As the science of human reproduction and development advances, many ethical and legal questions are being raised. In his book, The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, Professor Michael Sandel argues that sex-selection, cloning, free-market-eugenics*, and other forms of biotechnological enhancement may deepen social problems.
Breakthroughs in genetics “present us with great promise, but also a fair number of problems,” writes Sandel. Current research may help discover treatments for muscle diseases, diabetes, and other illnesses as well as provide therapies for treating and preventing still other conditions such as the weakening of bones and memory loss associated with aging. But Sandel also sees major problems arising when these technologies become available for non-medical uses, and parents attempt to artificially improve their children in a quest for perfection that he finds deeply worrisome. In the following interview, he discusses these concerns.
You have chosen an interesting title for your book. What does the title mean? Who would be opposed to perfection?
Michael Sandel: It’s less the goal of perfection that creates moral anxiety than the attitudes, habits, and arrogance that attend the drive for perfection. That seems to me to be the heart of it. There’s nothing wrong with parents seeking the best for their children: the best education, healthcare, etc. At the same time, there is a tendency toward hyperparenting, which can be harmful to children and destructive to a healthy society. The United States has fallen behind Europe in terms of creating clear government regulations concerning the use of genetic technologies. This lack of rules is extremely problematic.
What do you mean by “hyperparenting”?
Michael Sandel: I mean the excessive parental management and molding of children. The danger of using genetic technologies to get “designer children” is that it will reinforce the tendency of hyperparents to see their children as instruments of their own ambition. It’s this aspect of the drive for perfection that worries me. The risk is that we will turn children into objects of manufacture, into commodities to be purchased, picking and choosing the traits we want in our children, rather than viewing them as independent persons. There is the risk, too, of undermining the unconditional love parents have for their children, if we begin to specify hair color, eye color, height, sex, and intelligence, before they are even born. There is the risk of turning parenting into an extension of the consumer society. And that could erode the love of parents for their children.
You are a parent. Have you ever had to restrain yourself from engaging in hyperparenting?
Michael Sandel: It would be dishonest to claim that I am immune to this urge. I think everyone has experienced the inclination to hyperparent. We must not be overly controlling when raising children, though hyperparenting is a tempting thing to do, especially these days. Today, parents look around, especially in affluent suburban schools, and feel that there’s a kind of arms-race mentality. Since everyone else is taking college prep courses, not to do so seems to be depriving one’s child of a competitive advantage. The real danger of hyperparenting will come when parents feel pressured to resort to genetic engineering for the sake of giving their children a competitive edge. We see this already in a limited way with the use of human growth hormone, which can increase the height of children. It was introduced to help children with a hormonal deficiency, but it also works with short, but otherwise healthy, children.
In part, you seem worried about these great scientific temptations because you fear that people with the money to pay for them will embrace them. Is that right?
Michael Sandel: What worries me are not the genetic technologies by themselves but the availability of new genetic technologies together with social and cultural attitudes in an increasingly competitive society. It is this combination that is so troubling. I should emphasize that I consider breakthroughs in genetics a great blessing for medicine and for the relief of suffering. My concern is with non-medical uses of genetic technologies. I would not want to restrain research and breakthroughs in genetics. On the contrary, they are crucially important for health. My concern is when technologies that were designed for promoting health are used for non-medical purposes, and are turned into instruments of competition in a consumer-driven society. These moral concerns go back to the history of eugenics in Nazi Germany. Eugenics was then associated with coercion and state control of reproduction. Today it is making a comeback, but without state coercion. It’s now in the form of privatized, free-market eugenics. I think that eugenics is morally troubling even without the state coercion because now the eugenic ambition is connected to consumerism in a competitive society. So, parents will feel increasing pressures to resort to genetic engineering in order to give their children a leg up in a competitive society. It’s this combination that worries me.
And the dividing line is who can afford it, is that right?
Michael Sandel: : Yes, and that’s a very important point. Now that eugenics is basically a free-market activity, those who will avail themselves of genetically enhanced children will be those who can afford it. The risk is that the gap between rich and poor will be genetically reinforced, will be reflected in the use of these genetic technologies, and that is a very serious concern.
You write, “The connection between solidarity and giftedness saves a merit-based society from sliding into self-centeredness.” What did you mean?
Michael Sandel: : In my view, the idea of giftedness goes along with a willingness to be open to the unpredictability of life. To appreciate children as gifts is to accept them as they come, not as we might “design” them. It involves a certain humility and restraint, and it seems to me to not only be important morally, but to also have civic consequences. As for solidarity, just think, “Why do the fortunate owe anything to the less fortunate in a society?” One answer to that question depends heavily on the idea of giftedness. Some people are fortunate or gifted by chance. If many of our advantages can’t be said to be our own doing, then that gives a powerful drive to solidarity, to feelings of togetherness and shared experience with those less fortunate than us. If in the future certain people use genetic technologies to control all aspects of human development, those people may feel in no way connected to the difficulties of others.
Note:
*eugenics: the controlling of human reproduction through genetic modification or selective mating.
コメントを残す