Many of those who follow the development of modern genetics are aware of the extensive public debate taking place on this topic. People are concerned about the whole range of problems associated with this – from cloning to genetic influence. There has been widespread debate around the world about the use of genetic engineering in agriculture. It is now possible to create new varieties of plants with unusually high yields and at the same time very resistant to various diseases, which makes it possible to increase food production in a world with an ever-increasing population. The benefits of this are obvious. Watermelons without seeds, apple trees with long-living trunks, pest-resistant wheat and other grains are no longer the stuff of science fiction. I read that scientists are experimenting with introducing gene structures from various species of spiders into agricultural products, such as tomatoes.
Such technologies change the natural appearance and properties of organisms, but do we know all the long-term consequences, the impact that this can have on plant varieties, on the soil, and indeed on the entire surrounding nature? There are clear commercial benefits here, but how can we decide what is actually useful? The complexity of the structure of interdependent relationships characteristic of the environment makes an accurate answer to this question impossible.
Under the conditions of natural evolution occurring in nature, genetic changes occur gradually, over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. By actively interfering with gene structures, we risk provoking unnaturally accelerated changes in animals, plants, and also our own human race. All of this does not mean that we need to stop research in this area; I just want to emphasize that we must not forget about the possible undesirable consequences of applying this new knowledge.
The most important questions that arise in this regard do not concern science as such, but purely ethical problems of the correct use of our new capabilities opened up as a result of the development of cloning technologies, genome decoding and other advances in science. These include, first of all, genetic manipulations carried out not only on the genomes of people and animals, but also on plants, which ultimately inevitably affects the entire environment, of which we ourselves are a part. The main question here is the problem of the relationship between our knowledge and the means available to us to influence nature, on the one hand, and our responsibility for the world in which we live, on the other.
Any new breakthrough in science that has commercial prospects attracts increased public interest, as well as investment from the state and private entrepreneurs. The level of scientific knowledge and technological capabilities is now so great that perhaps only a lack of imagination limits us in our actions. This unprecedented possession of knowledge and power puts us in a very difficult position. The higher the power of a civilization, the greater the level of moral responsibility should be.
If we consider the philosophical foundations of the main ethical teachings created throughout human history, then in most of them we will find a key requirement: the more developed power and knowledge, the higher should be the level of responsibility of those who possess them. From ancient times until now, we have been able to see the effectiveness of fulfilling this requirement. The ability to make moral judgment has always kept pace with the development of knowledge and technological power of all mankind. But in the current era, the gap between the improvement of biotechnologies and their moral understanding has reached a critical level. The acceleration of the accumulation of knowledge and the development of technologies in the field of genetic engineering is now such that ethical thinking sometimes simply does not have time to comprehend the changes taking place. New opportunities in this area lead, for the most part, not to a scientific breakthrough or to a paradigm shift, but to the emergence of ever new technologies in combination with financiers calculating their future profits and with the political and economic ambitions of states. The question now is not whether we will be able to obtain knowledge and translate it into technology, but whether we will be able to use the knowledge and power we have already acquired in an appropriate manner and taking into account moral responsibility for the consequences of our actions.
Medicine at the moment is precisely the area in which modern discoveries of genetics can find immediate application. Many doctors believe that deciphering the human genome opens a new era in medicine, marking the transition from a biochemical to a genetic model of therapy. There has been a rethinking of the causes of some diseases that are now considered genetically determined from the moment of conception, and the possibility of treating them with gene therapy methods is being considered. The related problems of gene manipulation, especially at the level of the human embryo, represent a serious moral challenge of our time.
The deepest aspect of this problem, it seems to me, lies in the question of what we should do with the knowledge that is revealed. Before it was known that dementia, cancer, or even aging itself were controlled by specific gene structures, we might not have thought about these problems in advance, believing that we would solve them as they arose. But now, or at least in the near future, geneticists will be able to tell people or their loved ones that they have genes that threaten to cause them death or serious illness in childhood, adolescence or adulthood. Such knowledge can completely change our ideas about health and illness. For example, someone who is currently healthy but carries a genetic predisposition to certain diseases may be labeled a “potential patient.” What should we do with such knowledge and what should be the manifestation of compassion in this case? Who should have access to this information, given all the possible personal and social consequences of such knowledge, including insurance, employment, human relations and procreation issues? Should a carrier of defective gene structures inform his life partner about this? These are just some of the questions that may arise as a result of developments in genetic research.
