Student Essay on Pandoras Box

According to Greek mythology, the griefs of life came into existence as a result of the introduction of a woman into a purely man inhabited world. The gods were said to have only created men, until Zeus became angry with mankind and devised the most horrible punishment he could conceive, creating Woman. Zeus instructed the smith of the gods, Hephaestus, to create her from the materials of earth and make her irresistibly beautiful. Each of the Greek gods gave her a gift of skill, and aptly named her Pandora, meaning "all gifted." The messenger god, Hermes, with his winged sandals, took Zeus' ghastly creation down to earth, and with her a box given to her by the gods with instructions that it never be opened. One of the gifts that the gods had bestowed upon Pandora was a lively curiosity. After restraining her eagerness to view the contents of the box, Pandora finally lifted the lid and mistakenly released all nature of evil into the world: sickness, hatred, jealously, suffering, and greed. Just as each of the gods had endowed Pandora with a wonderful gift, so had they each stored in the box the greatest evil they could create. Pandora remorsefully tried to replace the lid on the box, but this awful creation had already instilled its evils forever into the life of man. Only one good thing resulted from Zeus' creation: the spirit of hope, which lay at the bottom of the box. (Geocities, "Pandoras Box") It is this hope for the possibility of extraordinary things in the future that motivates mans' curiosity and persistence in all walks of life. Such innate curiosity and hope is instilled in many by the prospect of eradicating all human suffering from debilitating genetic diseases. Through the discovery of the structure of DNA and the vast collection of knowledge of gene function, it is theoretically possible to change the human genome and eliminate the mistakes in the DNA code that cause disorders. Although this prevention of disease is theoretically possible, public fears and apprehensions have prevented this science from being applicable to humans thus far. With all is known about genes and DNA, the science of genetic engineering has few limitations except moral and ethical codes. The great effects that this new technology has to offer far outweighs the minute possibility that implications could arise. Under restrictions, the availability of genetic modification should be available to allow parents the choice for the prevention of suffering for their child.

One such apprehension against genetic modification is on the basis of "naturalistic fallacy," as Watson refers to it in his book DNA: The Secret of Life. This philosophical approach is taken by many when disputing the use of genetic modification. The common belief underpinning naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that the way nature intended is best. Society is intolerable to the idea of disturbing the so-called "natural order of things," yet so much of one's life is already unnatural. Through pharmaceuticals, selective breeding, preservatives, and implantable devices into the body, such as pacemakers, one completely disregards his or her beloved fallacy and

inadvertently adopts the assumption that the most effective way is best, even if it is not the "natural way." Even hundreds of years ago, society's ancestors realized that for agriculture to succeed, modification was essential. The crops and livestock that produced the highest yield were the most favorable to farmers; therefore, the plants and animals with these desirable traits were inbred to produce premium livestock, such as Robert Bakewell's "super sheep" (lecture 9/28). What most do not realize is that these desirable characteristics did not just occur spontaneously; selective breeding was crucial to ensure that the succeeding generations would be most well adapted for survival and reproduction. Just as one modifies and selectively chooses the traits in which he or she wants passed on in corn and sheep, he or she should also be able to convey this concept onto the human race.

Because of the fear and apprehension left behind after the eugenics movement, society today is now very weary of the similarities between eugenics and modern genetics. Although there are always potential dangers in the repetition of history, society does not realize the great differences in motivation and application between these two sciences. Francis Galton, the father of the eugenics movement, had a very strong impatience with the "pretensions of natural equality" (lecture 9/21/05). Galton believed that not all men are created equally at birth. He greatly opposed the common saying of the time that "all babies are born pretty much alike" because he thought of feeble-mindedness and inferiority to be born traits, not acquired traits. Unlike the modern day belief that a person is a result of a complex coordination of nature and nurture, Galton and the eugenicists believed solely in nature. Certain races were viewed by the eugenicists to be undeniably inferior, like the Irish, to "stronger" races such as the English. He also believed that if these inferior races were breeding faster than fit ones, the world would become a eugenical nightmare. As a result of these unsupported prejudices, thirty-five states passes sterilization laws and thirty-six thousand Americans were involuntarily sterilized by 1924 (lecture 9/21). Most eugenicists had the unremorseful belief that society should not be sympathetic to the needs of the unfit. Natural selection should apply equally to men as it does to nature and eradicate the unfit that are a burden on society. H.G. Wells, another prevalent eugenicist, believed, like many, that society has a right to override personal choice. "The children people bring into the world can no more be their private concern entirely, than the disease germs they disseminate or the noises a man makes in a thin-floored flat" (lecture 10/17). - H.G. Wells. The common principle behind this intolerance was that unfit children were a burden on society as a whole, therefore it is society's and the government's responsibility to prevent these unfit from ever being born. Even during the ancient times of Plato eugenical thoughts existed. "Just as shepherds and breeders purge their herds, so must the legislator purify the state" (Paul, Controlling Human Heredity).- Plato. Plato, like Wells, believed that the government must play a role in purifying society. Furthermore, this prejudice was not just common knowledge and spoken word, it was accepted as accurate literature. According to a high school text book called "Civic Biology," by George Hunter, handing down tuberculosis, epilepsy, and feeblemindedness was not only wrong, it was criminal (lecture 10/17).

