Towards a Post-Human Species:

Crucial Challenges and Creative

Possibilities of Genetic Biology

Kuruvilla Pandikattu SJ
Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune

We live at a crucial moment in human history. We may be in

the process of humanity being transformed into a new species.
The possibilities brought about by the genetic advancement in
recent years are not just mind-boggling, but truly species-
transforming. It opens us to amazing possibilities and
indescribable.1 “The first century or two of the new
millennium will almost certainly be a golden age for eugenics.
Through application of new genetic knowledge and
reproductive technologies…the major change will be to
mankind itself… [T]echniques…such as…genetic
manipulations are not yet efficient enough to be
unquestionably suitable in therapeutic and eugenic application
for humans. But with the pace of research it is surely only a
matter of time, and a short time at that.”2 Truly it gives us
1
For this study, I am indebted to the research grant and facilities made
available at Oxford provided by CCCU Washington and John Templeton
Foundation. Particularly I am indebted to Prof John Roche who having
initiated me into the programme.
2
Glayde Whitney, “Reproduction Technology for a New Eugenics,”
paper for The Galton Institute Conference Man and Society in the New
Millennium, September 1999, published in The Mankind Quarterly (Vol.
40, No. 2, 1999), pages 179-192 and online at
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/gw002.html. (All the internet sites in this
article are assessed in August-September 2003) He is from Florida State
University. Whitney has come under fire for his racist writings, including
his forward to My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding, by
former Ku Klux Klan National Director David Duke. Many of the
citations in this article are from the internet due to the fast rapidly
growing nature of the topic. Further, it may be noted that the Indian

1
“unprecedented choices.”3 Confronted with such dangers and
possibilities, it is irresponsible either to accept this technology
unconditionally or to reject it uncritically.4 Unconditional
acceptance may lead to our own elimination. Uncritical
rejection may make us completely irrelevant. So in this paper
a modest attempt is made to view the chances and dangers
posed by the technological revolution from philosophical
perspectives.

After analysing historically the emergence of Human Genome

Project, in this article, I look briefly into the two promises it
make: to create new modified human beings or species.
Without blindly rejecting or endorsing such possibilities, I
look into some of the general philosophical issues. We plead
for a constructive engagement of all human beings, marching
towards the future.

Since the new capabilities usher in the possibility of a new

human species, in this paper we argue that it calls for a
collective, conscious co-operative and creative response from
humanity at large: not only by a few scientists, governments
or corporations, who may not adequately represent the
humanity, but also by humanists, activists, religious and
literary leaders.

response to this challenge is just beginning.

3
Audrey R. Chapman, Unprecedented Choices: Religious Ethics at the
Frontiers of Genetic Sciences, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1999
4
These two attitudes could be termed “active denial” or “passive
submission” as I have done elsewhere (Idols to Die, Symbols to Live,
Intercultural Pub., New Delhi, 2000, 58) or as “catastrophist” or
“cornucopian” as described by Stephen Cotgrove (Catastrophe or
Cornucopia: The Environment, Politics and the Future, Chichester Sussex,
New York: Wiley, 1982)

2
Historical Purview

Although the theory of genetics has been known from the time
of Gregor Johann Mendel (1822-1884), the ability to directly
manipulate the genes of plants and animals was developed
during the late 1970’s. When the proposals to begin human
gene manipulation were put forth in the early 1980’s, it
aroused much controversy. A small number of researchers
argued in favour of germline manipulation,5 but the majority
of scientists and others opposed it. In 1983 an important letter
signed by 58 religious leaders said, “Genetic engineering of
the human germline represents a fundamental threat to the
preservation of the human species as we know it, and should
be opposed with the same courage and conviction as we now
oppose the threat of nuclear extinction.”6 In 1985 the U.S.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) approved somatic gene
therapy trials, but said that it would not accept proposals for
germline manipulation “at present.” That ambiguous decision
did little to discourage advocates of germline engineering,
who knew that somatic experiments were the appropriate first
5
Germline manipulations are those made to the genes of the germinal or
reproductive cells (the egg and the sperm). In practice, this means
altering the fertilized egg, the first cell in the embryo to be, so that the
genetic changes will be copied into every cell of the future adult,
including his or her reproductive cells. Normally such changes would be
passed to all future generations, although, as you’ll see when you explore
the site, it is probably possible to avoid that transmission. Germline
technology stands in sharp contrast to the genetic therapy of today which
is somatic. (It treats the soma or the body cells.) For example, genetic
insertions to treat cystic fibrosis are directed at cells in the lining of the
lung mucosa. Somatic interventions don’t reach beyond the patient being
treated, so their potential scope is obviously much more limited than a
germline intervention.
6
Cited in Richard Hayes, “The Quiet Campaign for Genetically
Engineered Humans Earth” Island Journal, Spring 2001, Vol. 16, No. 1
in http://www.genetics-and-
society.org/resources/cgs/2001_earthisland_hayes.html.

3
step in any event. In the period following 1985, and especially
following the first approved clinical attempts at somatic gene
therapy in 1990, advocates of germline engineering began
writing in the medical, ethical, and other journals to build
broader support.