To emphasize the complexity of these already rather complicated problems, I must also say that genetic prediction of this kind cannot be guaranteed to be accurate. In some cases, it can be determined with certainty that a given genetic disorder observed in an embryo will cause a disease in childhood or adolescence, but this is often a matter of statistical probability. In some cases, lifestyle, diet and environmental conditions can have a decisive influence on the appearance of symptoms of the disease. Therefore, even if it is known for sure that a given embryo is a carrier of defective genes, there cannot be complete confidence that the disease will certainly manifest itself.
Knowledge of genetic risks can have a huge impact on people’s life decisions and even their self-esteem, although such information may well be inaccurate and the risk may remain an unrealized opportunity. Should a person be given such dubious information? If one of the family members discovers such abnormalities in himself, should he inform the rest of his relatives about this? Will this information be shared with a wider audience, such as health insurance companies? Indeed, as a result, carriers of certain genes may be completely deprived of medical care simply because they are potentially at risk of developing certain diseases. And this is not only a medical, but also an ethical problem that can have an impact on a person’s psychological state. When genetic disorders are discovered at the stage of embryonic development (and the number of such cases will only increase), should parents or social structures decide to deprive such a creature of life? The issue is further complicated by the fact that as new gene disorders are discovered, new medications and treatments for the corresponding genetic diseases are being developed quite quickly. One can imagine the situation of making a decision to abort the embryo of a person who, say, by the age of twenty, according to the forecast, would have developed a genetic disease, and a few years later his failed parents learn that scientists have developed a medicine that eliminates this problem.
Many people, especially those involved in the newly emerging discipline of bioethics, are well aware of the complexity and specificity of all these issues. Due to the insufficiency of my knowledge, I can offer little here as concrete solutions, especially considering the speed of development of research in the field of biotechnology. But what I would like to do is to look at some of the key points that I think everyone working in this field should be aware of, and to suggest some general approaches to developing principles for resolving the moral problems that arise here. I think that at the heart of the challenges we face is really the question of what decisions we have to make in the face of new scientific discoveries and technological developments.
In addition, there are other challenges ahead at the frontier of new genetic medicine. I’m talking about cloning. Several years have passed since the famous sheep Dolly was introduced to the world, resulting from the first successful complete cloning of a living creature. After this, several reports of human cloning appeared. It is reliably known that a cloned human embryo was indeed created. The issue of cloning is very complex. It is known that there are two different types of cloning – therapeutic and reproductive. In the therapeutic version, cloning technologies are used to reproduce cells and, possibly, to grow underdeveloped human beings, a kind of “demi-humans,” in order to obtain biological material from them for transplantation of tissues and organs. Reproductive cloning is the production of an exact copy of an organism.
In principle, I am not a categorical opponent of cloning as a technological tool for medical and therapeutic purposes. In all such cases, we must guide our decisions by the principles of compassionate motivation. Nevertheless, I experience an involuntary internal protest regarding the use of an underdeveloped human being as a source of organs and tissues. I once watched a BBC documentary where computer animation showed such a cloned creature with distinctly human features. This sight horrified me. Some may say that such involuntary emotions should not be taken into account. But I believe that, on the contrary, we should listen to such instinctive feelings of horror, since their source is our fundamental humanity. If we allow ourselves to use such artificially produced “demi-humans” for medical purposes, what can then stop us from using other human beings who, from the point of view of society, will be recognized to one degree or another as inferior? Such deliberate transgression of certain natural boundaries of morality has often led humanity to display extraordinary cruelty.
Therefore, it can be said that while reproductive cloning is not something terrible in itself, it can have far-reaching consequences. As such technologies become widely available, some parents who are unable to have children but want to, may want to obtain a child through cloning. Can we predict what consequences this will have for the gene pool of humanity and all further evolution?
