Hubris is a Major Religious Criticism of Biotechnology
There is hubris in the world and we
have learned to respect a moderate amount of it because it often has often
results for the social good. Technology is one of those social goods that has
brought goods to our lives that we could not live without in the post-modern
world. Certain technologies are of the gravest necessities for our lives. It is
when hubris becomes a part of the debate over biotechnology that we have
concerns. Man has thought about playing God for a long time. Many of us and
perhaps, the critics enjoyed and reveled in the Frankenstein movie, a
disastrous attempt to create a man. The myth of the Frankenstein monster
returns to its literary roots in this tale of a scientist’s monstrous attempt
to play God by creating life from dead flesh. This story is the archetype for
many of the subsequent tales of the mad scientist and his creatures with the
monster of misguided science eventually tormenting its creator. The novel
features Victor Frankenstein, a student who creates an artificial man while
exploring the secrets of life in his laboratory. The monster kills Victor
Frankenstein’s brother and causes the murder to be blamed on an innocent girl.
This year, the Internet turned 40
years old and President Obama urges more investment in high tech education. He
and other leaders believe it will help the economy and provide jobs for
millions of Americans. There is no turning back with the formidable applications
that post-modern technology has brought to the world. Some critics challenge some
technologies that science brings to us. One of the criticisms is that some
corporations regard more highly the profit that is assured with innovative
technologies without careful consideration of the moral underpinnings of some
technologies. There is no question that science in the post-modern era has
given us wonderful technology; and has made our complicated and complex lives
more manageable with many creature comforts. We certainly owe a lot to
scientists who explore the possibilities of the universe. As scientists
continue to move forward with technology and especially, biotechnology, the
public is now assertively questioning ethical issues that are related to some
of these scientific innovations. We have come to depend, entirely, on
technology to assist us in the management of our lives. Technology is an
absolutely necessity in our lives
For example, the internet is
indispensable for post-modern living. We would crumble as a society without it,
now, or at least have major disruptions in our lives. It has tremendous
benefits in world communication. Technology has served us well and has shrunk,
both, time and space. The internet can transmit information and knowledge in a
matter of seconds as opposed to days, weeks and often months. One of the major
downsides of the internet is a decrease in intimacy between human. Those of us
who have lived before the computer age see more clearly the downside of
technology as opposed to those who were born into it and know nothing else. The
comparison is often reflected in our attitudes and values. Many pre-internet
persons believe that much of our humanity has been replaced by a technology and
not always in the most efficacious way. For example, often when we need to
respond to an urgent need and call a business, company or corporation, we would
prefer to talk with another person. With the frustration that many have at a
particular moment, we are directed by a machine to press one of, as many as, to
hear further options
Our children spend egregious amounts
of time with computer games and for many, it has become an unhealthy pastime.
Children of the past found great amusement and fun in playing technology-free
games such as dodge ball, hop-scotch, marbles, hide and seek, giant steps and were the better for it. Now
children can spend up to as many as 8 hours daily playing video games, some of
which are terror oriented which some view as influencing them negatively.
I love technology up to the moment
that it fails us. Technology is never perfect because it is informed by
imperfect people. We have all experienced the failures that often disrupt our
lives and we have learned to live with it. We often say, “can’t they program
the computers in such a way that we have fewer errors”. Errors will always
exist with a range of complexity. As a pharmacist, dispensing a
biotechnological therapeutic aid, I have seen a range of errors made, some
simple and some fatal. If we continue to do more complex things with
biotechnology, the concern for error becomes more necessary
Technology often suffers from other
sources of mal-functioning. One of the more frequent complaints is “computers
are down and we don’t know when they’re coming back”. These malfunctions and
inconveniences happen randomly and cause major inconveniences in our daily
lives. As a pharmacist, I can recall the week that computers in all pharmacies
went down for a week for Medicaid patients in the state. There was total chaos
in all pharmacies across the state. Many health care providers questioned if it
were if it were a true glitch or if the state purposefully shut down the system
to save money. The health of many patients had been compromised because of this
major problem. The pharmacy law in the state, and perhaps all states, is that
there is a group of patients who are never to be denied medications. These are
patients who need asthma and insulin medications. Infants are never to be
denied any medicine that the physician has prescribed. Patients of these
categories are more susceptible to great danger without their medications. But,
what about the other 200 patients who were denied their medications every day
for a week?
Drug therapy is the most prolific
biotherapeutic agent in medicine. All prescription drugs have benefits and
risks. The risks include side effect, adverse reactions, medication errors,
other misadventures and often, fatal doses. As the FDA monitors drug therapy
for safety and effectiveness issues, there is still a record number of perplexing
pharmacy misadventures. The FDA has received over 95,000 reports of medication
errors since the year 2000. Drug therapy is the major and dominant therapeutic
agent in medicine and health care. Yet, we know that a prescribing physician
needs to carefully assess the risks vs the benefits with the prescribed agent
and its known dangers. As a pharmacist, I have always found it amazing that
many people will ask if there are any side effects from a particular drug.
