Genetics and the Human Person
John Polkinghorne, March 15th, 2004
Review by Geoff Ridley
Click here for printer
friendly version of this page
Click here for Newcastle Science Festival
2004 reviews
Professor Polkinghorne gave an informative and stimulating lecture
accessible to listeners from diverse backgrounds on the ethical dilemmas
and problems created by recent advances in genetic research. He
emphasised that new results and techniques could present novel moral
challenges. Wide general agreements on "right" and "wrong" activities
were abroad, but decisions on specific courses of action opened up by
continuing advances in knowledge and understanding could prove to be
sources of great anguish and differences of opinion. In such instances,
he argued, expert knowledge in a pertinent field of study was of vital
importance, but that workers in this field might be in some danger of a
form of "tunnel vision" (Writer's analogy), and some form of dialogue
with non-experts might lead finding a better path forward. Not every
experiment that could be done, should be done, Professor Polkinghorne
counselled.
Vocal pressure groups, Professor Polkinghorne continued, while having
valid perspectives, were in some danger of arguing their views from
single issue bases, leading to situations of conflict rather than of
constructive discourse.
On the topic of reproductive cloning in humans, Professor Polkinghorne
suggested that there was an almost unanimous "No" in contemporary
thinking. "Dolly the Sheep", he cited, was a success after some 277
failed cloning attempts. Risks of experimental failures in humans
resulting in malformations would be irresponsible behaviour by
experimenters, and not permissible, thus issues of safety and efficacy
were unavoidable. Even if risk-free techniques were available, the
reasons for wishing to produce human clones required close examination.
For instance, in the cell nuclear replacement method of assisting a
childless couple, the new individual would be a clone of the father.
Genetically, the son would be an identical twin of his father, resulting
in the possibility of significant psychological problems for the family.
Deliberately determining the genetic nature of an individual had serious
implications. Such an individual was being regarded as an "object", or
an "end". In addition (as was expanded upon later in the Paper), the
individual was far more than the "sum of the genes", that is, the
"properties of the person" (Writer's phrase) could not be predicted even
if the genetic "construction kit" (Writer's phrase) were to be specified
in advance.
A moral dilemma was outlined by Professor Polkinkhorne in that, with
continuing advances in the understanding of genetics, there now existed
objective knowledge about the causes and mechanisms of some human
disorders (Parkinson's and Alzheimer's Diseases were mentioned) from the
genetic perspective. Such knowledge should, surely, be put to use to
assist sufferers, and perhaps even lead towards the elimination of
certain conditions by developing "therapeutic cloning" techniques, based
upon stem cell studies. Indeed, it was later asked, would it be wrong to
refrain from such research? Experimental investigations requiring the
use of human embryos for these "serious purposes" were licensable on a
case-by-case basis in the U.K. under present legislation.
Professor Polkinghorne addressed the ethically difficult area of the use
of human embryos in clinical research was outlined. Here, attempts to
use general moral principles have to be made in specific situations. The
early embryo is not in able to make informed consent in plans concerning
its own future. Can the embryo be regarded as "human", and which
criteria for any decision are used? It was suggested that universal
abhorrence at experimentation would be felt if the embryo was regarded as
"human". Much of the remainder of the Paper dealt with views on what it
was that constituted the "human" state of existence.
The Roman Catholic Church identifies humanity as existing from the
instant of fertilisation, and thus is opposed to the use of viable
embryos in research. The Warnock Commission, however, suggests the
embryo to be potentially human in the first 14 days after conception,
"ethically entitled to respect", but not actually human. Professor
Polkinghorne aligns himself with the second view, basing his decision on
the finding that, before 14 days, structure in the D.N.A. of the embryo
is not discernable.
Professor Polkinghorne moved into a more abstract and philosophical realm
to describe his thinking on that which constitutes or identifies "the
person". He invited consideration of the new study of complex systems
analysis in mathematical sciences, citing the work of Stuart Kauffmann,
and the phrase "more is different". There seems to be a spontaneous
"self-organisation" in complex interactive models. Though almost
incomprehensibly large numbers of theoretically possible states might
exist for a system, sometimes relatively very few patterns of dynamic
order are actually observed when computer models are run. Energy
exchange mechanisms, Polkinghorne suggested, are insufficient to explain
the "self-organisation": "information flow" considerations were
required. He sees a possible allusion to the development of the human
"self", here. The self is something other than the explicable or
predictable outcomes of a responsive complex system (Writer's
paraphrase.)
The dualist view of humanity advanced by Plato and Descartes - that the
soul and body are separable - and also Gilbert Ryle's "Ghost in the
Machine" are not accepted by Professor Polkinghorne. We were reminded
that to Aristotle and Aquinas, an instant of "ensoulment" took place a
finite time after conception: 40 days for a man, 80 days for a woman.
Polkinghorne advocates an integrated, psychosomatic view of body and
soul, a "package deal" where the two are inseparable. Is the soul the
"real me", he ponders. Is the "self" or "me" the information-bearing
package that features some pattern continuity? He gave the example of
his image in a photograph of sixty years ago. Through the natural
biological processes of growth, development and repair, the literal body
which formed the image on the photograph no longer existed, but his
"self" had continued to the present, even though there had been no
material continuity. An additional analogy offered was that of a ship
which, during a voyage, suffered a series of breakages and repairs, such
that when it arrived at its destination none of the original structure
survived as all had been replaced. Had the "ship" eventually arrived in
port, if not, what had? (Writer's comment: Perhaps this example has a
similarity to Xeno's Whirlpool Paradox where the water moves on, but the
"whirlpool" remains?) In contrast, it was also suggested that in a human
who experienced the effect of a drug or traumatic experience, the
"material continuity" could be maintained, but the "character" could be
changed.
The attention of the audience was directed to some of the dilemmas
created by the possible effects on an individual of the acquisition of
knowledge from genetic testing on this individual. The individual had a
right not to know information, even though this might be reliably
obtained. The disorder, Huntingdon's Chorea, was used as an example in
this context. It is known that this disorder is genetically perpetuated
by the male parent, with any son having a 50% chance of inheritance from
an affected father. The symptoms usually do not develop until early
middle age, thus it would be possible for a son to suspect, from
knowledge of family history, that he might develop the condition, even
though his father might not have displayed any symptoms. If the son
requested a genetic test, and this proved positive, then this result
would also confirm that the father would develop the condition. The son
might have a desire to know, but the father might not. Before a reliable
genetic test for Huntingdon's was available, some 80% of potential
carriers said they would prefer to take such a test, if it became
available. When testing actually was developed, this proportion fell to
50%.
Professor Polkinghorne's closing remarks were cautionary. New knowledge
and techniques from genetic research might lead to the elimination of
certain distressing disorders, but might also open up the possibility of
deliberate enhancement of certain traits: a "comodifying" of children.
Science leads to knowledge, after which technology can convert knowledge
into power. Wisdom, he suggests, is the power to "discern the good and
reject the bad".
Some websites of possible interest:
Rev. Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS
Stuart A. Kaufman
The
Guild of Catholic Doctors:
Comments to the Chief Medical Officer’s
Expert Group on Cloning
Bioethical Issues of IPRs
Click here for printer
friendly version of this page
Top of page
Geoff Ridley, 19-03-04
|