Harvard medical ethicists speaks about genetic engineering at University

Kansan.com
Mar. 31, 2006

No more blind people. A world where every male is six inches taller if he chooses to be. The ability to concentrate longer - without the help of medication.

Those possibilities, and others, were discussed by Dan Brock, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at the Harvard Medical School. The potential of those dramatic changes hinge upon genetic engineering, which Brock spoke about to a packed room of about 80 people at the Kansas Union Thursday night.

Brock’s speech, “The Ethics of Using Genetics to Make People Better,” centered around two main points — using genetics to prevent diseases in humans before birth and the idea of genetic enhancement to “improve” people who would otherwise have no real health problems.

The use of genetic testing is already practiced in both pre- and post-conception instances. Diseases like Huntington’s and two different types of breast cancer genes are just a sample of the genes that can be tested to see if a fetus may have the affected gene.

One problem that arises when a fetus is discovered with a disability, for instance, is whether to abort the child, or decide to raise a disabled child, Brock said.

Or should a person wait to possibly have a child without a disability, if genetic testing can indicate the child will be without a disability? That question, while difficult, is ultimately left to the prospective parent.

Proponents of genetic testing, specifically the disabled community, argue that eliminating the number of disabled people would reduce the support of disabled people already living.

Brock countered that argument with an analogy. He asked if support and research for lung cancer would decrease if there was a push for smoking prevention.

His second point, natural enhancement through genetics, drew substantial interest from the audience.

One audience member said that natural enhancement was akin to playing God and that misuse of it was a grave danger.

Brock replied that he did have concerns about the misuse of natural enhancement, but that possible advancements like improved memory and reduced need for sleep were viable reasons for genetic natural enhancement research.

— Edited by Jodi Ann Holopirek