A Controversial Issue Of The Ethics Of Scientists’ Power
The purpose of science is heavily debated. Science is meant to be the beholder of reality, a tool that can describe our inner and outer world based on thorough investigations and analytical data. As the universe expands, humanity’s course along with it on Earth. We have used science and technology to provide an environment that best compliments popular ideals. We are already altering the natural world to appease our consumption and humans are also drifting away from their untouched bodies to satisfy their health, culture, environment, etc. Technology, supported by science, is being used as the chasm for humanity to enter into a new era where worries of the old world are left behind. As a consequence of that, there is no telling how much regulation will be needed in order to prevent accidental or intentional disasters happening from the hands of our human interference. To alter things that were thought to be untouchable like DNA or the weather is to play with fire. Alas, these changes are already in motion as the ethics of scientists’ power are debated.
Michael Spector addresses this issue with the account of biological pioneer Kevin Esvelt in “Rewriting the Code of Life (2017)”. Esvelt is one of the leading scientists testing out the potential of gene editing in order to eliminate succumbing to diseases. Spector delves into the secrecy of science, scientific revolutions and the future of science under the representative of Esvelt's support for CRISPR. Another set of advocates for forwarding engineering are The Strongin-Goldberg and The Nash families who attempt to save their respective children’s, Henry and Molly, lives by creating another sibling through in-vitro fertilization as explained in Lisa Belkin’s article “The made-to-order savior (2001)”. One of the means to determine whether the embryo was a match for their sibling, Preimplantation genetic diagnosis was used. While a life was saved, the worries of PDG lingered on the possibilities of editing genes of babies before they are even born. Both articles are subject to an even bigger topic on the future of humans and the world as we know it. However, the only way scientists can step into uncharted territory is if the research takes place in a just society where the advancements are accessible, ethical, and beneficial to all.
The quest for human exploration must provide regulations that will build better relationships between scientists and citizens. For one thing, scientists typically need an abundance of resources which, under the current establishment for science, require a peril for publishing quantitative papes over relative papers of qualitative substance. According to Spector, “Graduate students normally try to publish in professional journals as often as possible as it is essential for landing prestigious jobs”. This is due to the heightened competition for scientists to rush their work in order to be published first, risking false information spreading. Esvelt laments on the topic, comparing the medical industry to science labs, “That has become standard. But in the laboratory, we don’t even tell each other what we’re doing. There is very little openness. That is going to have to change”. This indeed is troublesome as science is reduced to secrecy which disservices the public who are left in the dark about upcoming changes that will most likey affect them. For people to have a say on large-scale issues like gene editing would be upholding “democratic ideals”.
Government is a major factor for the allowance of research and ultimately has enough clout to impede projects deemed unlawful. Mark Hughes was a physician that worked with the two families and affiliated with the National Institutes of Health which he would later resign from after being accused of violating Congressional laws. Hughes eventually went to a state institution to continue his research through private funds. The ostracization of Hughes not only threatened the lives of Molly and Henry but also halted important research from continuing. “Intellectual property” is an inefficient way for science to work around. Science is produced from generations of knowledge, produced by fellow thinkers to solve all the questions. While peer review is obliged among scientists, it would be more beneficial for citizens to provide input on cutting-edge research. As Dan Hartman puts it, “seeing data from studies that didn’t work can often be as useful as seeing data from those that did”. Esvelt is already encouraging this approach by posting his research online.
