Background image

terug

The costly appliance of science

 

The costly appliance of science

 Genetic selection has some alarming implications - and could widen the wealth gap
 beyond repair.
 
 Peter Singer
 
1     The advance of knowledge is often a mixed blessing. Over the past 60 years, nuclear
 physics has been one obvious example of this truth. Over the next 60 years, genetics
 may be another.
2     Today, enterprising firms offer, for a fee, to tell you about your genes. They claim
 that this knowledge will help you live longer and better. You might, for example, have
 extra checkups to detect early signs of the diseases that you are most at risk of
 contracting, or you could alter your diet to reduce that risk. If your chances of a long
 lifespan are not good, you might buy more life insurance, or even retire early to have
 enough time to do what you always wanted to do.
3     Defenders of privacy have worked, with some success, to prevent insurance
 companies from requiring genetic testing before issuing life insurance. But if individuals
 can do tests from which insurance companies are barred, and if those who receive
 adverse genetic information then buy additional life insurance without disclosing the
 tests that they have taken, they are cheating other holders of life insurance. Premiums
 will have to increase to cover the losses, and those with a good genetic prognosis may
 opt out of life insurance to avoid subsidising the cheats, driving premiums higher still.
4     __5__. The United States government accountability office sent identical genetic
 samples to several of the testing companies, and got widely varying, and mostly
 useless, advice. But as the science improves, the insurance problem will have to be
 faced.
5     Selecting our children raises more profound ethical problems. This is not new. In
 developed countries, the routine testing of older pregnant women, combined with the
 availability of abortion, has significantly reduced the incidence of conditions such as
 Down’s syndrome. In some regions of India and China where couples are anxious to
 have a son, selective abortion has been the ultimate form of sexism, and has been
 practised to such an extent that a generation is coming of age in which males face a
 shortage of female partners.
6     Selection of children need not involve abortion. For several years, some couples at
 risk of passing a genetic disease on to their children have used in vitro fertilisation,
 producing several embryos that can be tested for the faulty gene and implanting in the
 woman’s uterus only those without it. Now couples are using this technique to avoid
 passing on genes that imply a significantly elevated risk of developing certain forms of
 cancer.
7     Since everyone carries some adverse genes, there is no clear line between
 selecting against a child with above-average risks of contracting a disease and selecting
 for a child with unusually rosy health prospects. __7__, genetic selection will inevitably
 move towards genetic enhancement.
8     For many parents, nothing is more important than giving their child the best possible
 start in life. They buy expensive toys to maximise their child’s learning potential and
 spend much more on private schools or after-school tutoring in the hope that he or she
 will excel in the tests that determine entry to elite universities. It may not be long before
 we can identify genes that improve the odds of success in this quest.
9     Many will condemn this as a resurgence of “eugenics”, the view, especially popular
 in the early 20th century, that hereditary traits should be improved through active
 intervention. So it is, in a way, and in the hands of authoritarian regimes, genetic
 selection could resemble earlier forms of eugenics, with their advocacy of odious,
 pseudoscientific official policies, particularly concerning “racial hygiene”.
10     In liberal, market-driven societies, however, eugenics will not be coercively imposed
 by the state for the collective good. Instead, it will be the outcome of parental choice
 and the workings of the free market. If it leads to healthier, smarter people with better
 problem-solving abilities, that will be a good thing. But even if parents make choices that
 are good for their children, there could be perils as well as blessings.
11     In the case of sex selection, it is easy to see that couples who independently choose
 the best for their own child can produce an outcome that makes all their children worse
 off than they would have been if no one could select the sex of their child. Something
 similar could happen with other forms of genetic selection. Since above-average height
 correlates with above-average income, and there is clearly a genetic component to
 height, it is not fanciful to imagine couples choosing to have taller children. The outcome
 could be a genetic “arms race” that leads to taller and taller children, with significant
 environmental costs in the additional consumption required to fuel larger human beings.
12     The most alarming implication of this mode of genetic selection, however, is that
 only the rich will be able to afford it. The gap between rich and poor, already a challenge
 to our ideas of social justice, will become a chasm that mere equality of opportunity will
 be powerless to bridge. That is not a future that any of us should approve.
 
 The Guardian