In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

chapter four Psychosocial Harm to Children There is always the chance that faulty genetic engineering could inflict physical injuries on children. But even if the engineering worked, the desired modifications were successfully installed, and there was no immediate or obvious physical harm to the child, the child still might be worse off than if he or she had not been intentionally redesigned. In fact, some opponents of evolutionary engineering oppose changes that are likely to produce benign or beneficial effects on the basis that the lives of future persons would have been engineered without their consent.1 Consent, or more specifically “informed consent,” is indeed a fundamental principle of biomedical ethics, and future persons obviously cannot give theirs in advance. Moreover, as the Council for Responsible Genetics points out, future persons “harmed or stigmatized by wrongful or unsuccessful germ line modifications” would likely have no recourse against the ancestors who were responsible.2 Yet few commentators are troubled by the absence of consent or accountability. Bioethicist Ray Moseley argues that “taken at face value this argument would imply that it is unethical to do anything affecting future generations, including produce them, since one cannot acquire their permission nor predict their wishes.” Moseley believes that the consent problem can be overcome if we simply avoid germ line changes that are predicted to lead to bad consequences.3 The late Marc Lappé, although a vocal crusader against genetically modified foods, points out that “future generations” includes the next one, and that “to reject all germ line alterations as ‘unethical’ because not all germ line–engineered individuals will be assured normal protective options or that they may be genetically unsuited to future environments is tantamount to saying no one should have children.”4 Theologian Ian Barbour suggests that “widespread public approval” can replace lack of informed consent by future generations.5 Nicholas Agar proposes that genetic enhancement be permitted unless it made it unlikely that the child could lead a successful life “founded on values that oppose those of the enhancers.”6 So parents presumably could install ar71 72 the hazards of evolutionary engineering tistic talents so long as doing so did not prevent their descendants from successfully pursuing nonartistic careers, say, in investment banking. Yet how likely is it that parents will make correct choices about which traits to modify? Modifications that parents think would be advantageous might turn out to be social or economic handicaps. Parents might think it desirable to install artistic talents in their children, for example, but when the children reached adulthood, they might be unable to make a living as an artist if the economy suffered a severe, long-lasting economic recession, or even just because too many parents had made the same choice and the art market had collapsed under the weight of too many objets d’art for sale. Aside from the difficulty of predicting which traits will be socially advantageous in the future, genetic choices might turn out to be unwise in that difficulties created by genetic changes could end up greatly outweighing any advantages. British biologist Michael J. Reiss is one person who is concerned that genetic changes could end up causing children more harm than good. He cites the example of a genetically engineered strain of fruit flies that learns ten times faster than normal flies. “At first sight,” comments Reiss, “the application of this technology to humans sounds marvelous. Imagine learning ten times faster; think of all the benefits it could bring.” But, he adds, “improved learning implies improved memory and if you have a far superior memory you will forget far less. Most of us have experienced unpleasant happenings which we are only too grateful to forget.”7 Consider one of the chief goals of the transhumanists, to substantially extend the human life span. Longevity could create serious social problems , such as overpopulation and stress on the environment. Careers might last longer, but there might be fewer entry-level openings and less upward job mobility. Longer-lived persons might consume more societal resources, putting financial pressure on government programs such as Medicare and on communal services such as public safety and transportation , and competition for scarce resources could increase the conflict between young and old. Life extension also could destabilize family relationships . Longer-lived individuals could grow bored with longer marriages , increasing the divorce rate. Successive marriages could weaken the emotional bond between parents and children. If older persons...

Share