In the mid- and late 1990’s these efforts received several

major shots in the arm. The ongoing success of the federally
funded Human Genome Project in describing and locating
more than 80,000 human genes fuelled growing speculation
about eventual applications, including germline engineering.
The successful development in 1996 of the ability to create a
genetic duplicate of an adult mammal (“cloning”), and in 1999
of techniques for disassembling human embryos and keeping
embryonic cells alive in culture, were critically important.
They made it possible, for the first time, to imagine a
procedure whereby the human germline could be engineered
in a commercially viable manner.

Advocates of germline engineering were further encouraged

by the social, cultural and political conditions of the late
1990’s, a period characterized by technological enthusiasm,
distrust of government regulation, the spread of
consumerist/competitive/libertarian values, and the perceived
weakening ability of national governments to enforce laws
and treaties, as a result of globalization.

Advocacy of germline engineering moved to the status of an

openly acknowledged political cause in March of 1998, when
Gregory Stock,7 organized the symposium “Engineering the
Human germline.” All the speakers were avid proponents of
7
He is the Director of the Program on Medicine, Technology and Society
at UCLA (the University of California at Los Angeles).

4
germline engineering. Stock declared that the important
question was “not if, but when” germline engineering would
be used. The symposium was attended by nearly 1,000 people
and received front-page coverage in The New York Times, The
Washington Post and elsewhere.

Four months after the UCLA conference one of the key participants,
somatic gene transfer pioneer W. French Anderson, submitted a
draft proposal to the NIH to begin somatic gene transfer
experiments on human foetuses. He acknowledged that this
procedure would have a “relatively high” potential for “inadvertent
gene transfer to the germline.” Anderson’s proposal is widely
acknowledged to be strategically crafted so that approval could be
construed as acceptance of germline modification, at least in some
circumstances. Anderson hoped to receive permission soon to begin
clinical trials.

In the meantime, the first successfully cloned sheep, Dolly

became the symbol of the progress of cloning and has helped
the population to apprehend the significance of cloning for
humanity. Meanwhile the official announcement of the
success of Human Genome Project and the mapping of the
“working draft” Human Genomes became the climax of the
genetic march forward. The official announcement was made
on June 20, 2000. 8 It was hailed as “the most important fact
8
“This is the most important, most wondrous map ever produced by
humankind,” the then American President Bill Clinton said in
Washington. “Humankind is on the verge of gaining immense new power
to heal. Genome science ... will revolutionize the diagnosis, prevention
and treatment of most, if not all, human diseases.” Blair called the
genome project “the first great technological triumph of the 21st
century.” Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project at
the National Institutes of Health. “Historians will consider this a turning
point.” “You’re going to see a proliferation of discoveries about the
genetic contributions to diabetes and heart disease and high blood
pressure and schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis and on down the list,”
Collins told

5
of life on this Earth is our common humanity.” The Human
Genome Project was formally completed in April 2003.9

If the current pace of research and development continues,

there will be an explosion of genetic knowledge and capability
over the next several years. We will be able to transform the
biology of plants, animals, and people with the same detail
and flexibility as today’s digital technologies and the
microchip enable us to transform information. The challenge
before us is to summon the wisdom, maturity, and discipline
to use these powers in ways that contribute to a fulfilling, just,
sustainable world, and to forgo those uses that are degrading,
destabilizing and – quite literally – dehumanizing. Advocates
of a full-out techno-eugenic future believe we’re not up to that
challenge. Finally, they believe, people won’t be able to resist
using a new genetic application if it looks like it might allow
their children some advantage over other people’s children.
And they believe that once we allow even a little bit of
germline engineering, the rest of the techno-eugenic agenda
follows inexorably. I hope that we can be wiser than that. But
I agree that if the germline threshold is crossed, further control
becomes far more difficult.10

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/06/26/human.genome.05/
9
For the history of HGP beginning on 1883 see
http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/project/timeline.ht
ml. In fact the sequencing took much less time than originally
anticipated.
10
. “Human Genetic Engineering,” an Interview with Richard Hayes
rhayes@socrates.berkeley.edu www.wildduckreview.com, August 2003.
See also Kirk Semple “UN to consider whether to ban human cloning,”
The Asian Age, Mumbai, 4, November 2003, p. 7. The author pleads for
therapeutic cloning which “has considerable potential from a scientific
perspective” and calls for a ban on human cloning.

6
The Ethics of Designing People

Redesigning People

After the official announcement of the successful cloning on

Dolly11, James Watson in the panel discussion at UCLA,
maintained emphatically: “And the other thing, because no
one has the guts to say it: If we could make better human
beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn’t we?
What’s wrong with it?” He further commented, “Evolution
can be just damn cruel, and to say that we’ve got a perfect
genome … is utter silliness.”12 So the question is: can or will
human beings be manufactured according to design?