There may also be people who, out of a desire to live beyond the established period, will want to clone themselves, believing that their life will continue in a new organism. True, I myself cannot see any reasonable motivation in this – from a Buddhist point of view, even if the corporeality of the new organism is completely identical to the previous one, these two individuals will still have different consciousnesses, and the previous one will die in any case.
One of the social and cultural consequences of genetic engineering may be its impact on the very existence of the human race through interference in reproductive processes. Is it justified to choose the sex of the unborn child, which, as it seems to me, is technically achievable today? Is it possible to make such a choice for medical reasons (for example, in the case of the danger of hemophilia, which manifests itself only in male descendants)? Is it acceptable to introduce new genes into sperm or eggs in the laboratory? How far can we go towards creating an “ideal” or “desirable” fetus—for example, an embryo bred in a laboratory to compensate for the congenital deficiency of another child of the same pair of parents, for example, to become a bone marrow or kidney donor? How far can one go in the artificial selection of embryos for the purpose of selecting for intellectual or physical characteristics, or, for example, even based on the eye color of the unborn child desired by the parents?
When such technologies are used for medical purposes, as in the case of treating certain genetic diseases, they can seem quite acceptable. However, selection for certain properties, and especially when it is done solely for aesthetic reasons, can have very adverse consequences. Even if parents-to-be believe that they are choosing features that are beneficial to their future child, it is necessary to consider whether this is done with truly positive intentions or only to please the prejudices inherent in a given culture or given time. It is necessary to consider the long-term impact of such manipulations on the entire human race as a whole, since such actions can affect future generations. The possible effect of narrowing the diversity of human forms must also be taken into account.
Of particular concern is gene manipulation carried out to create children with superior mental or physical abilities. Whatever differences may exist between people – such as wealth, social status, health, and so on – we are all endowed with the same human nature, we have a certain potential, certain mental, emotional and physical inclinations, and our natural, completely justified desire is expressed in the desire find happiness and avoid suffering.
Gene technologies, at least for the foreseeable future, will remain quite expensive, and therefore, if allowed, they will be available only to a few wealthy people. Thus, a shift may occur in society from uneven conditions of existence (for example, differences in the level of well-being) to uneven distribution of natural abilities through the artificial cultivation of intelligence, strength and other innate qualities in certain groups of people.
The results of such a division must sooner or later manifest themselves in the social, political and ethical fields. At the social level, inequality will be reinforced—and even perpetuated—to the point where it will become virtually impossible to overcome. In politics, a ruling elite will emerge, whose right to power will be justified by the innate superiority of its members. In the ethical sphere, such pseudo-natural differences can contribute to the complete elimination of the moral sense of the fundamental community of all people. It is hard to imagine how much such experiments could affect our very idea of what it means to be human.
As I think about the various new ways of manipulating people’s genetic makeup, I am led to believe that there is some deep flaw in our understanding of what it means to “respect our natural humanity.” In my homeland of Tibet, the value of an individual person was based not on his appearance, nor on his intellectual or physical achievements, but on a basic, innate sense of compassion for all living beings. Even modern medical science has discovered how important a feeling of closeness and affection is for people, especially in the first years of life. For the correct formation of the brain, a person in the early stages of development needs simple physical touch. With regard to the value of life, it is completely irrelevant whether a given person has some form of physical disability, such as Down syndrome, or a genetic predisposition to certain diseases, such as sickle cell disease, Huntington’s chorea, or Alzheimer’s syndrome. All people have the same value and the same potential for kindness. If we base our ideas about the value of human beings on genetic research, this threatens to undermine the very idea of humanity, since this feeling is always aimed at specific people, not at their genome.
In my opinion, the most striking and inspiring result of new knowledge about the genome is the discovery of the amazing truth that the differences in the genomes of different ethnic groups are very small, in fact, completely insignificant. I have always maintained that in the face of our fundamental similarities, differences such as skin color, language, religion or race are completely insignificant. The structure of the human genome, in my opinion, demonstrates this most convincingly. This helps me understand our relationship with animals, since we also share a significant part of our genome with them. Therefore, the correct and intelligent use of new knowledge in the field of genetics can help cultivate a sense of closeness and unity not only with people, but with the entire world of living beings. This approach is a great help in the development of environmental thinking.
