Ethics of Genetic Engineering | Ethics of Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is an amazing science advancing at such a fast-pace, but because of moral and ethical concerns, research into this new technology has been limited. In his article, `Will genetic engineering produce a master race and a servile multitude"' published in the Pectator magazine 1999, Paul Johnson explores the perils of genetic engineering and the ethical dilemma facing scientists and the intellectual community. He asserts that genetic engineering will create a caste society consisting of a genetically enhanced overclass and a suppressed, skilless underclass. He argues that playing god with genetics is immoral and that it will bring into being a society "biologically evil in ways we can scarcely imagine."

Genetic engineering is the science of designing a human being's genes to fit specified criteria. You could determine your potential child's future by choosing its gender, skin colour, level of intelligence - the list is infinite.

Paul Johnson is concerned that genetic engineering fits all too well into our consumer society. If we want something, we are accustomed to getting it and will pay large sums of money to attain it. He argues that once people are aware that science is capable of determining characteristics of our mind and body, we will buy that technology at any cost. Thus genetic engineering will turn into an industry fuelled by public demand and private funding. Johnson is worried that it will soon become trendy for parents to `design' their babies.

Fear is a sentiment that resonates throughout his article. Johnson hypothesizes that if genetic engineering was legalised, over generations it would create two distinct classes. A "master race" - a genetically enhanced group of human beings who are highly intelligent, attractive and skilled, and a "servile multitude" - those whose parents could not afford to buy their future for them, and are therefore less intelligent and possess no real skills or opportunities. The likelihood of people from either group marrying outside their genetic, social and economic group is slim, since the propensity in modern society is for the educated and intelligent to intermarry and produce even more intelligent, privileged offspring. Johnson claims that this will create deep antagonisms within society since the "master race" will dictate the function and role of the "servile multitude."

So what are the ethical and moral debates regarding genetic engineering? Paul Johnson claims that scientists and doctors, supposed `experts' on the subject, have yet to reach a consensus on the issue. There are oscillating opinions within their own community and Johnson asserts that they are too polarised to offer any ethical guidance. Hence, the burden must lie with the philosophers to set up an ethical code for genetic research and production based on the "moral principles of the civilised person."

In conclusion, Johnson views genetic engineering as a dangerous science because it could evolve into a consumer product, and the use of this technology over time could create a caste society with deep-seated antagonism. Johnson also believes that many scientists refuse to foresee the downside of genetic engineering because they are too blinded by what he calls "biological triumphalism." He states that genetic engineering is the "the new infant monster", a phenomenon that needs to be stifled at birth.

The scenarios that Johnson creates in his article are plausible and thought-provoking, and they are a simple way to communicate the perils of the issue to the layman. Although he doesn't present the arguments for genetic engineering, for example, the eradication of hereditary disease, you don't feel that his line of reasoning is biased and exaggerated. He deals with the issue in terms of ethics, cleverly avoiding the spiritual and religious aspects of the argument against genetic engineering.