11
The Feb. 27 1997, issue of Nature described a scientific advance that
can only be described as breathtaking -- and alarming. A researcher from
Scotland had managed to grow a healthy adult sheep -- Dolly by name --
from genetic material from a single cell of an adult sheep. On Mar. 4
1997, President Clinton forbade the use of federal funds for human
cloning research. He’s already asked a bioethics advisory commission to
issue recommendations on cloning research. Scottish scientists who
cloned the sheep Dolly indicated that there
were 276 failed cloning attempts before the successful one.
http://whyfiles.org/034clone/main1.html
12
James Watson, President, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, quoted in
Engineering the Human Germline: An Exploration of the Science and
Ethics of Altering the Genes We Pass to Our Children, Gregory Stock
and John Campbell, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000),
pages 79, 85. Watson shared the Nobel prize for Chemistry in 1962 for
the discovery of the structure of DNA, and served as first Director of the
Human Genome Project. See also the criticism of Philip. Sloan entitled
“Determinism, Reductionism and the New Genetics,” in Philip Sloan,
“New Human Genetics and Religious Vision: Some Options for the
Twenty-First Century,” in Job Kozhamthadam, “Contemporary Science
and Religion in Dialogue, ASSR Publications, Pune, 2002, 129-136.

7
The main issue is how far we are willing to go in reshaping
the human body and psyche?13 Science and medicine have
moved from elucidating our genes to manipulating them.
Human gene therapy – science fiction a mere decade ago –
now boasts more than 500 approved human studies and a U.S.
National Institute of Health budget of some $200 million a
year. The ability to make genetic changes to our germinal
cells will represent a major advance in such therapy, because
changes to the first cell of the human embryo are copied into
every cell of the body and can thus reach any tissue. “Genetic
material can be transferred between species, blurring taken-
for-granted integrities and identities. Digital technologies
create new personal and social worlds – new immersive
environments in which concepts of time, space and palce are
reconfigured.”14

“Germline” therapy embodies the most profound possibilities

and challenges of molecular genetics, because it promises
(some would say threatens) eventually to transform our very
beings as ever more significant genetic changes are introduced
into our genomes. This technology will force us to re-examine
even the very notion of what it means to be human, for as we
become subject to the same process of conscious design that
has so dramatically altered the world around us, we will be
unable to avoid looking anew at what distinguishes us from
other life, at how our genetics shapes us, at how much we are

13
The Prospects for Human Germline Engineering
Gregory Stock 29.01.1999 found in
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/2621/1.html.
14
Elaine Graham, “‘Nietzsche Gets a Modem’: Transhumanism and the
Technological Sublime,” Literature & Theology, 16/1 March 2002, 6.
See Job Kozhamthadam, “The Human Genome Project and
Human Destiny,” Omega: Indian Journal of Science and
Religion, 1/1, 36-55.

8
willing to intervene in life’s flow from parent to child. 15
Further, it is claimed: “The right to a custom made child is
merely the natural extension of our current discourse of
reproductive rights. I see no virtue in the role of chance in
conception, and great virtue is expanding choice….If women
are allowed the ‘reproductive right’ or ‘choice’ to choose the
father of their child, with his attendant characteristics, then
they should be allowed the right to choose the characteristics
from a catalog.”16

Much more than the remedial therapy, the next move is to

perfect human weakness and to enhance human capabilities
through specific genetic modification. Here the growth of
computers (including artificial intelligence which will match
that of humans within 20 or 30 years.) and nanotechnolgoy are
to be used to our advantage. Do we really want to merge with
machines? “There are tremendous – awful – choices to be
made,” Marcy Darnovsky, a Sonoma State University
instructor says: “It’s very risky to have these discussions
because they’re about common values. The subject is difficult,
painful and [therefore] easily avoided. But we have to stop
focusing on the science and think of ourselves as part of an
ecosystem.” 17

15
The Prospects for Human Germline Engineering Gregory Stock
29.01.1999
16
James Hughes, “Embracing Change with All Four Arms,” Eubios
Journal of Asian and International Bioethics (Vol. 6, No. 4, June 1996),
pages 94-101, and online at
http://www.changesurfer.com/Hlth/Genetech.html
17
Sally Deneen, “Designer People: The Human Genetic Blueprint Has
Been Drafted, Offering Both Perils and Opportunities for the
Environment. The Big Question: Are We Changing the Nature of
Nature?” http://www.emagazine.com/january-
february_2001/0101feat1.html

9
Such a possibility has been received with mixed feelings. Bill
Joy, the father of Java software and co-founder of Sun
Microsystems, affirms with some feeling of guilt that “our
most powerful 21st-century technologies are threatening to
make humans an endangered species.” In a celebrated article
in Wired Magazine last year, Joy blamed the possible
extinction of humans on a few key causes, including genetic
engineering, robotics and cyborgs.18

Remaking Eden

Moving one more radical step, some futurists imagine of a

new species (termed as transhumans, posthumans, cyborgs,
etc.) and a new “heaven on earth.” In his recent book, Re-
Making Eden: How Cloning and Beyond Will Change the
Human Family (1998), Princeton biologist, Lee Silver
celebrates the coming future of human ‘enhancement’, in
which the health, appearance, personality, cognitive ability,
sensory capacity, and life-span of our children all become
artifacts of genetic engineering, literally selected from a
catalog. Silver acknowledges that the costs of these
technologies will limit their full use to only a small ‘elite’, so
that over time the human society will segregate into the
“GenRich” and the “Naturals”: “The GenRich – who account
for 10 percent of the American population – all carry synthetic
genes ... that were created in the laboratory ... All aspects of
the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the
knowledge industry are controlled by members of the
18
Sally Deneen, “Designer People: The Human Genetic Blueprint Has
Been Drafted, Offering Both Perils and Opportunities for the
Environment. The Big Question: Are We Changing the Nature of
Nature?” http://www.emagazine.com/january-
february_2001/0101feat1.html

