etc.). “Factor X” is the intrinsic human quality that sets us apart from all other forms of life and which makes us all entitled to the same universal human rights, even if our secondary characteristics differ considerably. For Christians, Factor X is the fact that humans were created in God’s image and thus contain divine characteristics unfound in the rest of nature. Kant argued that humans were special because of their possession of free will and the ability to make moral choices. [Don’t some advanced mammals display codes of conduct and patterns of “human-like” behavior that may be indicative of “morality”? For instance, chimpanzees sharing food with other members of their groups? Doesn’t Fukuyama argue earlier in this book that so much of human nature stems from selfish, biologically driven motivations to survive? Aren’t our morals just extensions of that?] “Most natural scientists” argue that free will is an illusion, and that all human decisions are simply governed by complex yet predictable nerve firings that result from previous material states of the brain. [But what about the effect of unexpected events—such as a natural disaster— on humans? Doesn’t that throw everything off track by novel environment that the brain must formulate a new response to?] Kant does not prove that free will exists. Therefore, Fukuyama dismisses his opinion that Factor X lies with the ability to choose. Some experts say that human nature, indeed the nature of any species, is not permanent since environmental factors are always pressuring evolution in a new direction. Therefore, we can view our current “human nature” as something less sacred and more the consequence of random factors. In fact, many aspects of human nature are ill suited to the demands of modern society.
15
Genetic engineering could free us of human nature. [Badly explained] According to Nietzsche, an abandonment of the notion of Factor X would invariably lead to a return of social hierarchies and the society wide pursuit of maximum pleasure and minimum pain. The ideas of universal egalitarianism now persist largely in the absence of religion. Fukuyama believes that one constant of human existence that ensures rough “equality” is our lack of control over our genes—or “the genetic lottery,” as he calls it. Due to random genetic events, all people regardless of their wealth and personal genomes, are not assured of having offspring that are as genetically privileged or disadvantaged as they. Germline genetic engineering would allow rich people to ensure the genetic superiority of their children, destroying the natural “link” that people of wealth share with poorer people. But Fukuyama also admits that he believes in social Darwinism—that people tend to reproduce with mates of similar status due to similarities in genetic makeup—and that thus wealthy and powerful people have always had a natural edge. [His entire supposition also rests on the unlikely assumption that the cost-performance of genetic engineering technologies will not improve over time, giving poor people access to the technology.] Genetically engineered offspring may view themselves as entitled to success and wealth considering their genetic advantages. This may diminish the idea that much is owed to hard work, environmental factors and luck, and thus diminish sympathy for people of lower status since the ideas of social Darwinism would become more widespread. This would represent a rebirth of the old “nobility by birth” philosophy. [I see a more complex picture, where the world is not strictly divided between the enhanced and the “natural,” but instead has people with varying degrees of augmentation commensurate with their or their parents’ wealth. Prejudice against less modified people may be difficult when you yourself are not as “evolved” as even better transhumans. Then again, this sort of hypocritical bigotry might happen anyway, if the “Pigmentocratic” socioeconomic systems in Latin America are any indication.] Fukuyama believes that the prospect of wealth-based genetic inequalities in society would upset the disenfranchised to the point of violence in the future. The situation would be resolved in one of two ways: banning all human biotech enhancements (unlikely because enhancement will be attractive to most people), or ensuring more widespread access to genetic engineering through new government policies. For the Left to advance such a cause, it will have to reverse its current view that genes play no role in shaping human traits like intelligence. Fukuyama is unsure whether greater genetic inequality or greater genetic uniformity would be the ultimate outcome. Fukuyama believes that there is a way to rationally uphold human dignity. -In 1996, Pope John Paul II corrected the Humani generis and officially accepted the idea that humans could have evolved from lower primates. However, the Pope maintained that an “ontological leap” existed whereby God created and inserted a soul into our human ancestors at some point, differentiating us from the animals. -Contemporary Darwinians believe that all aspects of human nature have biological, biochemical, and genetic causes that themselves evolved through a process of natural selection. This view is very deterministic in a way. -Fukuyama believes that such reductionist logic, while appropriate for scientifically analyzing simpler things, is not suited towards understanding complex systems like human nature and
16
