Ethical problems raised by the genetic manipulation of living organisms

M. Botbol-Baum, Université catholique de Louvain, Unité d’éthique biomédicale, Faculté de Medecine, 2000

We are rightly overwhelmed by the fact that "Mouse model demonstrated recently the role of telomeres and telomerase in aging cancer. Somatic cell gene therapy we are told has already yielded promising results…etc. Hundred of genetic diseases might be virtually eliminated in the near future. Nonetheless some claim that the research procedure jumps a little too quickly from mouse model to human clinical application. Is this acceptable? Are there any ethical reason not to develop and employ the germ line therapy or is the other argument true . We would have a moral obligation to manipulate living organisms if the finality was to cure diseases ?

My question would be to check if there’s an imaginary line of transgression that should not be transgressed when we deal with manipulating the human genome, or if speaking of protecting the human genome, so close to the mouse genome is pure nonsense ! On what should we found our judgment? The object of my paper will be mostly to offer a critical gaze on the fears and hopes of contemporary medical research, and its impact on our daily ethical choices from genetic screening to sex selection confidentiality eugenics…I will ask myself about the role of the principle of precaution and the determination of risk on such issues that are ideologically loaded. I will argue that according to your initial set of philosophical beliefs, you will choose either an essentialist or an existentialist vision of what those risk of manipulating living organisms may be. My final question will be to raise the question of a possible complex rationality that will not force us to be either Darwinist or essentialists but to reconcile these two approaches as two complementing language games that will help us continue design a socially acceptable world.