10
GenRich class...Naturals work as low-paid service providers
or as labourers, and their children go to public schools... If the
accumulation of genetic knowledge and advances in genetic
enhancement technology continue ... the GenRich class and
the Natural class will become ... entirely separate species with
no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest
in each other as a current human would have for a
chimpanzee.”19 So it is natural that over time, society will
segregate into “GenRich” who control “the economy, the
media, and the knowledge industry,” and the “Naturals,” who
“work as low paid service providers or as laborers.”
Moreover, Silver asserts that these trends should not and
cannot be stopped, because to do so would infringe on
liberty.20

The transhumanist advocates seem to take it for granted that

not only human cloning is possible, but the emergence of
advanced (post-human) species is a foregone conclusion. The
powerful lobby that is behind this enterprise hopes among
other things the extension of life span, the eventual
enhancement or even replacement of human body through
computer parts and the radical modification of human genetic
material to create a new human species.21

19
David King, “The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering,”
http://www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/threat.htm
20
David King, “The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering,”
http://www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/threat.htm. See also Philip R. Sloan,
“The Biomolecular Revolution: The Challenge of Western BioScience”
in Job Kozhamthadam, Science, Technology and Values: Science-
Religion Dialogue in a Multi-Religious World, ASSR Publications, Pune,
2003, 131-140
21
The most powerful group advocating unfettered use of genetic material
for the dawn of the new species is “Extropians” who are active primarily
in the cyber-world. See www.extropy.com . My personal meetings with
some of them in August 2002 at Oxford has only reinforced this idea.

11
Ethical Challenges22

The response to Genetically modified humans has been in fact

slow in coming?23 The most critical technologies in human
genetic engineering have been developed only within the last
three years or so, and there hasn’t been time for people to
fully understand their implications and respond.24

Also, the prospect of genetically engineering the human

species is categorically beyond anything that humanity has
ever before had to confront. People have trouble taking these
issues seriously – they seem like science fiction, or beyond the
pale of anything that anyone would actually do or that society
would allow. As a consequence there exist no self- identified
constituencies of concern, and no institutions in place to
effectively focus that concern.

Finally, although people intuit that the new genetic

technologies are likely to introduce profound social amid
political challenges, they also associate these technologies
with the possibility of miracle cures, notably for the many
tragically fatal inheritable conditions. Before any sentiment in
22
Darryl R. J. Macer, “Ethical Challenges as we approach the end of the
Human Genome Project” Eubios Ethics Institute in
http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/chgp/index.html.
23
Richard Hayes, “The Politics of Genetically Engineered Humans”
Coordinator Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic
Technologies, San Francisco, CA, USA
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Patent/gehumans.cfm
24
Richard Hayes, “The Politics of Genetically Engineered Humans”
Coordinator Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic
Technologies, San Francisco, CA, USA,
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Patent/gehumans.cfm. See further,
Kuruvilla Pandikattu, “From Genes to God: Human Search for
Immortality and its Theological Significance,” Vidyayoti, 64/12
December 2000, 903-916.

12
favor of banning certain uses of genetic technology can
evolve, people will have to come to understand that doing so
would not foreclose means of preventing or curing genetic
diseases. 25

So it is not surprising that surveys conducted have indicated

that people do not support human cloning. For instance, the
survey on reproductive cloning consistently gave a high
disapproval rate as indicated below.

Attitude of the general public to reproductive

cloning26

Approve
Disapprove
Date Population Conductor Question of
of cloning
cloning
Should
May scientists be
Americans CBS News 11 85
2002 allowed to clone
humans?
May Americans Gallup Do you favor or 8 90
2002 oppose cloning
that is designed
specifically to
result in the
25
Richard Hayes, “The Politics of Genetically Engineered Humans”
Coordinator Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic
Technologies, San Francisco, CA, USA
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Patent/gehumans.cfm.
26
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/summary.html.
Though the survey was taken predominantly among the American
population, we may safely extend it to other population too. Details of
the survey could be had from the website. It is unfortunate that the author
could not find comparable survey for the Indian situation.

13
 birth of a
human being?
Is it morally
acceptable or
May
Americans Gallup morally wrong 7 90
2002
to clone
humans?
Do you favor or
oppose
Feb / scientific
Mar Americans Pew experimentation 17 77
2002 on the cloning
of human
beings?
Do you think it
is acceptable to
Feb
Americans Fox News use cloning to 7 89
2002
reproduce
humans ?
Nov / Americans Ipsos-Reid Choose a 21 72

14
Dec preferred
2001 policy.
Do you approve
or disapprove of
cloning that is
CNN / USA
Nov designed
Americans Today / 9 88
2001 specifically to
Gallup
result in the
birth of a
human being?
Do you think it
should be legal
Aug or illegal to
Americans ABC News 11 87
2001 clone humans in
the United
States?

