The Role of Human Nature in the Bioethics Debate
by Michael Suarez
On November 28, 2001, President George W. Bush passed an Executive Order establishing a National Bioethics Council for the purpose of studying and advising the President “on bioethical issues that may emerge as a consequence of advances in biomedical science and technology” ( Executive Order 13237 ). The aim of this council was not merely evaluation of scientific development, but inquiry into “the human and moral significance” of such progress. While the establishment of this council testifies to the growing ethical implications of biotech power, this power remains only somewhat familiar to the popular mind. Many people have heard of a cloned ewe named Dolly, others are aware of current controversy over stem-cell research, and a smaller number have read about the exciting and early completion of a human genome “map”. But despite the fact that these stories have entered public awareness, the more radical implications of such science, the creation of “designer babies” for example, remain largely distant, abstract and irrelevant to daily life. Comments from the President's Council support his impression, stating that “the subject of using biomedical technologies for purposes ‘beyond therapy' has received remarkably little public attention” and is “arguably the most neglected topic in public bioethics” ( Beyond Therapy chapter 1, section II).
Reality is stranger than fiction
In contrast to this lack of serious public attention, many students of science believe biotechnology will soon allow us to “write a new page in the history of life.” Some of these students suggest that the words on this “page” will announce an intense challenge to basic understanding of what it means to be human (Stock 2). So, what exactly is this remarkable, revolutionary power? Webster's Universal College Dictionary defines biotechnology as “the use of living organisms or other biological systems in the manufacture of drugs or other products for environmental management” (“Biotechnology”). The President's Council on Bioethics calls biotechnology “a new word for our new age” and defines the term as “processes and products[…] offering the potential to alter and, to a degree, to control the phenomena of life – in plants, in (non-human) animals, and , increasingly, in human beings” ( Beyond Therapy chapter 1, introduction). These definitions provide an outline of what biotechnology refers to, but the content and even the outline itself, remain vague. Phrases such as “environmental management” and “control the phenomena of life” barely illuminate the science and only hint at its future possibilities.
Ironically, many of the grand possibilities of biotechnology are being made intelligible by the imaginative depictions of science fiction. Sci-fi stories about genetic manipulation, cloned children, artificial intelligence, molecular robotics, cyborgs, androids, and more, abound, and in the minds of some, forecast the future (Hough). Such models have their limitations of course. These technological tales are intensely dramatized and can be misrepresentative. But, whether it is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein , Aldous Huxley's Brave New World , or The Matrix , such dramas provide vivid portrayals of biotechnology in action and almost always point our attention to the most controversial theme of bioethical debate –human nature.
The reality of human nature is itself a controversy in philosophical circles. What is it? Does it exist? Does it change? While I may touch these issues in passing, my research will not answer the question of what human nature is, but of what role the idea plays in bioethics. In order to answer this question I will first review ideas from some of the most radical biotech enthusiasts – people who wish to transcend human nature through technology. This will help reveal the future some biotech advocates envision and long for, and provide a contrast for the conservative arguments to come. I will examine three such arguments, each different, but all arguing for technological restraint according to a specific conception of human nature. First, I will explain the views of the group that is deemed to most strongly oppose biotech development – religious conservatives. Then I will discuss two explicitly non-religious views, the sociopolitical concerns of bioconservative Francis Fukuyama, followed by the practical and personal objections of writer Bill McKibben.