Philosophers, scientists spar over genetic 'shopping'

BY JOHN SANFORD

As scientists come closer to developing a fuller map of the human genome and understanding the significance of various DNA sequences, chances improve that they eventually will learn how to cure at least some congenital disorders. But the prospect of gene therapy also raises the specter -- or the hope, depending on your point of view -- of gene enhancement: that is, of designing a "superior" human being.

This is already happening, to a degree, through the sale of sperm and eggs, said philosophy Professor Peter Singer of Princeton's Center for Human Values.

"I bet it's true at Stanford, as it is at Princeton, that you can frequently see advertisements in your student newspaper offering large sums of money for donated eggs from students at the university who satisfy certain characteristics," he said.

Two scientists and four philosophers composed a panel Thursday at "Genetic Shopping? A Debate on the Political and Philosophical Consequences of Deciphering the Human Genome," held in Room 290 of the Law School. They were Peter Sloterdijk, head of the Staatliche Hochschule für Gestaltung in Karlsruhe, Germany; Dr. Patrick Brown, a professor of biochemistry at Stanford; Dr. Jane Gitschier, a professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California-San Francisco; Mary Varney Rorty of Stanford's Center for Biomedical Ethics; philosopher Richard Rorty, a professor in Stanford's Department of Comparative Literature; and Singer.

The well-attended event, sponsored by the President's Office, had remarkably little audience attrition over its three-and-one-half-hour duration.

Singer argued it is likely that only wealthy people will be able to pay for genetically enhancing their offspring (assuming technology can advance that far). Hence, the prevailing American myth of equal opportunity -- "that anyone can get from the log cabin to the White House" -- will be lost, he said.

"We'll be able to see that at conception these children start with advantages that make it virtually impossible for any other children to catch up," he said.

But Singer offered two alternatives that would maintain the myth of egalitarianism: Limit individual freedom by making genetic enhancement illegal (which might simply drive the industry offshore); or allow the government to subsidize genetic enhancement, making it available to everyone -- the option Singer said he would choose.

Equally complex issues surround screening and remedies for congenital diseases. For more than two decades, scientists have been able to test for Down syndrome in fetuses. Between 90 and 92 percent of women whose unborn children test positive for the disorder decide to have an abortion, Singer noted.

Singer has defended the right of women and couples to terminate a pregnancy if their child will be severely disabled. He also has argued that, in some cases, they should even have the choice of killing their severely disabled children soon after birth. Many have charged that Singer's views discriminate against people with disabilities.

Singer disputes this characterization. "I see no justification for having any kind of negative attitude toward someone because they have a disability, if one is hired and the disability does not affect their capacity to do the job," he said.

However, maintaining that discrimination on the basis of a disabilities is the same as discrimination on the basis of race and sex is to conclude, essentially, that having a disability is no worse than not having one, he argued. "The mainstream disability movement says that governments should fund research into the causes and preventions of forms of disabilities, but why would you do that if it wasn't something that made you worse off?" Singer said. "I think, in a sense, these groups have got trapped by the logic of a political position that they're trying to carry out to an illogical conclusion."

Scientific advances that allow us to select our offspring force us to "see we can no longer just claim that every child is a gift from God and must be accepted equally on its terms. ... The overwhelming majority of us don't really think that. When we're given the choice, we reject that child who has Down syndrome; we reject the child that has spina bifida."

However, parents have every right to carry to term a child with a congenital disorder, and that child should be welcomed into the community, he said. In some cases, however, a disorder may be so severe that it would be cruel to preserve the life, he added.

While Singer is well known for his views on animal rights -- he has condemned "discrimination on the basis of species" -- another panelist, Sloterdijk, sees a distinct boundary between humans and animals. Citing a procession of Western philosophers -- from Plato to Heidegger -- Sloterdijk examined the notion of humans as breeders of themselves.

Using a definition that could make even genetically enhanced brains lock up like a computer screen, Sloterdijk argued that to be human "is to carry the consequences of the acquired incapacity to be an animal." Humanity has insulated itself almost completely from selective pressure and distanced itself from animals by using tools, he said. In a sense, even humans' earliest tools were a kind of genetic technology; they lifted us somewhat above the selective fray, he said. Sloterdijk asserted that today's genetic technology is just a continuation of human tool use.

But Brown said he believed scientists' ability to manipulate genes will be "extremely limited," and he cautioned against thinking about "subtle or complicated" traits in the same terms as an easily identifiable genetic disorder such as Down syndrome.

"There's no gene for intelligence or for beauty or happiness or athletic ability," Brown said. In general, Brown was less expansive about the future of genetic engineering than Sloterdijk or Singer. Brown also said that it is hard to attach a universal value to certain characteristics.

"I think if suddenly everybody wanted to have tall, blond children with high SATs, it would become cool to be dark-haired, short and fat, and challenged by algebra," Brown said.

Would a parent really choose a math-challenged child, just to be different? In any case, Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, the Albert Guerard Professor of Literature and debate moderator, quipped that Brown had given him hope. "I'm dark, fat and challenged by algebra," Gumbrecht said.