15
 Regarding
cloning human
July
Americans Zogby beings, are you 8 90
2001
opposed or
supportive?
Should all
Feb
Americans Time / CNN cloning research 7 90
2001
be banned?
Feb Americans Time / CNN Do you think 10 88
2001 scientists should
be allowed to
clone human

16
 beings or don’t
you think so?
Are you
opposed to
scientists
March Pricewater- making a
Canadians - 90
2000 houseCoopers genetically
identical copy
of a human
being?
Feb Canadians CTV / Angus I think people 12 87
1998 Reid should have the

17
 freedom, in the
future, to clone
themselves and
have a baby
exactly like
themselves to
raise as their
own child.
Human cloning
should never be
allowed and all
research should
be stopped, or
1997 UK Harris 4 72
Cloning should
be allowed
when it
becomes
possible.
In general, do
you think
Dec
Americans Time / CNN cloning is a 14 75
1993
good thing or a
bad thing to do?

At the ethical level there are difficult problems associated

with genetic engineering. The moral scope and nature of
cloning, the justification of stem-cell research for remedying
defects and for production of new human organs, the
consumption and marketing of genetically modified food are

18
some of them.27 This criticism is summed up thus: “[G]erm-
line genetic alteration [poses] many risks and potential harms,
without any clear benefit to any individual. It…jeopardizes,
rather than protects, those who are vulnerable….Genetic
enhancement raises the prospect of a society where…people
are treated as things that can be changed according to
someone else’s notions of human perfection.”28

Further, “The lessons of history have shown us what happens

when people are ordered as better and worse, superior and
inferior, worthy of life and not so worthy of life….What can
happen when the technology used in support of genetic
thinking is not the crude technology of shackles and slave
ships, of showers that pour lethal gas and of mass ovens, or
even the technology of surgical sterilization, but the fabulous,
fantastic, extraordinary technology of the new genetics itself?
…My children will not be led to genetic technology in chains
and shackles, or crowded into cattle cars. It will be offered to
them.”29

An adequately prepared human community is the best way to

ensure that misuse of genetics does not reoccur.30 Most people
27
Ted Peters (ed.) Genetics: Issues of Social Justice, The Pilgrim Library
of Ethics, Cleveland, 1998, gives a comprehensive account of the ethical
issues related to molecular engineering.
28
Canadian Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies,
“Gene Therapy and Genetic Alteration,” Proceed with Care: Final
Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies,
Vol. 2 (Ottawa: Canada Communications Group-Publishing, 1993),
reprinted in Human Gene Therapy (Vol. 5, No. 5, 1994), pages 612-613
29
Barbara Katz Rothman, “A Sociological Skeptic in the Brave New
World,” Gender & Society (Vol. 12, No. 5, October 1998)
30
It may be noted that in today’s world, most of those who evaluate the
ethics of genetics have other agenda and motives. The scientists are
normally motivated by the need to continue their research, the corporations
by the need to make profit, etc. So it is difficult to find “impartial”

19
have a poor knowledge of genetics, which must be improved
before they will be able to understand the new knowledge.
Incomplete knowledge can be very dangerous when combined
with existing discrimination, as seen with eugenic
programmes earlier this century. We should all realize that we
are genetically different, and normality is very culturally
defined, perhaps as those who can live comfortably, or
anonymously, in a given society? We must be clear that a
pursuit for our lives to be free of physical suffering is not
going to make the ideal world. Genetic defects have a smaller
effect on people than the moral, spiritual defects and lack of
love. Education of social attitude together with science is
required.

Research on this fundamental human nature is a highly

emotional issue. Competition, and profit play significant role
in it. So it is not surprising that belligerent tone is heard
among the advocates of transhuman technologies, against their
perceived enemies. “If China uses genetic enhancements
while the West either bans them or pursues a politically
correct re-engineering of human nature, the inevitable result
within a few generations would be Chinese economic, and
thus military, global hegemony. ...Those serious about either
preventing or mandating genetic engineering should start
planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China – soon.”31

Philosophical Issues
researchers who could evaluate the project independently.
31
Steven Sailer is the president of Human Biodiversity Institute .He
illustrated his argument with a colorful slide of a hydrogen bomb
explosion. Cited in In The Pipeline: Genetically Modified Humans?
Richard Hayes

20
Much more than the ethical issues briefly discussed above, I
want to point to some general philosophical issues that emerge
from the human genetic engineering and the possible
emergence of a new (embedded) species.

Who Determines our Nature?

Edward O. Wilson, a Harvard entomologist, believes that we

will soon be faced with difficult genetic dilemmas. Because of
expected advances in gene therapy, we will not only be able to
eliminate or at least alleviate genetic disease, we may be able
to enhance certain human abilities such as mathematics or
verbal ability. He says, “Soon we must look deep within
ourselves and decide what we wish to become.”32 As early as
1978, Wilson reflected on our eventual need to “decide how
human we wish to remain.”33

What is human nature? How is it related to the body? How

does it evolve? Such philosophical issues on human nature
have not been exhaustively answered. It may be noted that
from a classical perspective, the essence of human nature –
rationality and animality – is an open-ended issue. Recently
attempts to speak of an evolving and integrating nature finds
resonance with today’s postmodern sensibility. The following
table is such a typical attempt:34

New Vision of Nature Dichotomy Challenged

Evolutional Nature Humans vs nature
32
Steve Mirsky and John Rennie, “What Cloning Means for Gene
Therapy,” Scientific American, June 1997, p.277.
33
Edward Wilson, On Human Nature, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, p. 6.
34
See “New Visions of nature, Science and Religion,” University of
California, Santa Barbara, accessed from their website, 2003.

