Improving Nature?: The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering [Paperback]

Michael Jonathan Reiss (Author), Roger Straughan (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0521637546 | ISBN-13: 978-0521637541 | Publication Date: March 13, 1998

Little more than a decade ago the term 'genetic engineering' was hardly known outside research laboratories. By now, though, its use is widespread. Those in favour of genetic engineering - and those against it - tell us that it has the potential to change our lives perhaps more than any other scientific or technological advance. But what are the likely consequences of genetic engineering? Is it ethically acceptable? Should we be trying to improve on nature? The authors, a biologist and a moral philosopher, examine the implications of genetic engineering in every aspect of our lives. The underlying science is explained in a way easily understood by a general reader, and the moral and ethical considerations that arise are fully discussed. Throughout, the authors clarify the issues involved so that readers can make up their own minds about these controversial issues.

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

The authors' intent in publishing this work was to make the complicated processes and ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering understandable to the nonbiologist. Biologist Reiss and moral philosopher Straughan have done an admirable job of explaining these concepts in a clear and provocative manner. Individual chapters are devoted to genetic engineering in microorganisms, plants, animals, and humans, with each chapter providing several case studies and a discussion of the ethical concerns associated with those techniques. Also included is a brief examination of theological concerns relating to this area, a topic not normally included in a popular science volume. While the lack of detail may frustrate serious researchers, generalists should find this an excellent introduction to the topic. Recommended for public libraries.?Tina Neville, Univ. of South Florida at St. Petersburg
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Booklist

At first glance, this may appear to be one of those books that raise many questions but provide few answers. Biologist Reiss and moral philosopher Straughan have, however, written a clear, informative, and above all provocative work that should engage those interested in genetic engineering, whether directly or indirectly. They believe their main responsibility is to provide facts, survey attitudes, and present enough material so that each reader can make individual decisions about the issues. They provide the biology basic to genetic engineering and discuss the relevant moral, ethical, and religious concerns about it. Then they consider genetic engineering in microorganisms, plants, animals, and humans and, to flesh out some of the moral concerns, discuss several case histories in depth. Their final chapter (one of the book's best) deals with education--what it is and how it should be done. This valuable work should prove helpful to teachers and leaders of discussion groups as well as individual readers. William Beatty --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 298 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press (March 13, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0521637546
• ISBN-13: 978-0521637541
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.2 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,714,520 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

16 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Finally a good book about Genetic Engineering!!, March 21, 1998

By A Customer

This review is from: Improving Nature?: The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering (Hardcover)

I am just a high school student, yet I undersood this book. It is great!!! It is not too technical, yet it covers what it needs to. Sections on plant, animal, and human genetic engineering make this book worth reading. No matter if you are a student with just an intrest, like me, or a genetic engineer yourself - you will enjoy this book. I get it a ten!!!

13 of 29 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Well written book on genes, January 18, 1999

By 

[e-mail] (Pleasant Hill, CA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Improving Nature?: The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering (Paperback)