Regarding the problem of providing the world’s population with food, if the arguments of supporters of genetic engineering in this area turn out to be reasonable, I believe that we should not simply ignore the possibility of developing this area of genetic research. If it turns out, as opponents of this direction claim, that these arguments serve only as a cover for purely commercial interests – such as the production of products with a more attractive appearance and with an increased shelf life for long-distance transportation, or in the interests of companies producing genetically modified seed in order to prevent farmers from producing seed grain for their own needs, then the justification for the development of this industry should be questioned.
Many people are increasingly concerned about the long-term consequences of the production and distribution of genetically modified foods. The lack of mutual understanding between the public and the scientific community on this issue may be due to a lack of transparency in the activities of the companies distributing such products. It must be the responsibility of the biotechnology industry to both demonstrate that there are no long-term negative impacts on consumers of such products and to fully disclose the potential environmental impacts of these technologies. It is quite obvious that if there is not sufficient evidence of the complete safety of certain products, the corresponding work should be stopped.
The problem is that genetically modified food is not a simple commodity, like a car or a laptop computer. Whether we like it or not, we do not know all the possible consequences of the widespread distribution of such modified organisms in the environment. An example of the dangers of insufficiently predicting long-term consequences comes from the medical field. For example, the drug thalidomide was used for a long time as a very effective treatment for pregnant women to help them get rid of morning sickness, but it was later discovered that as a result of its use, children were born with severe physical impairments.
Given the rapid pace of advances in modern genetics, it is essential to improve our capacity for moral judgment so that we can meet new challenges head-on. We cannot passively wait for the negative consequences of our decisions to manifest themselves. It is necessary to try to anticipate the future and quickly respond to emerging problems.
I feel that the time has come to collectively consider the moral side of the genetic revolution, regardless of doctrinal differences between different religions. We must face these new challenges as members of a single human family, and not as Buddhists, Judaists, Christians, Hindus or Muslims. It is also wrong to view these ethical issues solely in secular terms, based only on liberal political values such as individual freedom and the rule of law. We must consider these issues from the perspective of a global ethics, which is rooted in the recognition of fundamental human values that transcend both individual religion and science.
Nor should we assume that our social responsibility consists only of promoting the further development of scientific knowledge and technological power, nor that the use of this knowledge and power is the preserve of individuals. If society as a whole does not influence scientific research and the creation of technologies resulting from new scientific discoveries, this will practically mean that humanity and moral values have ceased to play any significant role in decisions about the regulation of scientific progress. It is very important for all of us to remember our responsibility for what areas of activity we develop and why. The main principle is that the earlier we intervene in the process, the more effective our efforts will be to eliminate possible negative consequences.
In order to meet both current and future challenges with dignity, we need a much greater level of joint efforts than before. One of the goals is to ensure that as many people as possible acquire scientific thinking skills and can truly understand the essence of major scientific discoveries, especially those that have immediate social or moral consequences. Education, aimed not only at future scientists, but also at society as a whole, should familiarize people with empirical scientific facts, as well as provide an understanding of the relationship between science and society, including the moral problems arising in connection with the emergence of new technological opportunities. As a result, future scientists will be able to think about the social, cultural and moral implications of their scientific work in a broader context.
The world is at stake in this game, so decisions about the direction of research and how new knowledge and new opportunities should be used should not be made by scientists, businesses and government officials alone. Such decisions should not be made only by special committees limited in number, no matter how competent they may be. The participation of the general public is necessary, especially in the form of debate and discussion through the media, as well as open discussion and acts of “direct action” by public non-governmental organizations.
The danger of misusing modern technology is very great; in fact, we are talking about a threat to all of humanity, so I believe that we need to develop joint moral guidelines. Only this will allow us not to get bogged down in the swamp of doctrinal differences. The key here is a holistic, unified view of human society that takes into account the fundamental natural interconnectedness of all living beings and their environment. Such a moral guideline should help us maintain a living sense of humanity and not forget about fundamental human values. We must react sharply to the facts of scientific life, and indeed to any forms of human activity that violate the principles of humanity, and actively fight to preserve our natural human feelings, which otherwise can easily be lost.