21
Emergent Nature Chaos vs cosmos
Malleable Nature Natural vs artificial
Nature as Sacred Matter vs Spirit
Nature as Culture Nature vs culture

So the crucial question before we change our own nature is on

our human nature? What are we? How do we form our self-
identity: Who am I? How do I understand my role in the
community? Philosophers and theologians have been
discussing over two thousand years over these questions
without coming to any conclusive answers.
We do know that human nature has something to do with our
awareness and our self-consciousness. We do know that we
are relational beings who are open to transcendence. We know
that quest for truth, beauty and love forms our nature.
Teilhand de Chardin has rightly defined us as “evolution
become conscious of itself.” But today we may define
ourselves as: “evolution become capable of propagating or
eliminating itself.” We are at an unenviable situation where
we can define for ourselves what human nature is and shape
us accordingly, without fully realising its human implications.

Before radically (irrevocably?) altering our destiny, it is

proper to have come to a general consensus on our human
nature.

Who Defines Life?

Genetic engineering claims to unravel the “secret code of

life”. It is the “Book Of Life” (similar to the “Book of Nature”
and “Book of Scripture”). But are we really better equipped to

22
answer the fundamental biological and philosophical question:
What is life?

Of course the theory of evolution can help to understand the

pheneomenological origin and development of life. Biological
insights can help us to describe life as movement, growth,
self-repair, reproduction, etc. But the crucial question of what
is life, what is the dignity and uniqueness associated with life,
how is respect an inherent dimension of life, can only be
answered philosophically or religiously. Technological
(medical) innovations may help us to prolong life-span and
even to create new life-form. But the mystery of life, its
bounty and beauty always eludes a technological approach to
life. Here it is proper that we need to take seriously the deeper
religious and philosophical aspects of life as an “end in
itself.”35

Closely connected with this issue is the uniqueness of human

life as contrasted to non-human forms of life. Crass
anthropocentrism has become outdated. Still we need to
redefine our human dignity and uniqueness in a way that is
not a threat to other life forms and which respects our special
role in the ongoing flow of life.

Without understanding (mysterious) phenomenon of life, if we

attempt to create new species, we can be justly accused of
“playing God” while trying to create a new species. The
attempt to engineer and alter drastically the human destiny
smack of crass reductionism, which physics has left behind.

35
Here we do not need to go deeply into the Kantian characterisation of
humans as “ends in themselves.” See also Job Kozhamthadam “Cloning of
Dolly: Scientific and Ethical Reflections on Cloning,” Vidyajyoti 62
19998). 110-118.

23
The scenario may become frightening. “It’s the materialist-
reductionist-determinist worldview run amok. It’s what
happens when people become disconnected from themselves,
others, and nature.”36

Who Owns Humans?

The fundamental question to be asked is: Who owns the

humans, our genetic stuff and our bodily composition.37 This
question comes within the context of patent rights throughout
the world. Since 1971, corporations have put on a relentless
legal battle to patent genetically altered organisms. After
nearly a decade of legal bantering, the United States Supreme
Court decided that life forms can be considered “human
inventions,” thus patentable by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (PTO).38 This case began a slippery slope toward the
inevitable patenting of human life.

In 1987, the PTO widened patent rights to include all life

forms on earth, including animals.39 Human beings were
exempt from the ruling, citing the Thirteenth Amendment’s
prohibition of slavery. However, the ruling had significant
shortcomings. Attorney Andrew Kimbrell notes, “Under the

36
. “Human Genetic Engineering,” an Interview with Richard Hayes
rhayes@socrates.berkeley.edu www.wildduckreview.com. The same
ideas are expressed in Kuruvilla Pandikattu, Let Life Be! Jnanam. Pune,
2001.
37
Gina Kolata, “Who Owns Your Genes?” New York Times May 15,
2000 A SPECIAL REPORT .
38
Sidney A. Diamond, “Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, petitioner, V.
Ananda M. Chakrabarty etal.” 65L ed 2d 144, 16 June 1980, 144-47.
39
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
Animals-P atentability(Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 7 April 1987), cited in Kimbrell, 199. Andrew
Kimbrell,The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and Marketing of(San Life
Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1993), 233-34.