The questions of ethics are needed to provide a solid analysis of scientific research. The issue with governments funding research is the possibility of corporatism interfering greatly on the progress. Esvelt regulates his research by the approval of locals of Nantucket, where his experiment is taking place. Nantucket is a first stage in looking forward to opening research. Companies that are for-profit will exceed praise and support while people with an anti-corporate stance like Esvelt would have to receive funding from somewhere else. With the emergence of PDG, the likelihood of reproductive rights could become privatized. Professor Susan Wolf uncovers that PDG is a “multibillion dollar industry based solely consumer demand”. With no authorization, a decline in human nature will fall swiftly. In the current social climate, trends of editing genes are certain to lead to eugenics. It will slowly happen with parents using this technology to determine whether their child can be checked for things other than diseases. If an entire population of mice can have their genetic makeup changed, it’s inevitable that change will be brought onto humans. There’s a low chance that technology like CRISPR will not be abused as long as there are corporates seeing the need for profit, and not progress. As Dr. John Wagner warns, “There should be controls, There should be limits. It is up to us, as a society, to decide what they are”. These limits include halting people from creating a larger gap in society by drastically editing their spawns for social approval. Eugenics is a flawed ideology because it values the idea of becoming ‘better humans’ relying heavily on physical appearance. The procedure could result in a future where people like Molly and Henry are alienated in society.
Those who call for secrecy in science research could logically claim that it will protect a scientist’s pre-written data, identity, and ‘intellectual property’. Scientists’ fear of their journals being stolen from them has been an age-old reason to secrecy ever since the emergence of patents. Though the “most coveted aspect of scientific research”, intellectual property could be argued that it protects progress. Most scientists that become part of low-key research projects are usually collaborating with private companies, military, or government. With that, it can become apparent that secrecy could lead to cover-ups of corruption and abuse of power. When the government cuts off support, it could lead to scientists providing their work elsewhere to shady enterprises. In Hughes’ case, he retreated to a state university. Protection of identification may not only be an issue for scientists but also human test subjects. What is ethical to perform experiments on humans as we do to mice is always a controversial subject. Some health practices like bone-marrow transplants are “treacherous and risky” yet are necessary for a patient to live. While companies like The Gates Foundation are requiring “the data from all studies it funds to be published in journals that are open and freely available…”, it is not enough for scientists to communicate with the public. That is why J. Robert Oppenheimer, a scientist who worked with the American government to build the atomic bomb, is referenced. The secret construction of the bomb would consequence millions and Esvelt is looking to avoid that by impeaching the criticisms of his plans.
Research would be fruitless to create life-changing technology if a majority cannot reap the benefits of it. Science is being used to see how human life can be improved. It can be a dilemma, however, when saving someone when others are put at risk. The controversy of the ‘saviour sibling’ was based on the fact that the incoming child is only born as a means for someone else’s survival. Naysayers will point out that humans are not disposable props. The Nashes would point out that a life was created to save one, which is true for Molly. The case of The Nashes is looked at on an individual base but they are apart of a bigger phenomenon that leads towards the probability of gene editing. With the stories of Molly and Henry shows how saving a life in modern times comes with desperation and descent into risks. While parents like Molly’s are afraid of potential diseases, other couples might want to prevent things that aren’t life-threatening but an ‘inconvenience’ such as mental or physical impairment. Belkin’s last pages warn of a power that has all the rights to be abused. Esvelt mentions his fear of “that something terrible will happen before something wonderful happens”in the event of biomedical innovation. He tends to address understandable concerns to show that he, a scientist, has thought in detail regarding CRISPR such as it could become a weapon of destruction.
Advancements in medical science have an obligation to help everyone regardless of background and ability but it is worrisome that help will not be provided because of corporate backing. For an uncertain end, the means must always be justifiable. Science is upheld to be an absolute truth; something more reliable than ‘intelligent design’. The issue with the next steps into futurism, scientists already know nature is unpredictable and preparedness will always be required in expanding controversial experiments. It is fair to accept that some things are out of humans’ control. There indeed must be a continuous shift along with the nature that is already changing largely in part due to humans. Scientists may give us the tools to enlightenment but the government ultimately will decide who gets it. In order to grow, the hand of corporate interest must be cut off in order for research to prosper. As much as new innovations promise us to a better age of humanity, the reason for these innovations must be studied and analyzed by a vast range of human beings. Only through community can methods and ideas are nuanced. Scientists need to be held accountable for their and deliver discovered truths. To play God is a deal with the Devil.