How to find such a moral guideline? It begins with faith in the basic goodness of human nature, and this faith must be anchored in certain fundamental and universal ethical principles. These include recognition of the preciousness of life, an understanding of the need to maintain ecological balance, and a willingness to base one’s thoughts and actions on this understanding. But most of all we need to develop compassion as a basic motivation for our environment and to combine this feeling with a clear, holistic awareness that includes taking into account the consequences of our actions. Many will agree that moral values themselves, being the basis for the well-being of all mankind, are higher than the division between religious faith and irreligion. Because of the deep interdependence of all parts of the modern world, we need to meet the challenges ahead as one human family, and not as representatives of individual nations, ethnic groups or religious doctrines. In other words, it is necessary to rely on the spirit of unity of the entire human race. Some may believe that this is unrealistic, but we simply have no other choice.
I myself am deeply convinced that such an approach is quite possible. Despite the fact that humanity has owned nuclear weapons for more than half a century, we still have not destroyed each other, and this gives me great optimism. And, if you look deeper, these same ethical principles underlie all the world’s spiritual traditions.
To develop such an ethical strategy for approaching new genetics, it is vital to expand the context of our reasoning as much as possible. First of all, we should remember that this area is completely new, the possibilities it opens up are completely unknown to us, and the results of research are not yet fully understood. The human genome has been completely deciphered, but it may still take decades to understand how all the many genes interact, as well as to study the areas of functioning of each of them, not to mention the effects that arise when they interact with the environment. The attention of scientists is focused primarily on the possibilities of concrete application of the discoveries they have made, on their immediate, short-term results, on side effects and on what immediate benefits follow from new developments. This approach is largely justified, but not sufficient. Its narrowness is determined primarily by the fact that here the very idea of human nature is at risk. In view of the possibility of very long-term consequences of these innovations, we should carefully consider all areas of human existence in which genetic technologies can be applied. The fate of the human species, and perhaps all life on the planet, is in our hands. Is it not better, due to the insufficiency of our knowledge, to slightly exaggerate the risk, albeit erroneously, than to set the entire course of human development in a dangerous direction?
In short, our moral responsibility should include the following factors. The first step is to examine your motivation and make sure that it is based on compassion. Secondly, when considering any problem, it is necessary to do so from the broadest possible perspective, including not only immediate benefits, but also both long-term and immediate consequences. Third, when approaching a problem analytically, it is necessary to maintain honesty, self-control, and impartial judgment; otherwise you can easily fall into error. Fourth, in the face of any moral choice, we must make a decision in the spirit of humanity, mindful not only of the limitations of our knowledge (both individual and collective), but also of our fallibility due to the rapidity of changing circumstances. Finally, all of us – both scientists and society as a whole – should try to make sure that in any new direction of our actions we do not lose sight of the main goal – the well-being of the entire population of the planet on which we live.
The earth is our common home. According to modern scientific data, this may be the only planet on which life is possible. When I first saw a photograph of the Earth taken from space, it made a huge impression on me. The sight of the blue planet floating in the vast expanse of space and shining like the full moon in the cloudless night sky powerfully reminded me that we are all members of one family living under one roof. I felt how ridiculous all the disagreements and arguments between us were. I saw how petty our attachments are to what divides us. I began to see the fragility and vulnerability of our planet, which occupies only a small gap in the vast world space between the orbits of Venus and Mars. And if we don’t take care of our common home ourselves, who else will take care of it?
Read online. The book “The Universe in One Atom: Science and Spirituality in the Service of the World.” Tenzin Gyatso
Content
Preface. Introduction
1. Meditation
2. My encounter with science
3. Emptiness, relativity and quantum physics
4. The Big Bang Theory and the Buddhist Beginningless Cosmos
5. Evolution, karma and the world of living beings
6. The problem of the emergence of consciousness
7. Towards a science of consciousness
8. Factors of consciousness
9. Ethical problems of modern genetics
Conclusion. Science, Spirituality and Humanity