24
PTO’s 1987 ruling, embryos and fetuses, human life forms not
presently covered under Thirteenth Amendment protection,
are patentable, as are genetically engineered human tissues,
cells, and genes.”40 Corporate America won the right to own,
use, and sell all multicellular creatures, including human
ones.41 Here is a concrete example: Michael Rose at UC Irvine
has patented human genes that some scientists suspect might
be able to increase our life spans up to 150 years.42

Therefore, it is easy to conclude that important market forces

(with the sole purpose of profit) are also at work in the
genetics research industry. Fortunes will be made through the
commercial marketing of genetic material. And scientists have
been quick to seize the opportunities. Thus genetic research
that can save lives is often stymied by biotech companies’
greedy patent claims.43

James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize in 1953 for

discovering DNA’s double-helix structure, resigned as the
first director of the NIH genome institute in 1992 in a dispute
over whether to patent DNA sequences that a scientist named
Craig Venter had discovered. Venter also quit the NIH and
formed a gene sequencing partnership with William Haseltine,
a Harvard AIDS scientist. Haseltine and Venter now lead
40
Andrew Kimbrell,The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and Marketing of
Life (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1993),, 199.
41
18 Andrew Kimbrell, The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and Marketing
of Life (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1993), “It is important to note that,
as described in the last two chapters, current U.S. patent law makes patenting
human embryos perfectly legal.” 223
42
. “Human Genetic Engineering,” an Interview with Richard Hayes
rhayes@socrates.berkeley.edu www.wildduckreview.com
43
Arthur Allen in
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/07/genetic_test/index.ht
ml.

25
competing biotech firms competed with the government-led
consortium to decode vast quantities of human DNA. 44

Can we afford competitive and profit seeking among

multinational companies to decide the fate of humanity. Can
we sell our DNA to them? Can we buy human life with
money?45

Who Represents Humanity?

We are fast approaching what is arguably the most

consequential technological threshold in all of human history:
the ability to directly manipulate the genes that we pass on to
our children and to pave way to a new generation (or species).
Development and use of these technologies would irrevocably
change the nature of human life and human society. It would
destabilize human biological identity and function. It would
put into play a wholly unprecedented set of social,
psychological and political forces that would feed back upon
themselves with impacts quite beyond our ability to imagine,
much less control.

Many take it for granted that it can be done and so it will be

done. To argue that “what can be done will be done” is
unconvincing because a lot that can be done is not done. At
44
Arthur Allen,
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/07/genetic_test/index.ht
ml
45
The objections of the Red Indian Chief to buying land may be applied
today to owning and selling human beings. “How can you buy or sell the
sky, the warmth of t land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the
freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?
Every part of the earth is sacred to my people.” Quoted in Kuruvilla
Pandikattu, Tamas: Alternative Ways of Viable Existence, World-Life-
Web, Mumbai, 2002, p. 199.

26
the same time, it is hard to believe that something that can be
done easily and cheaply by people all over the world, and that
furthermore is desired by many people with significant
resources will not be done. In the not-too-distant future,
germline engineering is likely to be in just this position: the
technology will be feasible in hundreds of laboratories
throughout the world and there will be genetic interventions
that many people find alluring.46 But there is also the danger
that the technology may get out of control opening to the
possibility of the total elimination of humanity?

So the basic question is: who represents humanity? Who can

legitimately speak for humanity in particular and for life in
general? Who will be accountable for and responsible to the
human society? There have been attempts to sideline the Third
World Countries in this debate. “To declare ethics and values
as irrelevant to the Third World in the context of
biotechnology is to invite intellectual colonization. At worst, it
is an invitation to disaster.”47 I do not think that in today’s
world any one group (scientists, politicians, corporations,
governments, religious groups) can claim to speak for the
human race. Only collectively can we decide our destiny?48

Conclusion: A Future without Us?

The most disturbing question before us: Are we digging our

own graves? Are we preparing for a future without us? “Our
46
Gregory Stock, “The Prospects for Human Germline Engineering,”
29.01.1999
47
Vandana Shiva, “Bioethics -A Third World Issue,”
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shiva.html
48
See Kuruvilla Pandikattu, “For a Collective Human Future Project,”
Peace Review 12/4 2000 579-585.

27
most powerful 21st-century technologies – robotics, genetic
engineering, and nanotechnology – are threatening to make
humans an endangered species.”49 We should consider
seriously the statement of the theologians: “Genetic
engineering of the human germline represents a fundamental
threat to the preservation of the human species as we know it,
and should be opposed with the same courage and conviction
as we now oppose the threat of nuclear extinction.”50

To combat the perceived inevitability of this Brave New

World, Marcy Darnovsky, a Sonoma State University
instructor who works with the Exploratory Initiative on the
New Human Genetic Technologies, calls for three things:
First, a global ban on inheritable genetic engineering on
humans; second, a global ban on human reproductive cloning;
and third, an effective and accountable regulation of other
human genetic technologies. 51 Unfortunately, our moral
consciousness and our discerning power have not kept pace
with our technological marvels. How will we decide? Can we
let an elite decide for the whole of humanity? It is a
philosophical question and much more a human question in
need of urgent answer! “Both scientists and religious scholars
need to join hands in this momentous task because our
experience shows that science without values can lead to

49
Bill Joy, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,”
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
50
“Theological Letter Concerning the Moral Arguments,” presented to the
US Congress by the Foundation on Economic Trends (June 8, 1983)
From http://www.genetics-and-
society.org/overview/quotes/opponents.html
51
Sally Deneen, “Designer People The Human Genetic Blueprint Has
Been Drafted, Offering Both Perils and Opportunities for the
Environment. The Big Question: Are We Changing the Nature of
Nature?” http://www.emagazine.com/january-
february_2001/0101feat1.html

28
monstrous minds and values without science can lead to
mindless monsters.”52

As a human community we are still searching and asking.