two main components, the science of genetic engineering with an excellent explanation of mutations, and the moral/ethical aspects of genetic engineering. They explain how already human genes have been put into pigs, how we may be able to change the genetic make-up of humans, and the genetic basis for making these species level changes in human's genetic code. R&S also give a great deal of time to explaining the different types of genetic mutations that occur. For example, a whole chromosome may be lost or gained, such as an extra copy of the small chromosome 21 that causes Down's Syndrome. Or part of a chromosome may be inverted put be fully intact. And they explain how dominant and recessive genes affect us and how they are transmitted from generation to generation. This is probably the best book reviewed here that deals with genetic and chromosomal mutations and how they interact to make us what we are, including the dangers of genetic engineering on humans. First, genes often work best when they are situated next to each other, and mistakes in insertion locations may interfere with tumor-suppressor genes. But these are all technical problems and there is good reason to believe they will be overcome as we complete the Human Genome Project. Less time is given to the ethics of genetic engineering by R&S, but again it is also the most controversial and interesting part of the book. They do point out that "Ethics is normally thought of as a narrower concept than morality, and it can be used in several different, though unrelated, senses. The most general of these suggests a set of standards by which a particular group or community decides to regulate its behavior--to distinguish what is legitimate or acceptable in pursuit of their aims from what is not, such as 'business ethics' or 'medical ethics'." What this means is that there can be no such thing as unethical practices in the pursuit of genetic engineering or eugenics, because any action deemed unethical has to be agreed upon by the participants, not imposed on them. The socialists forget this when they try to impose secular or politically motivated ethical standards on scientific procedures because they fear that the knowledge that may result will harm their egalitarian cause. (See Culture of Critique by MacDonald.) R&S then discuss the morality of genetic engineering, both intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic being actions that are right and wrong on their own (based on religion, evolution, etc. ??) and extrinsic that only considers the beneficial consequences of actions. They do a good job of explaining these two positions, and how for example in the debate on abortion the two sides are arguing from different perspectives with regards to what is moral (extrinsic versus intrinsic). What they do fail to discuss is that if humans share a moral history with other primates based on reproductive success of the tribe, how can we apply morality to present day actions of right and wrong? and of course we can't. (See my article on morality). Neither the utilitarian, consequentialist, Kantian deontological formulations, or any other system has any innate truth when morality is considered within an evolutionary perspective, the only one that is empirical. I especially liked their discussion of 'holistic', 'ecological' or 'environmental' objections to genetic engineering (and many other human actions the naturalists don't like). They point out of course that we have been breeding crops and animals for over 10,000 years and that virtually everything humans do are in this sense unnatural, that is, apparently incapable of being done by other animals. As they state, "the progress of civilization has been largely dependent upon our 'interference with nature'." At one time religion was used to try and stop scientific progress, but as faith in religion has declined the anti-empiricists have had to turn to other forms of mystical arguments in order to block human progress. There are now attempts, even though we have not been able to assign a non-Darwinian moral system to humans, to apply arbitrary moral rules to all of nature. These arguments are made more in the milieu of postmodernist arguments that become incoherent when evaluated rationally, but the mere volume of emotionalism often overshadows rationalism and can sound convincing. For example, arguments are made that nature is somehow foreordained to be symbiotic, with some form of natural order that humans may corrupt or upset to the point that the planet will be destroyed. I would argue, that aside from nuclear war, this is impossible. And even then I would have to believe that after a nuclear holocaust, a few species would survive to repopulate the earth. None of this is good or bad in terms of the earth and all of its creatures. The universe is oblivious as to whether the earth has organic life or not. And all of the other organic forms have no contemplation of non-existence, nor is it possible to prove that organic existence is intrinsically good or better than a world devoid of life and suffering. None of the holistic arguments make any sense outside of life as a genetic algorithm that increases in complexity as it progresses, without any actual goal. Humans, like any other species, are free to exploit every corner of their ecological niche for their own benefit. However humans, with our large brains and our ability to contemplate our own deaths, finally have the means to arbitrarily give meaning and purpose to life, in our pursuit of trying to assuage our death angst. Some turn to mysticism, some to Marxism or racial purity for their own tribe, some embrace science and accept the inevitable, etc. And this is where eugenics as a secular religion fits in. It is merely an act of creation, directing our species to an ever higher level of intelligence in order to better understand the many remaining fallacies of belief we have adopted in our journey from our primate past. Does this mean that eugenics as a secular religion is similar to Christianity in being an anthropocentric religion, that establishes a dualism between man and nature, where it is our duty to exploit nature in the name of God, as R&S point out? Hardly. It is based on science and does not fall into the naturalistic fallacy. Eugenics as a secular religion is merely an act of creation using purposefully directed evolution as its tool. Where it is going, the means taken to get there, and the safety mechanism to be used to obtain the expected results are the same as any scientific project. But it is not subject to metaphysical concerns. It readily accepts the arbitrariness of human actions, and is based on the simple observation of science that more intelligent people who have fewer genetic diseases will live a more fruitful life, on average. It is no different than wanting to build safer and safer airplanes because then fewer people will die in plane crashes. But it does tend to further desacralize life for those unable to accept the inevitable death angst that they must live with, and is attacked on this basis alone. Speciesism is another attempt to define a moral system for all creatures, "Put at its most succinct, it is of little significance, the argument goes, that humans belong to a different biological species from, say, chimpanzees, dogs, farm animals and laboratory mice; we do not have the right to treat such species merely as we choose and for our own ends. Think of the conditions we normally require before humans are permitted to be used as research subjects." Of course this is utter nonsense, because if all species are equivalent then they all have the same moral obligations between species or tribes (pack, etc.). The fact is, even chimpanzees will treat each other in the troop with some moral considerations, even taking care of an injured member, but will go on raiding parties to kill members of other troops. Canines and felines will also kill their own. So if we are really to put aside speciesism and rejoin the moral constructs of other animals, then the only moral imperative is reproductive success, and that includes practicing genocide whenever we can get away with it to benefit our own kin! Is that really what these moralists (specifically Peter Singer) are arguing for? Such formulations of human ethical behavior can only be grounded by ignoring our own evolutionary past and all the empirical evidence regarding our true nature. R&S discuss the ethics of using DNA fingerprints to establish a national database as is increasingly common in a number of countries for controlling immigration, paternity suites, and to fight crime to name just a few uses. For a more complete discussion however see Richard Dawkins' new book Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. Finally, R&S introduces another one of those anti-intelligence arguments stating that if we become too smart, and our memories become too vivid, we may regret it because we will not be able to forget unpleasant happenings (or even dreams for that matter). But all one has to do is ask how many people lament not being able to remember some