It’s been more than four decades since artificial heart was implanted in a human and

two decades since the human genome was fully mapped and sequenced. Both are
construed important moments in the development of biological technology. While the
progress in biotechnology has been immense and a lot more is yet to be done, the
ethical and moral questions raised by the whole deal regarding the marriage of
technology with biology are profound.

Any application of knowledge to manipulate or transform human environment, usually to

aid in practical affairs could be termed technology. Fire, wheel even language is
technology that we’ve been using for tens of millennia. The purpose of technology since
the days when fire was invented has been to transcend human limitation. Biotechnology
aims at nothing different. However since biotechnology is targeted at the human self
rather than their environment, it raises more eyebrows than other forms of technology.
Critics point out that by manipulating the human self, the propose of biotechnology is to
create a ‘trans-human’ like entity rather than aiding us.

At the outset we need to note that

First, no technology is neutral per se. All technology creates something ‘plus
man’ by the virtue of its getting associated with practical usage. To say that ‘it
is not the gun that kills but the man’ is flawed because without the gun the man
could not have killed anyone. When technology, in this case gun, comes in the
hands of the man, it creates a new entity of ‘gun plus man’ that is capable of
killing. Martin Heidegger argues that we are now in the grip of a ‘technological’
understanding of being, defined in terms of efficient ordering, or ‘Enframing’ and
that we tend to treat entities in general, including ourselves, as resource material,
or ‘standing-reserve’. The modern usage of technology is such that ‘Whatever
stands by in the sense of standing-reserve no longer stands over against us as
object’. So to say that biotechnology aims at something different than other forms
of technology is be mistaken about the nature of technology.

Secondly, this is still not an argument against biotechnology. Consider a person

suffering from inability to walk. An interactive wheelchair reduces her physical
limitation. The person after using wheelchair is not the same person anymore, but
that does not bother us about the rightness of using technology like wheelchair.

Biotechnology aims at two goals, preventing disability or reducing suffering and

enhancing the abilities of person. These two are not mutually exclusive as reducing
suffering will also be enhancing abilities in case of a disabled person. They differ
insofar as what the technology primarily aims to achieve.

Using genetic engineering to prevent the transmission of genetic disease falls in the
former category. It is the same individual entity that will exist with or without the
genetic disease. It seems uncontroversial that it is better for the individual not to suffer
blindness or mental retardation. Parents consent needs to be acquired and the four
principles of bioethics will hold as usual.

However it has been pointed out that the use of genetic technology to prevent the birth
of disabled person will be seen as carrying the threatening message that it is better for
them never to have been born. A number of studies have shown that disabled persons
rate the quality of their life higher than non-disabled persons. Moreover the negative
impact of the disability on their lives can be reduced significantly by the three processes
of adaptation, coping and accommodation. It is argued that the common belief that
becoming severely disabled is a misfortune that should be prevented when possible is
deeply rooted in societal prejudices.

Three things need to be noted here. Our way of judging the impact of disability on
quality of life should not be particular individuals, but as long as the overall class of
people is negatively affected, policy to prevent disability is justified. Many disabled
people would choose not to have been disabled if they had the option because of the
arduous triple process. Lastly, it is significantly better if we have fewer of life’s
misfortunes and hardships than more.

Far more controversial is the latter purpose- enhancing people’s abilities using
technology. Conspiracy theories of all sorts from establishment of a new world order to
a surveillance society are popular among people. Aldous Huxley wrote about people
engineered to have limited abilities and aspirations who are happy doing menial jobs in
his Brave New World. Usage of technology to control the world is certainly not a
conspiracy theory but a plausible idea which has been and is being put into practice in
several societies. As has been argued before, technology is not neutral. Much like
ideology it decisively shapes the framework of action, if not the specific action.
Technology could be constructed in such ways that is encourages or proscribes certain
actions. Consider most of the architectural designs e.g public sideway, one might note
that they are so made to prevent homeless people using them. Social media is
engineered is a way that it encourages certain responses from its users. Incidentally one
should keep in mind that conspiracy theories are nothing but certain gaps in consistency
of a person or a group’s worldview. When things get blurred or incomprehensible,
conspiracy theories provide easy answers. The way to dismantle them is to make the
underlying process of stuff transparent and accessible.

The first thing to keep in mind is that morally acceptable usage of technology for skill
enhancement of individuals should be set to benefit, in most cases, individuals from their
own perspective. The first principle of bioethics, viz respect for individual autonomy
must be strictly followed.
Moving ahead, how much can a person be ‘enhanced ‘without affecting his ‘basic self’
is a ship of theses problem, i.e., without a decisive answer. Opponents of biotechnology
say that technological intervention either genetic or mechanic, modifies or manipulates
the essence or identity by altering our genes unlike environment which changes only our
accidental features. However biologists have pointed out that our genes do not decisively
constitute our identity. Changes in genetic makeup will result in different hair color or
eye color but few will be prepared to say that it results in a different person. Who we
are is a product of interaction between our phenotype and our environment and altering
them by technological means is not more fundamental than the other.

The questions about who would control this sort of technology and how much state and
big corporations would be interfering in its business we leave for social scientists.
Moreover how our public policy should be shaped to deal with the possible inequalities
raised by technological advancement of the few is yet to be decided. How far should we
be allowed to benefit humans by means of technology is open to question. One thing is
clear that whether we take the role of ‘playing the god’ or shy away from it, the
prospects of trans-humanism are only going to get more immense.

-FIN