Whether we are to succeed or fail, to survive or fall victim to
these technologies, is not yet decided. We need to decide
soon! Mind-boggling possibilities await us! Or it could be our
own self-annihilation! A future without us! A conscious,
collective and creative decision is imperative! Therefore, the
call confronting us is to make a collective decision for the
sake of a better humanity.

52
Job Kozhamthadam, “The Human Genome Project and Human
Destiny,” Omega: Indian Journal of Science and Religion, 1/1, 55.

29
Appendix

Result of Survey on Research Cloning53

Approve
Disapprove
Date Population Conductor Question of
of cloning
cloning
Do you favour
or oppose
cloning of
May
Americans Gallup human 34 61
2002
embryos for
use in medical
research?
Do you think
it is wrong to
April Stop Human create human
Americans - 59
2002 Cloning embryos for
medical
research?
April Americans Coalition for Favour the 68 26
2002 the government
Advancement allowing
of Medical scientists to
Research do therapeutic
cloning
research to

53
http://www.genetics-and-
society.org/analysis/opinion/summary.html

30
 produce stem
cells for
treating life-
threatening
diseases
Do you agree
April Americans to
Americans with Bush’s 29 63
2002 Ban Cloning
position?
April Americans to Agree with
Americans 26 59
2002 Ban Cloning person 1 vs. 2.
Nov Choose a
/ Dec Americans Ipsos-Reid preferred 60 33
2001 policy.
Nov Americans CNN / USA Do you 54 41
2001 Today / approve or
Gallup disapprove of
cloning that is
not designed
specifically to
result in the
birth of a
human being,
but is
designed to
aid medical
research that
might find
treatments for
certain

31
 diseases?
Do you think
human
cloning for
medical
Aug
Americans ABC News treatments 33 63
2001
should be
legal or illegal
in the United
States?
Should all
July cloning
Americans Zogby - 40
2001 research be
banned?
Do you
support or
Aug oppose
UK Novartis 28 60
1999 cloning and
growing
human cells?
Feb Canadians CTV / Angus I think that 46 53
1998 Reid cloning
human beings
for such
things as
replacement
body parts,
transplants
and

32
 experimenting
with new
drugs, if
carefully
regulated, is
not a bad
thing.

Result of Survey on Inheritable Genetic

Modification54

Approve Disapprove
Date Population Conductor Question
of IGM of IGM
Does creating
genetically
superior
human beings
Feb
Americans Time / CNN justify 6 92
2001
creating a
human clone
or don’t you
think so?
Fall Scots System Three Are opposed – ~90
2000 to the creation
of “designer
babies” for
any reason

54
http://www.genetics-and-
society.org/analysis/opinion/summary.html

33
 other than to
stop
hereditary
illnesses.
are prepared
to accept
Fall “born-to-
Scots System Three 42 -
2000 order” babies
for medical
reasons
Find genetic
engineering to
change the
March Pricewater- eye colour or
Canadians - 74
2000 houseCoopers other physical
features of an
unborn child
unacceptable.
Find it
acceptable for
scientists to
use
biotechnology
March Pricewater- to cure an
Canadians > 50 -
2000 houseCoopers inherited
medical
condition or
to decrease
the risk of
illness.
1996 Americans NCGR How do you 72 -
feel about

34
 scientists
changing the
makeup of
human cells to
prevent/stop
children from
inheriting a
usually
nonfatal
disease?
How do you
feel about
scientists
changing the
makeup of
1996 Americans NCGR human cells to 35 -
improve the
physical
characteristics
children
would inherit?
1994 Japanese Macer How do you 62 -
feel about
scientists
changing the
makeup of
human cells to
prevent/stop
children from
inheriting a
usually
nonfatal

35
 disease?
How do you
feel about
scientists
changing the
makeup of
1994 Japanese Macer human cells to 28 -
improve the
physical
characteristics
children
would inherit?
How do you
feel about
scientists
changing the
makeup of
human cells to
1994 Australians Macer 79 -
prevent/stop
children from
inheriting a
usually
nonfatal
disease?
1994 Australians Macer How do you 28 -
feel about
scientists
changing the
makeup of
human cells to
improve the
physical

36
 characteristics
children
would inherit?
Do you
approve or
disapprove of
the use of
genetic
engineering to
make it
Dec possible for
Americans Time / CNN 8 88
1993 nations to
produce large
numbers of
individuals
with
genetically
desirable
traits?
How do you
feel about
scientists
changing the
makeup of
March of human cells to
1992 Americans 66 32
Dimes prevent/stop
children from
inheriting a
usually
nonfatal
disease?
1992 Americans March of How do you 43 54

37
 feel about
scientists
changing the
makeup of
human cells to
Dimes
improve the
physical
characteristics
children
would inherit?
How do you
feel about
scientists
changing the
makeup of
1987 Americans OTA human cells to 44 -
improve the
physical
characteristics
children
would inherit?

38