animal behavior. Such systems cannot be understood by summing their parts: different properties will emerge from impossibly complex interactions of all the parts. [Hence, emergent properties.] -Human anatomy, behavior and cognition are at the top hierarchy of sciences in terms of complexity. -Like other systems, human behavior and thought are complex and layered, with each subsequent layer being determined by the transient makeup of the last. Small variances can produce pronounced changes to the final emergent property. [Chaos theory?] Predicting human behavior or thought is thus impossible since it is impossible to know enough about a human being at any given moment. Consciousness is a complex and distinctly human quality. Fukuyama does not believe A.I. is coming anytime soon because human consciousness is not fully understood. Fukuyama mentions Hans Moravec’s and Ray Kurzweil’s ideas that consciousness can be assigned to computers once they pass the Turing Test. While Fukuyama asserts that computers are unlikely to ever reach that state since consciousness is simply too complex, he does not totally dismiss the possibility, and concedes that public acceptance of A.I. as conscious would bode ominously for human dignity, since it would imply that humans were nothing more than complex biological machines. [What are Fukuyama’s computer credentials? Why should we view him as an authority on the future prospects for A.I.?] Fukuyama believes that the full range of human emotions is our most defining and mysterious characteristic, and that A.I. would merely be an imitation (Chinese room analogy) devoid of true, motivating substance. A.I.’s would understand what elicited human emotions, and they could duplicate the appropriate emotions demanded by each circumstance, but they would have no subjective experience of emotion. An outsider would be unable to tell the machine from a human just based on their behavior. Emotions lead to morals and predictable action (i.e. – You know that a good, loyal friend will not stab you in the back, even if they could greatly benefit from doing so in some circumstance, so you trust them. Your friend’s emotions override their logical thinking. A completely rational machine, however, would not behave the same way, so you would never fully trust it). Humans could never develop the same attachment to an emotionless creature. Natural science currently cannot explain everything about human consciousness. Other animals might or might not be conscious, but this is not manifested in their individual or group behavior. Also, no other species comes close to matching our cognitive and linguistic abilities. In Jared Diamond’s The Third Chimpanzee, he notes that the human and chimp genomes are 98% identical, which some might misunderstand as proof that the differences between us are trivial. In fact, that 2% of difference is greatly magnified by the emergent property phenomenon and gives humans quantitatively and qualitatively superior intelligence. By the same token, water is a solid at 32 degrees and liquid at 33 degrees—a difference of only one degree. But that one degree can confer entirely different properties to the same substance. Fukuyama believes that scientific discoveries in the future may lead to a complete understanding of human consciousness. [He is essentially an open-minded person.] Human nature is defined by our emotions, memories, and cognitive abilities. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The parts stem from the human genome.
17
Fukuyama believes that the negative aspects of the human experience are indispensable to personal growth and to casting the positives in sharper relief. Efforts to curtail human suffering through biotechnology will therefore diminish the richness of human life. Fukuyama believes that human genetic engineering is farther in the future than most people think, but that neuropharmacology will affect society in the near term. Since embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning require the destruction of human embryos, the debate over where human life begins should become even more heated in the future as the technologies become more useful. Naturally based rights are subject to abuse since clearly people differ in their natural abilities (i.e. —some people are smarter than others, some people totally lack any sense at all, etc.) and thus it can be accorded different degrees of rights. But Fukuyama confounds this: -There is no agreement over what precise set of characteristics qualifies a person for rights. [Exactly—defining what constitutes a “normal” or “natural” human is almost impossible, which itself is a fact that favors genetic engineering.] -Judgments regarding a person’s degree of competency for each characteristic are subjective and inaccurate. Fukuyama points out that criminals and children are deprived of many rights because they are deemed naturally unfit to make proper decisions. Disabled people are also stripped of some rights (i.e.—blind cannot drive) in the interests of public safety. Therefore, it follows that the unborn can be accorded a different status than adults. Still, embryos have the potential to develop into adults, which should give them higher status than other forms of life. Fukuyama believes that questions over human dignity will damage the political Right more than the Left, as the former is a federation of libertarians, business interests and Christians whose views on the matter are irreconcilable. [Fukuyama’s “natural rights” argument against biotechnology is weak and convoluted.] Part III Chapter 10: The Political Control of Biotechnology The promise and peril of biotechnology are interwoven. The government must regulate biotechnology research and access to ensure public safety. International cooperation and consensus on biotechnology law is also necessary. Fukuyama believes that the debate over biotechnology is currently held captive by extremists from either side. Mainstream society must enter the debate and a future compromise must be found. Human cloning should be banned outright. The profit potential of future biotechnologies will lead biotech companies to overrule ethical considerations for money unless government regulation is present. Fukuyama believes that biotechnology can in fact be controlled. While the scientific community is largely disinterested in politics, scientists alone cannot be left to police themselves and to decide public policy regarding scientific research (Fukuyama cites the Nazi medical experiments on humans). The limits of scientific research must be established by the broader society, which means necessarily that politicians and theologians should have a role.