The difference between the eugenics solution to the problems of TB, epilepsy, and feeblemindedness, and the genetics solution lies in the motivation, application, goals, and science behind each movement. Eugenicists did not want these diseases in the world because they would create a burden on society. The unfit people with these diseases would taint the perfect gene pool that the eugenicists imagined could exist. Eugenicists were only worried about the good of society and did not recognize the rights of the individual. The application in which the eugenicists used their science was involuntary sterilization to prevent the unfit from breeding, and the encouragement of the right people to reproduce. These methods were the way many believed the eugenical nightmare was to be solved. Because social benefit outweighed personal choice, forced applications of eugenical beliefs were put onto those who were deemed "unfit" in society. Furthermore, eugenicists had no reasonable scientific data for their studies on genes and traits. In that time, they simply did not possess the genetic technology to support their assumptions about how behavioral traits, such as feeblemindedness, are passed on in genes. The studies and family pedigrees that were the scientific basis for their movement were simply prejudicial speculations (Watson, DNA). Consequently, this prejudice and racism caused the suffering of thousands who had lost their right to reproduce as well as the lives of millions in similar eugenical movements, like the holocaust. "Eugenics ultimately proved a tragedy for mankind...the science underpinning it was bogus, and the social programs constructed upon it utterly reprehensible" (lecture 9/21). - Jim Watson. Conversely, the genetics movement has very opposite motivations, goals, and applications. Genetics is concerned with the well being of the individual instead of the good of society. Instead of forcefully sterilizing people to eradicate the unfit and their diseases, genetics could solve the problem of eliminating diseases at its very core: mistakes in DNA sequence. Geneticists like Jim Watson concern their approach to genetic disorders on the benefit of the individual. Their goal is not to genetically modify everyone because they think these people taint society; they want to create this technology in order to help alleviate the suffering in the world. Geneticists want to eradicate disease and prevent suffering and death, not prevent unfit people from existing. The goal of genetic modification is to give the individual the choice of whether or not they want to prevent their child from having a genetic disease. Unlike eugenics, genetics would not be forced. Genetics would just give the individual the opportunity to choose. Watson believes that "some people are born with variability which is no good," what he calls "genetic injustices." (Documentary, "Pandoras Box") The goal of genetic modification is to fix these injustices to give everyone a fair chance at life.

The social concerns that society has with genetic modification are the possibility of misuse, the contradiction with religion, and the question of "where do we draw the line"" Genetic engineering borderlines on many moral, social, and political issues, particularly involving religion, where there are no definite answers. Those who support genetic modification need to realize the possible dangers and evils that could arise, but conversely, those who oppose this science need to realize the great medical benefits and advantages that would result from it.

Many of the personal opinions concerning these questions results from the individual's religious faith. Many Christians consider changing the genome to be challenging God's design. Just as many have a naturalistic fallacy, so there exists a religious fallacy assuming the way that God initially intended is best. Even Aldo Leopold, a profound believer in naturalism, accepts that man can play the role of God as long as he has the tools. He remarked in his novel A Sand County Almanac that "acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets, but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how. To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither a god nor a poet; one need only own a shovel" (pg. 81 Sand County Almanac). Although faith can be beneficial in helping answer these questions, it can also be misleading depending on its interpretation. The book of Genesis, for example, gives two different stories of the creation of man. In Genesis chapter one, man is depicted as having authority over all of God's creations. Thus, by implementing domination, man would be playing God. This version of the story may be interpreted to support genetic modification if man were intended to "play God." Conversely, in chapter two of Genesis, man is portrayed as that of a keeper. Man is meant to care for and protect all that God has created, but not control it. This version of Genesis would portray a more conservative view on genetics as man is not supposed to control the order that God has created. (Website, "Thinking Through the Ethics of Cloning")

The possibility of misuse of technology is a risk that can never be predicted or prevented. Power, envy, and greed could always potentially play a part into the development of genetic modification, as it can in any other type of science. These emotions cannot be completely discounted, nor can they be relied on as reasoning against genetic modification. It has to be taken into account that humans have the capacity for good as well as the capacity for evil. Bioethicists, therefore, create limitations and regulations concerning controversial science. Such guidelines for genetic modification could include; genetic modification can only be used for the treatment or prevention of serious genetic diseases; animal research studies must be conducted preceding any human interventions; and the patient, or legal guardian, must be informed prior to modification of the risks and effects associated with the procedure. (Website, "Thinking Through the Ethics of Cloning") Such guidelines would both soothe the concerns of those opposed to genetic modification by giving definite boundaries, as well as allowing the science to continue without unreasonable restrictions. Science has worked hard and come so far in genetics since the structure of DNA was first discovered, and now, as science is on the verge of a medical breakthrough, it is halted because the nature of its application offends or concerns people. Although a consensus will never be agreed upon, common ground should be established to allow compromise for both sides.

Although some argue that there are other less controversial methods of treating disease without having to change the genome, these methods are much less effective and many times more dangerous, like Jesse Gelsinger's death after adenovirus therapy. (Watson, pg.354 DNA) If science possesses the technology to prevent genetic disease, "[why] wait until such conventional hopes turn to despair- and global catastrophe- before being given the clearance to proceed" (Watson, pg.400 DNA). The potential for good far outweighs the risks of repeating history, the abuse of technology, or the possibility of offending someone's beliefs. Modern genetics has learned from the mistakes of the past and recognized the lessons learned from the eugenics. Unlike the motives and reasoning behind eugenics, DNA sequence is a definite science that is not open to bias, prejudice, or interpretation. Although prospective parents should be given the choice of whether they want to genetically modify their children, this should only be attempted after bioethical guidelines have been laid, and the science unpinning it has been perfected. Once this science is perfected and fears of new evils have been subdued, then finally the hope that lay at the bottom of Pandora's Box can be made a reality.