Bryan Vernon reports on a debate held as part of the first
Newcastle
Science Festival,
International
Centre for Life, 16 April 2003.
Click Here to return to Newcastle Science Festival reviews page.
Speakers: Francis Fukuyama, Professor of International Political Economy at John
Hopkins University, member of George Bush's recently formed Bioethics Council
and author of
Our
Posthuman Future and the international bestseller
The
End of History and the Last Man and Gregory Stock, Director of Medical
Technology and Society at UCLA, former bioethics advisor to Bill Clinton and author of
Redesigning
Humans
Alistair Balls, CEO of the International Centre for Life, introduced the debate,
saying that
both speakers agreed that we were on the cusp of biological change with profound
consequences, and that nothing should be done until it could be shown to be
safe.
Professor Fukuyama put the case for caution. His background was in political
science
rather than the life sciences. The twentieth century had revolved around a
number of
attempts at grand experiments in social justice, all of which had foundered
because of
human nature. He saw many promising areas of development in the life sciences
with
clear therapeutic gains, but identified three areas for caution.
Neuropharmacology. There had been a revolution in psychiatry. We had moved
from genetic determinism at the beginning of the twentieth century through the
social constructionism of the mid-20th Century to a restoration of the
importance
of nature. The biological basis for the functions of the brain was now better
understood. This had led to the development of drugs like Prozac and Ritalin,
both of which are inherently political drugs. Prozac provides a medical shortcut
to
the political manipulation of human personality. It is a drug for creating self-
esteem. ADHD (Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) represents the
medicalisation of normally distributed human behaviour. Ritalin is an agent of
social control of children.
Life extension. While this is individually desirable, the social benefits are
questionable. Already Italy faces a future where the median age of the
population
will be 60. Generational turnover helps the process of social change.
Germline engineering - if we reach this point. The concept of human rights,
deeply embedded in the US Constitution, is dependent on human nature. A
technology that can alter human nature could alter human rights. The
Constitution
describes certain inalienable rights, but there is a question as to who
qualifies for
these. In 1776 blacks and women were excluded. Professor Fukuyama was
content that these technologies be used to target disease, but troubled about
their
use for non-therapeutic purposes like enhancement. Proponents of individual
choice in this area fail to take account of market failures. At the moment 117-
122
boys are born in China and South Korea per 100 girls.
Large social changes often have unanticipated consequences, just as building a
large
dam affects those downstream. Regulating this process is not outlandish.
Scientific
research is already regulated and researchers are familiar and comfortable with
Institutional Review Boards (US) and Local Research Ethics Committees (UK).
In his response, Gregory Stock said that he found much of what had been said
sounded
reasonable, but that it would be impossible to regulate for the future and was
indeed
undesirable to do so. He said that it was inevitable that the scientific
exploration
envisaged would occur. He deplored the proposed US legislation to outlaw stem
cell
work which was directed at alleviating the suffering of real people with real
conditions.
Stock resisted the description of those who would regulate as realists. The true
realists
recognised the unparalleled breakthroughs which the silicon revolution and the
genomics revolution would inevitably bring. The way we have children, treat
illness and
use technologies to alter behaviour and lifespan would change in an unstoppable
movement. This cannot be stopped, just as wealthy Germans go to Brussels or
London
for treatment involving their embryos which is outlawed in Germany.
He was scathing about the war on drugs and wondered why anyone would want to
regulate a drug that created happiness with no side effects. People are already
asking to
make choices about the predispositions and temperament of their children. Why
stop
them? Sex selection has not created gender imbalance in the West. Who is a
victim if a
couple wish to avoid having a girl or a boy? How can you police the boundary
between
needs and desires?
Such a future is inevitable as a spin-off from mainstream medical technology.
In response, Professor Fukuyama said that he was not afraid that the
technologies
would not work. If this were to be the case, some would be relieved. He saw that
humanity faced irresistible seductive choices as a result of which we would lose
our
souls. We are not worried about our ability to handle these choices, typically,
but are
anxious about the person next door.
Gregory Stock said that people concerned about the technologies need not have
recourse to them. He pointed out that our great grandparents might not be happy
with
the state of things today, but that we were, and should not shackle our great
grandchildren. He said that we need to grow up and that we should embrace the
opportunity to decide when we wish to die. The inherent problem with planning is
that we
cannot fathom the values of future humans. The next frontier is not space, but
ourselves.
He did not answer Professor Fukuyama's question when challenged as to whether he
believed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority should be disbanded.
Bryan Vernon
Click Here to return to Newcastle Science Festival reviews page.