18
Male bureaucrats already tell women how to raise their children and this is accepted: Mothers cannot neglect or abuse their children or let them leave school. If we as a society honor “presumed consent” on the part of the unborn child, we have an obligation to step in and prevent parents from producing engineered or cloned children if we believe the children would not want to exist as such. Examples of technology being internationally restricted: -WMD research and development -Nuclear power -Ballistic missiles -Black market for human organs -Neuropharmacological drugs -Human experimentation -GM crops Fukuyama admits that these technologies are still not completely under the control of governments. [Still, a lot of diplomatic and spy agency time and energy goes into monitoring them, and there have been many important successes.] China manages to control the Internet within its borders by threatening to revoke the licenses of ISP’s that do not censor anti-Communist content. International nuclear nonproliferation policies forced Brazil and Argentina to develop nuclear weapons in secret, which slowed progress to the point that the weapons did not become available during the military regimes of the 70’s and 80’s. The programs were later discontinued. Thus, international pressure can inhibit technological research and development across the world. However, biotechnologies are cheaper to develop and easier to hide than nuclear ones. The world community is also less likely to feel threatened by biotechnologies than nuclear technology. International laws regulating biotechnology much be paralleled by national-level laws that do the same. In fact, international laws might not come into being unless many countries have first adopted national laws to the same effect. Fukuyama concedes that biotech companies have circumvented national laws on research by moving their facilities to nations with fewer restrictions. Germany is especially restrictive due to its traumatic experience with eugenics under the Nazis. A global ban on human cloning is likely to take shape (2002). Further restrictions are quite possible. [But human cloning is almost purposeless. Of course nobody is going to care about it being banned. And remember that laws can be reversed in the future.] While continental Europe is hostile towards biotechnology due to WWII, East Asia is not for two main reasons. -No history of eugenics abuses. -East Asian religions of Buddhism and Taoism do not differentiate so harshly between humans and the rest of the natural world, diminishing the sanctity of natural human life. The Anglosphere and the Americas lie midway along the continuum of attitudes regarding biotechnology. Fukuyama predicts that East Asia is most likely to opt out of international restrictions on biotech research. The U.S. will have to use its influence to lead the way for international biotech laws. Use of all foreign policy tools (diplomacy, economic leverage, coercion, etc.) will be necessary for success. Standardizing drug approval processes between various countries is a first step towards more international regulation of the biotech industry. Fukuyama sees that happening in the E.U.
19
Chapter 11: How Biotechnology is Regulated Today Main methods are: Self-regulation by scientists or industry and formal, statutory regulation by the government. Government regulation varies in strictness. Genetic engineering: -Recombinant DNA (rDNA) is used to make transgenic organisms. -1975 conference of researchers established safety containment protocols for keeping transgenic organisms from escaping scientific facilities. NIH then set similar guidelines in 1976 for all NIHfunded projects. -Transgenic organisms have proved less hardy than natural ones and thus are not considered a serious threat. -In 1983, the NIH approved the first field trial of an engineered microbe designed to reduce frost damage in tomatoes and potatoes. Current American system of regulating agricultural biotechnology: -Based on the 1986 Coordinated Framework for Biotechnology -Responsibilities divided among different agencies -FDA evaluates safety of food and food additives -EPA checks impact new organisms have on the environment -Department of Agriculture oversees the raising or growing of animal and plant products -American system is relatively lax and does not fully gauge the long-term impact of engineered organisms. Current European system of regulating agricultural biotechnology: -Generally more restrictive than in the U.S. -Complicated by different laws at the national and E.U. levels. -Germany is the strictest, Britain the most relaxed. Other states lie in between. -E.U. established labeling requirements for GM foods. -Consequently, use and consumption of GM products is lower in Europe than in the U.S. -E.U. operates under the “Precautionary Principle”—a GM bioproduct is assumed to be dangerous if there is reasonable evidence suggesting that it might be. In such cases, the burden of proving that the bioproduct is in fact safe rests with the manufacturer. U.S. is concerned that European restrictions against GM crops—a field the U.S. dominates—will be an undue trade penalty to U.S. foodstuffs enacted for economic gain rather than genuine environmental protection. [WTO time…] U.S. objects to European mandates to separate and label GM from non-GM goods because this incurs extra expense. European environmentalists—which are more influential than their American counterparts—are, aside from Europe’s history of eugenics, the driving force in the anti-GM movement. Current schemes for regulating human biotechnology: -Undeveloped since human engineering is not yet feasible. -Likely to include parts of current agricultural regulatory system. -In the U.S., laws regarding medical experiments of humans (including experimental drug trials) have been progressively tightened due to a number of well-publicized scandals and tragedies over the course of the 20th century.
