Biotechnology and the Human Good

THREE: Biotechnology and Competing Worldviews

C H A P T E R T H R E E Biotechnology and Competing Worldviews Those who have not discovered that worldview is the most important thing about a man, as about the men composing a culture, should consider the train of circumstances which have with perfect logic proceeded from this. The denial of universals carries with it the denial of everything transcending experience. The denial of everything transcending experience means inevitably—though ways are found to hedge on this—the denial of truth. —Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences BIOTECHNOLOGY: The term conjures up visions of science fiction to some, and to others it suggests the ultimate postmodern hope for human beings to remake themselves according to their own design. Others are cautiously optimistic about the benefits of the emerging biotechnologies , seeing the potential for good but recognizing the prospects for creating a world in which we do not want to live. But still others, such as William Kristol and Eric Cohen, suggest that biotechnology is moving quickly ahead without much consideration for what type of society might result.1 Biotechnology raises not only ethical questions but also broader and more profound philosophical questions —about the goals of medicine, about human nature, about the nature and purpose of technology, and ultimately about one’s view of the world. Kristol and Cohen assert that ‘‘the debate over genetics’’ (and also, we would add, broadly over biotechnology) ‘‘is about Biotechnology and Competing Worldviews 33 whether or not man and women should remake, redesign, and prefabricate themselves and their offspring, and about whether these new genetic powers will lead, quickly or eventually, to the ‘abolition of man’’’—in C. S. Lewis’s words.2 Similarly, the biotechnology critic Jeremy Rifkin argues that worldview components such as cosmology and one’s view of nature are critical to the newly emerging intersection of biotechnology and economics.3 He suggests what we must ask ourselves: The role cosmology plays in rationalizing the new economic circumstances society finds itself in is critical. . . . Concepts of nature focus on the big questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we headed? . . . The fact is, we human beings cannot live without some agreed-upon idea of what nature and life are all about.4 He further points out that today’s biotechnological changes are ‘‘being accompanied by a revised cosmological narrative.’’5 The general public often supposes that the debate over biotechnology concerns whether or not specific technologies ought to be developed and made available, either through government or through the market. But often not noticed in these debates are the profound assumptions that are rarely exposed or questioned, about how people see the world and how their view of biotechnology fits, or does not fit, with their worldview. One glaring example of this comes from the unabashed biotechnology proponent Gregory Stock, director of the Program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the University of California, Los Angeles, who laments that those who oppose or question aspects of biotechnology represent ‘‘people whose worldviews in this sensitive area hold an inordinate sway on their thinking’’ (emphasis added).6 Of course, Stock does not realize that his own worldview holds great sway on his thinking (as it does for everyone involved in biotechnology ); and the assumptions in his worldview are likely unstated and unexamined. And that is our purpose here: to analyze the competing worldviews, or ‘‘faiths’’ or belief systems, held both by those who advocate and by those who are critical of the emerging biotechnological revolution. 34 C H A P T E R T H R E E What are the different faiths or sets of assumptions vying for influence in biotechnology today?7 Although it is impossible to account for all the variations in how people see the world, we can distinguish three major players in the biotechnology arena. At one end of the spectrum, most advocates of biotechnology are what are known as philosophical naturalists. Sometimes referred to as scientific materialists, adherents to this worldview are by far the most influential in determining the direction that biotechnology will take. Most philosophical naturalists hold that reality consists of the material world alone, that what is real is what is empirically verifiable.8 Naturalists hold to a view of a human person known as physicalism, asserting that a person is no more than his or her biological parts. They have allies in...