Transhumanist dreams and dystopian nightmares: The promise and peril of genetic engineering by Maxwell J. Mehlman (review)

Transhumanists, a term coined by Julian Huxley, are people who look forward to the prospect of germ-line genetic engineering as an opportunity to reengineer (read: improve) the human species. According to Maxwell Mehlman, a bioethicist and director of the Law-Medicine Center at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, transhumanists accept the fact that active forms of evolutionary engineering will begin by targeting disease, especially severe childhood conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down syndrome as well as inherited genetic predispositions to diseases such as bowel and breast cancer. This will inevitably involve sex selection of embryos and raises the possibility of an explosion of “designer babies.”

Designing babies, argues Savalescu, an Australian bioethicist, is an ethical obligation for parents because “rational design” would lead to a better, more intelligent and less violent society in the future” (Alleyne 2012). But according to Mehlman, there is a larger agenda for examination in transhumanism. He points out that after conquering biological conditions genetic engineering will progress to sorting out mental ailments and ultimately focus on genetic enhancement and control over evolution.

Whether one aspires to transhumanist ideals or rejects them outright, the question of whether the “genie can be put back into the bottle” arises. Experience has shown us that biotechnology has a life of its own and typically results in both benefits and harms. In the process of developing and refining genetic engineering in the human project, errors, misjudgments, and poor as well as good outcomes are likely to result (Mehlman).

In Transhumanist Dreams and Dystopian Nightmares, Mehlman argues that such errors are inevitable and anticipated. He proceeds to present us with a broad compendium of mistakes that may be made during a project of human genetic engineering and evolutionary change. In doing so, he explores the possible seriousness of these mistakes, suggests who will be affected, and explores whether the consequences will be short or long term: “Should we try to stop genetic engineering from taking place?” he asks. “On the other hand if we permit evolutionary engineering to proceed, how do we minimize the risks? What actions would we need to take to prevent harm to children?” (151).

Although he accepts that genetic engineering is inevitable, Mehlman grapples with the question of whether genetic engineering should be allowed and ultimately whether governments are capable of effectively regulating and controlling it. In this vigilant and thought-provoking exploration, Mehlman raises a crucial tension: Will our descendants be graced by healthier lives and immortality or dogged by capitalist greed, exploitation, and political oppression? (33). He explores the dangers of eugenics and is clearly concerned about the role of government and the influence of global competition or the interests of the state in public health. He invites us to intensely examine the consequences of transhumanism and to think about possible mechanisms for its regulation.

While Mehlman clearly views our descendants (children and society as a whole) as vulnerable to the outcomes and errors of genetic engineering, he leaves underexamined the question of how women’s lives will be affected. With the advent of disembodiment of human embryos through IVF processes, feminist bioethicists have passionately debated the role of women in genetic engineering. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering (FINRRAGE) provided considerable critical analysis of the ways in which transhumanist ideals rely on the social and medical control of women’s bodies and the ways in which women’s integrity and social autonomy may be undermined (Spallone and Steinberg 1987). Feminist debate later polarized, with some agreeing that genetic engineering was yet another form of paternalistic expression and a further oppression of women in the evolutionary project. Others argued that genetic engineering represented procreative liberty for women in choosing the children they wanted to have (Birke, Himmelweit, and Vines 1990). The questions of vulnerability and effective control over women’s bodies and pregnancies have dogged many...