20
-Institutional Review Boards now assess the merit and ethics of proposed human experiments before they can proceed. -Informed consent must always be obtained from subjects. -Fukuyama cites similar worldwide standards regarding human experimentation as proof that a global regulatory scheme on technology can succeed. Chapter 12: Policies for the future Governments have been scrambling to develop new guidelines for emerging biotechnologies. For instance, new laws are being formulated to address whether rules against human experimentation apply to embryos. Fukuyama believes that the scientific community is too permissive, and that most bioethicists are biased on the side of science. European [and now the U.S.] governments have enacted laws to protect human embryos from new procedures. [Though Bush’s veto of the stem cell research bill was nullified by Obama, as had been long expected.] Other biotechnologies that will have to be considered by governments: -Preimplantation genetic diagnosis -Germline genetic engineering -Creation of human-animal chimeras -New psychotropic drugs Reasons to ban human cloning: -The cloned child would have an unnatural relationship with its parents since it would be an exact duplicate (a younger twin) of one while also possessing no genetic connection to the other. The consequences of this cannot be predicted, but might be very negative. [Just because something is “unnatural” doesn’t necessarily mean it will have bad consequences.] -Relationship with the non-twin parent may become “complicated” once the clone reaches sexual maturity. -Allowing human cloning will make society more amenable to later biotechnologies such as genetic engineering. Fukuyama thus sees a ban on human cloning as an important strategic opportunity for the world to unite and to regulate an emerging biotechnology to demonstrate that it can be done. The proper approach to preimplantation genetic diagnosis: -Allow use of the procedure to screen for genetic diseases, but not for enhancement. [The slippery slope] -Only fund medical, and not augmentative, research. [Remember Naam] -Fukuyama cites the example of ADHD and Ritalin as proof that the government can distinguish between illness and augmentation/recreational use. ADHD is a poorly defined disease, but the government still requires a doctor’s diagnosis to prescribe Ritalin. [A poor argument. It is easy to find a sympathetic or indifferent doctor who will prescribe the drug for a child who probably doesn’t need it. Society is also more apt to restrict the pointless abuse of a drug than the use of a productive technology such as germline genetic engineering.] If legislators fail to pass laws regulating biotechnologies, the courts may step in and declare that access to such things is a constitutional right as was done with abortion. Fukuyama therefore believes that it is imperative that governments act quickly.
21
Fukuyama believes that the U.S. needs new, discrete organs of government to monitor and respond to new biotechnologies. Human biotechnologies raise unique ethical questions that committees designed to consider the legality of GM foods are not equipped to answer. The FDA’s mandate does not allow it to deny public access to a medical treatment or drug on the grounds that it can be used for enhancement of normal abilities: instead, the Administration merely determines the safety and effectiveness of such things. Adding on to the FDA’s mandate would likely be an ineffective solution since bureaucratic inertia would make the body slow to adapt to the changes, and the expansion of duties might detract from its traditional mission of drug evaluation. A new agency, staffed both with bioethicists, medical doctors and nonscientists representing various factions of American society should be charged with the task of regulating new biotechnologies. Furthermore, biotech research is increasingly reliant upon private instead of Federal funds. As such, biotech researchers no longer need to abide by many of the strict guidelines issued by the NIH. Fukuyama stresses the need for the new regulatory body to hold authority over all human research, both public and private. Biotech companies, patient groups and elderly groups together form a powerful alliance to oppose restrictions that would slow or prohibit certain types of medical research. Fukuyama provides a case study to support the economic merits of tighter safety protocols for biotechnologies: In the early 1990’s, American farmers began growing GM crops. Monsanto, the producer of the GM seeds, did not try to scientifically prove the safety of its new product, nor did it request the government assist in the task. The E.U. rejected the importation of American GM foods on the grounds that they may be unsafe. Without scientific proof to the contrary and with no way to separate the GM crops from non-GM crops, many American farmers could not export their foodstuffs to Europe. Some horrific accident may be required to spur the public to demand proper regulation of the biotech industry. [This shows the obvious need for biotech supporters to demand strict safety and ethics protocols along with a strategic plan for biotech development that avoids any potentially “unpopular” experiments or scientific demonstrations that may shock the public. Creating a genetically engineered human-animal hybrid or a freakishly augmented human too early, or allowing a questionable experiment that results in many deformed or destroyed human fetuses would lead to a backlash against biotechnology and would erase much progress.] The differences that exist between human beings affect qualities that do not disenfranchise a person’s political rights. Biotechnologies will cause social conflict and increased competition. Human nature will no longer be definable since humans will have been mixed with animals through genetic engineering. [A rather narrow argument] Fukuyama recaps his dystopian descriptions from the beginning of the book.
22