Identity theft that causes
irreparable damage, leaking of classified documents, personnel information
stolen on discs are also main horror stories that we hear daily because someone
has hacked the computer. Recently, a mother was interviewed on a news program
and she told the story that she was given the wrong embryo. She was praised for
her moral character when she and her husband decided to give the baby to its real
parents after the birth (CNN Live, Sean Savage (IVF). I morally question the definition of “real
parents”. Many of us believe that this should be an error proof system at this
point in our medical history and such errors should not be made. We are on a
fast moving train and there is a genuine concern from the Conservative Right
that America
is becoming unscientific as our youth have become acclimated to pushing buttons
and sliding cards. Scientific illiteracy, partly a result of technology
threatens America ,
“Consequences of an Unscientific America”.
The epidemiology of autism has been
the subject of a great deal of public, governmental and scientific interest and
controversy over the past 5 years. The CDC has reported that the prevalence of
autism is up from 1/166 children to 1/150 children in 2004. There are those
that question if childhood vaccines cause autism in children. With the current
Swine flue epidemic, may are questioning if the H1N1 vaccine is safe to take
while the government continues to urge citizens to get it. Many mothers will
not permit their daughters to take Cervarix, the drug that treats cervical
cancer. Fifty percent of the population is refusing to taken the H1N1 vaccine.
In some states, judges are mandating that the vaccine must be taken by health
care workers. Though not a religious concern, many people believe that there is
not enough evidence to know the true effects of these therapeutic agents. This
appears to be a formidable example of why religious leaders have formed a front
for newer biotechnologies that have not stood the test of time. What type of
commentary is to be made by those who believe that biotechnology is the best
innovation of science, heretofore? Religion is one of the most powerful
institutions in this country as it informs our behavior, attitudes and values.
In the article, “Religious Voices
in Bio-technology, a Hastings Center Report, Mark Hanson discusses how religious
traditions have long supported the goals of biotechnology with respect to human
health and well being. The Joint Appeal against Human and Animal Patenting, led
by biotechnology critic Jeremy Rifkin held a conference in May 1995. The
conference was directed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Many within
the industry interpreted the conference as an inhibition of biotechnological
advance. The Hasting
Center
The gene patenting debate revolves
around the issue of religion, biotechnology and the law. Is DNA sacred? Is it
merely a chemical compound or is it, namely, the material responsible for
transmitting hereditary characteristics? These are the issues that motivate
this controversy with differing perspectives within both ranks. One hopes for a
more constructive dialogue between the two bodies and lead to more responsible
ethics and policy in biotechnology. Religious critics believe that patenting
entails a way of valuing genetic material.
DNA should not be owned. The patentability of genetic material is the
root of the clashes of perspectives over a matter of law. The meaning of DNA is
described as mere chemical compounds by the representatives of the
biotechnology industry and reinforced by the language of legal decisions. Some
geneticists have defined DNA as more than just mere chemical, rather as “the
Bible”, “Book of Man and “the Holy Grail”. Religious language by genetics fuels
the debate and is attractive to many who participate in the dialogue. Indeed,
some geneticists and religious group deem DNA as sacred, sharing
characteristics with the immortal souls of Christians, independent of the body
and gives the body life. The gene then becomes like the soul, as a way of
talking about the boundaries of personhood and the nature of immortality. The
gene has taken on
the social and cultural functions
of the soul. When religious language is brought into the context of genetic
biotechnology, genetic essentialism becomes a topic of great interest to
religious groups. The response by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has
presented a minimalist understanding of patents, e.g., symbolic implications of
patenting and the expressive function of patent law in society. The PTO
understands patents as mere mechanisms to encourage investment and promote
research. But, patents also include purposes, ethical justifications, interpretations
and applications.
“The minimal definition of patents
is roughly as follows: A patent is a form of intellectual property rights
granted in reference to an invention only it meets three criteria: it must be
useful, novel, and non-obvious…” Defenders of patents on genes believe that
they are legal instruments with economic functions, including promoting
investment in technology and its goals. Leon Kass in, “Toward a More Natural
Science”, believes that the American Founders wanted more than progress for its
own sake, but rather, provide for the useful arts and the utility of those arts
as defined in the Federalist Papers. He provides an argument for which patent
law is a matter of morality, in terms of both justice and character. The
Biotechnology Industry defense of patents is one of self-interest, utility and
desert
Self-interest is a noble goal of
any industry and patents are necessary legal mechanisms that would encourage
investments. They are a necessary part of our free enterprise system. It is
when the profit motive becomes an obstacle to trust that morality is an issue.
From a utilitarian perspective, the industry justifies the patents and
biotechnology because of its interest in the prevention of suffering and the
promotion of health and well-being. The industry also argues that patents in
biotechnology will ultimately save money and keep health care costs down. With
respect to patents, they ensure just rewards for contributions and efforts.
