Federico Mayor
Genetic testsand treatments must not be allowed to create new forms of discrimination – between those who, for whatever reason, can or want to take advantage of them, and those who cannot, mostly for lack of money
If a scientific discovery
can form the basis of a technology, then it is highly probable that the technology
will eventually be applied. Today this lesson of history is causing anxiety among
politicians, scientists and public opinion concerned about the current far-reaching
developments in biotechnologies.
It is now possible to penetrate to the very essence of living things as a result
of spectacular scientific advances that are gradually revealing the innermost mechanisms
of life. The technologies based on this field of knowledge offer humanity for the
first time astonishing powers to revolutionize the process of creating and developing
human beings and, ultimately, the human species. Technically speaking, these breakthroughs
could lead to the revival, in even more effective guises, of eugenic practices we
hoped had been buried forever. Fortunately, this nightmare scenario seems highly
unlikely.
But history also shows that new technologies are rarely applied without a framework
of rules and procedures designed to ensure that they are beneficially used. Human
progress has always been driven by the winds of freedom, including freedom of enquiry
and initiative, but human beings have always tried to head in the right direction
and to respect certain limits. The biologists have done their work: they have sown
the seeds of vast possibilities. Now it is up to society to make sure that only the
benefits are harvested. The biotechnology revolution beckons humanity to a crucial
encounter between science and ethics.
Where human reproduction is concerned, as with technology in general, we must be
guided by respect for three basic and interdependent principles–dignity, freedom
and solidarity.
For human dignity to be respected, each person must be regarded as unique. This position
has far-reaching consequences for human procreation. First of all, it rules out cloning
as a means of reproduction because this technique, which is almost upon us, involves
genetically “duplicating” an existing person. More generally, predetermining the
basic characteristics of a future person, notably trying to enhance their future
physical or mental capacities, violates the very essence of human individuality.
This kind of engineering would end up by depriving individuals of that which is theirs
alone–the mysterious processes whereby their unique genetic heritage emerges and
interacts in its own unique way with their environment.
Advances in prenatal scanning and testing techniques may confront parents with grave
new decisions. The danger is that various kinds of pressures or even regulations
will develop which only allow “genetically correct” people to be born. This would
be totally unacceptable. No authority–be it political, social or economic–should
be able to enact such a “genetic order”, still less impose it.
So increasing emphasis must be laid on solidarity. Genetic tests and treatments must
not be allowed to create new forms of discrimination–between those who, for whatever
reason, can or want to take advantage of them, and those who cannot, mostly for lack
of money.
The risk of uncontrolled, unmonitored genetic engineering increasingly looms over
us. But we are starting to see the emergence of a new “responsible” form of genetic
engineering in which the power of science is subjected to the power of ethics–an
ethics that benefits everyone, not just a few, and looks towards future generations,
not just short-term interests.