In the May 1995 Joint Appeal,
religious leaders showed a general unit among critics in the types of arguments
that were used to support the statement. It is neither the fear of
biotechnology nor the abuse of it in the future, but it is, rather, how
patenting places these materials in the market place that is the dominant theme
of the various religious statements. It is the valuation that is inappropriate
and should be prohibited. Theological objections to patenting are thin, but the
accommodation in both the debate and modification of patent policy is an
argument worth pursuing. A major objection to biological patenting involves
ownership, i.e., human beings being pre-owned. “We belong to the sovereign
creator”. We are not to be killed, except in self-defense or similar reasons, or
our body parts to be sold, nor bought in the market place. It is admitted that
a single cell or cell line is not a human being, but it they are human and
warrants a different type of treatment than non –human cells or lines. The
image of God pervades human life in part or in whole. The right to own one part
is equivalent to owning all of the parts of a human being. This right cannot be
transferred from the Creator to the creature. The technical meaning of
ownership means the accomplishment of certain legal functions to avoid certain
legal and ethical difficulties. Obviously, this interpretation benefits the
industry
However, the term is still used by
critics as a placeholder for a certain set of moral and religious arguments.
Ownership is inclusive three sets of claims, i.e., the unique status of DNA,
the issue of sovereignty and patenting entails COM modification. Human dignity
is also raised as an issue and its relationship to the patenting of genes.
Baruch Brody discusses the objection in four forms, “ownership of human genes
infringes on human dignity because it is equivalent to ownership of humans,
because it commercializes body parts which should not be commodified, because
it cheapens that which defines human identity, and because it would lead to
inappropriate modifications in our genetic integrity. Commodofication of genes
violates human dignity. He points out that commodofication of other body parts,
such as transplantation, resulting in commercialization is not the same as the
commodofication of genes. Genes are not removed from one person to another
person for a price and profit. This is one instance in which poor people will
not be exploited or subjecting them to risk. Human dignity is also compromised
when one commodifies the very thing that defines our identity. Religious
communities would agree with Brody’s position by the statement that the image
of God pervades human life in all of its parts. It is the presence of this
image that grants human beings their dignity.
Brody further argues from a
reductionist approach that “patenting further identifies life mechanistically
and blurs the distinction between the animate and inanimate”.
In the article, Protecting God from
Science and Technology: How Criticisms of Biotechnologies Backfired, Patrick
Hopkins argues that many believers unreflectively fear that science and
technology replicate or steal Gods special deity-defining powers. Some perceive
an obligation, sometimes mandatory to influence and restrict new science and
technology. There is a concern that scientists ignore the social and ethical
implication of their work. The heart of the fear is that scientists press too
hard into the heart of nature to understand how tings work. How scientists
manipulate the knowledge that they find is also disturbing. These critics say
that scientists ignore traditional religious guidelines about humanity’s proper
role. People of faith, acting as God’s agents, protect the endangered dignity
of human agents and prohibit immoral policies and options.
Some religious critics have
incorporated science into their theology. There are claims about the nature and
beginnings of the universe and evolutionary development of species have refined
intelligent-design theory. The author believes that the relationship of
technology to science has been less emphasized. He also notes that
science-based claims often conflict with specific knowledge; technology is more
about action and altering the world than descriptive knowledge. Technology can
influence religion. Our ideas of what God, is able to do, helps to shape our
concepts of what makes God unique. Hopkins
notes that there has been a shift of criticism for a hubris archetype to one
that is Prometheus. He believes that Promethean criticisms often backfire
because they trick and under mind the very concept of God. There is conceptual
fallout that rebounds onto the central concepts that motivate the critiques.
Religious criticism of
biotechnology takes a wide variety of forms. Some of the concerns are the
violation of divine law, separating sexual intercourse from procreation, social
justice issues, e.g., the inability of the poor to pay for technological
advantages, human pride or hubris, i.e., the audacity of human beings where
only God has gone before. The concern about the roles of humans and God is the
foundation of the religious anxiety over technology. Hubris criticism is such
that human pride leads to moral and metaphysical overreaching. This leads to a
sinful attempt to intrude on knowledge and power that belongs to the infinite,
i.e., God. There are Greek stories and those of the Hebrew Bible that tell of
accounts of hubris tales. The two most important stories of the Hebrew Bible
and the most influential are the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel
Bbibliography
Cahill, Lisa, Bioethics, Theology, and Social Change, Journal
of Religious Ethics 31, 3,
363-398, 36 p Winter 2003
Hanson, Mark, Religious Voices in Biotechnology: The Case of
Gene Patenting, Hasting
Center Report, Vol. 7, Issue
6
Hopkins, Patrick, Protecting God from Science and
Technology: How Religious
Criticisms of Biotechnology
Backfire. Zyvon, vol. 7, no. 2, 317-343, June 2002
Kahler, Christoph, Human Biotechnology as a Social
Challenge: An Inquiry into Ethical
Wanke, Joachim, Ethical and Theological Challenges to Human
Biotechnology,
Observations from the Perspective
of Catholic Theology, An Interdisciplinary Introduction Bioethics, Aldershot : Ashgate Publishing. 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment