Introduction:

The term genetic engineering ultimately refers to the various techniques used for the
manipulation and modification of an organism. For thousands of years humans have
been engineering life. But until recently we've only been able to strengthen certain
useful traits in plants and animals. Then a paradigm shift occurred with the discovery of
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA). A molecule that guides the development, function, growth
and reproduction of every living organism. Information is recorded in the structure of
molecules. Four paired nucleotides make up a code that carries the instructions of the
molecule. Change the instructions, and you change the organism carrying it.
In the 1960's scientists bombarded plants with radiation to cause random mutations in
the genetic code. The idea was to get a useful plant variation by mere chance. Then
scientists in the 70's inserted DNA snippets into animals, plants and bacteria - to study
and modify them for medicine, research and agriculture.
ENTER – commercialization
Markets for super-fast maturing salmon, more muscular pigs and even featherless
chickens started to bloom. We were even able to infuse DNA from florescent jellyfish
into other animals, making them glow in the dark.
Then everything changed with the introduction of a revolutionary new technology called
CRISPR. The once costly gene editing techniques were reduced by almost 99% and
where older methods took years, CRISPR takes weeks. The revolution began when
scientist figured out that CRISPR-DNA was programmable. All you have to do is insert a
copy of DNA you want to modify and put the entire system into a living cell. The first
genetically engineered babies were born in late November 2018, pioneered by the
Chinese scientist “Jiankui”.
CRISPR might open the door to cure various diseases like cancer, HIV, Herpes etc., but
this in turn raises certain philosophical questions: is it then not unethical to not intervene
in embryos already condemned with an infection in an attempt to cure that disease?
This however can be a slippery slope as the line between preventing and enhancing
may become blurred. When merely curing diseases is not enough, people will move on
to genetic improvements – perfect eyesight, exceptional intelligence etc. A dystopian
society may follow in which modified humans become the standard. Our entire gene
pool may become distorted – dividing edited from non-edited humans.
Many challenges await – mainly technological and ethical.
A discussion will follow on various worldview's, on genetically modified babies, of a
positivist, Post-Modernist, Evolutionist, Young-earth Creationist, Ontological
Reductionist as well as Epistemological Reductionist. These inquiries will be followed by
my own view on the subject as well as a short conclusion thereof.
Positivist:
In the early 19th century, Auguste Comte formulated the idea of positivism which holds
that rules find their legitimacy not in a specific set of moral principles, but rather
because they are validated by a legitimate authority and generally accepted by society.
The Cambridge English Dictionary (1995:632) defines positivism as “a philosophical
system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified, or which is capable of
logical or mathematical proof”. Intuitive knowledge and introspection are rejected, and
theology is disregarded as it cannot be verified by sense experience. As such,
arguments against genetically engineered babies (which is largely directed by a
person's religious orientation), finds no place in this school of thought. The positives
and negatives of every action is weighed against each other to determine the most valid
approach (that approach which yields the greatest aggregate benefit for society).
A Positivist might lean between either supporting or not supporting the idea of
genetically modified babies – depending on the aggregate benefit for society, either
positive or negative. Since Positivists value societies' perception of justice, various
problems may arise as a result of genetical engineering.
Negative:
Gene editing may be too expensive for the ordinary person and as such further
disadvantage the poor. Existing global and domestic socio-economic inequalities may
further be exacerbated.
Positive:
Various diseases may be eliminated using CRISPR. Is it then not unethical to refrain
from intervening in embryos already condemned with an infection in an attempt to cure
that embryo from disease? Human life span will drastically increase as a result of the
eradication of diseases through the use of CRISPR.

From a Positivistic worldview genetic engineering on humans will be accepted as long

as the benefits thereof outweigh the negatives.

Post-Modernist:
Postmodernism rejects the possibility of valuable, reliable knowledge. They call
attention to the socially conditioned nature of claims and value systems and maintain
that they are conceptual constructs made by each individual and therefore not
universally valid. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998): "The
assumption that there is no common denominator in 'nature' or 'truth' that guarantees
the possibility of neutral or objective thought". Post-Modernists dispute the existence of
objective moral values.
Post-Modernist questions notions of societal progress, objective notions of reason and
reality. Enhanced CRISPR organisms revolutionized the food industry. Suddenly we
were able to plant more food containing more nutrients. Exports skyrocketed and the
global market for genetically enhanced food bloomed. This all resulted in massive
societal and technological progress – all of which doesn't align well with the views of a
Post-Modernist.
The Post-Modernists beliefs were founded on the idea that the utopian promises of the
"modern world view" came to nothing. They argue that macro-arguments based on
liberalism, Marxism and fascism were based on a false optimism in regard to technology
and science and would therefore not embrace the ideas behind CRISPR.
They reject the idea of ”human” nature and can be skeptical towards the impact of
science and technology. This inherent skepticism would therefore lead Post-Modernists
to disagree with the idea of genetically modified babies.

Evolutionist:
Evolution is the process of progressive inherited change of an organism over
generations by means of a process Charles Darwin first coined "natural selection"
(1859:42). This process refers to the adaptations organisms undergo in order to adjust
to changes in their environment. An important English philosopher, Herbert Spencer
propounded the idea that organisms strive to evolve as a result of an internal "driving
force" called orthogenesis.
The question thus remains - how will Evolutionists feel about CRISPR? CRISPR with all
its power comes with one important drawback – human error. Since the dawn of time,
mother nature has perfected the process of evolution – refining its effectiveness. We've
only recently started human trials with the new technology. We still have a lot to learn
and many Evolutionists may argue that we should in fact not interfere with natural
selection since the "survival of the fittest" paradigm already has such a good track
record.
They may fear a future where some people have an inherent advantage over others as
a result of their edited genetic code. According to Daniella Simmons (2008:173), new
forms of inequality will arise "when we have reached the point in our lives where parents
can choose the traits they want their children to have". Biased employment may
become mainstream as entrepreneurs may prefer to hire "super-humans" – preferring
them to the "originals".
In the Evolutionist's view, every person has a similar but random genetic makeup and
as such enjoys equal opportunity in life. The rise of genetically engineered babies
threatens their ideology and as such they would firmly reject the notion thereof.

Young-earth Creationist:
According to the paper on creationism (2018:1), “a Young-earth Creationist (YEC) is
someone who believes in a supreme deity called God who is the absolute creator of
heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will”. They believe that the earth was
created between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. YEC is based on literal interpretations of
the book of Genesis and as such the Bible plays a very important role - serving as a
manual guiding everyday life. They oppose the theory of evolution and reject any
explanation for natural phenomena which deviates from a literal interpretation of the
Bible. They disagree with the scientific method and maintain that only evidence which
supports the Bible should be accepted.
In Christianity children are seen as "gifts from God" while genetic engineering may lead
to the commercialization of reproduction. "Designer babies" seen as products rather
than human beings.
The idea that diseases ought to be eliminated before birth gives rise to another ethical
dilemma – are common genetic defects like Dwarfism or Alzheimer's then seen as a
disease or simply "not good enough according to society's standards"?

The Bible states that “we were created in the image of god”, and that “we should not
destroy His creation”. In biblical philosophy a person's body is seen as a "temple" and
as such ought not to be tampered with. It is for this reason that Young-earth Creationists
will strongly oppose the idea of genetically modified babies through CRISPR as this is
seen as "playing God".

Ontological Reductionist:
Ontological reductionism refers to the belief that the whole of reality consists of a
minimal number of parts. "It is the metaphysical doctrine that entities of a certain kind
are in reality collections or combinations of entities of a simpler or more basic kind"
(philosophyterms.com,2018). The whole organism is regarded as not having any value
aside from its intrinsic components. Editing specific genes is therefore seen as merely
changing the biological makeup/parts of a human being.
Ontology itself refers to the study of what is really "real". This metaphysical claim deals
with the so-called first principles of the natural order – the ultimate generalizations
available to the human intellect.
According to Ramsey Affifi (2017:25), a revolutionary in his field, "Genetic engineering
reproduces the assumption that the experimental artifact (genetically modified
organism) is seen as an entity, leading humans to more deeply believe that the universe
is compromised of things operating in relative isolation rather than in contingent co-
evolution" he goes on to state that "Ontological reductionism supports this underlying
assumption as both ignore the interconnectedness in ecosystems and species are
regarded individually – isolated."
Euclid and Pythagoras were Ontological Reductionists. In their works they both invented
a method where they took three-dimensional space and shapes and reduced them to
lines and angles. Through their respective works they have revolutionized our world.
With regards to religious orientation, the Ontological Reductionist would refute the
existence of a supreme deity as an inquiry into its existence lacks empirical verifiability -
God is generally regarded as a spiritual manifestation whose existence relies entirely on
the idea of Faith. God's existence cannot be proven and thus not be deduced into
simpler parts. Religious preconceptions therefore do not influence an Ontological
Reductionist's views on genetically engineered babies – they would support its
adaptation.

Epistemological Reductionist:
Epistemology refers to the study of knowledge, in particular the study of the nature,
scope and limits of human knowledge. According to philosophybasics.com,
"Epistemological reductionism is the theory that a complex system can be explained by
reduction to its fundamental parts. It holds that all phenomena can be completely
understood in the terms of the behavior of micro-physical entities". Almost every
biologist and philosopher of biology tend to be physicalists as they believe that all things
within the universe contains an underlying physical explanation. In their views on
genetically engineered babies the go even further than the typical Ontological
Reductionist. They see life as a series of mappable, interconnected bits of information.
They believe that anything relating to mathematics and mathematical theory can be
deduced to set theory or logic. Biological organisms are reduced to their molecular
components like atoms.
In their world view, religion is seen as the product of human thought – therefore lacking
"substance". The Ontological Reductionist and the Epistemological Reductionist has a
similar religious orientation – albeit the latter's views are more liberal seeing that the
"parts" the former refers to is broken up into even smaller "fundamental" parts.
The Epistemological Reductionist sees the process of genetical engineering as simply
changing the biological code of an entity to enhance its properties.
They have an extremely positive view towards genetically modified babies since the
societal benefits of genetical engineering far outweigh the negatives.

My personal worldview:
Genetic modification is a revolutionary break-through in the scientific world and could
alter the course of humanity. CRISPR has given us the power to "play God". We can
manipulate our environment to fit our needs or even edit our genetic makeup to create
"designer babies" capable of incredible feats – physically stronger, faster and smarter
than previous generations. We are on the cusp of cheating mother nature out of natural
evolution by tweaking specific parts of ourselves on an unprecedented scale.
We are, however, steadily approaching a point of no return as scientists continually
work on this technology. Once we cross this point, our "natural" gene-pool will never be
the same again.
Humans are instinctively driven by self-preservation. For thousands of years we've
attempted to extend life beyond what nature intended. We've sought herbal medicines,
consulted spiritual advisors, healers etc. all in an attempt to prolong the inevitable –
death. How is this different from extending life using CRISPR?
The debate around genetically engineered humans finds root in various philosophical
notions of religion, society, culture etc. – influenced by the schools of thought mentioned
above. The primary question concerning this debate is whether or not we should
manipulate our genetic code.
At its core CRISPR has the ability to bring about incredible change but we have to be
careful. If left unchecked, we may create a dystopian society in which a wealthy class of
super-humans dominates the lower classes. Policy makers will therefore have to draft
comprehensive works to regulate and monitor genetical engineering. Legislative
intervention is sorely needed in this regard.
I think that the adaptation of "designer babies" is inevitable, although various
safeguards can and should be implemented to mitigate any undesirable effects on the
baby as well as its effect on society as a whole. Gene editing is here to stay. The only
question is – how will we use it?

Conclusion:
In this essay the worldviews, on genetical engineering, of a Positivist, Post-Modernist,
Evolutionist, Young-earth Creationist, Ontological Reductionist as well as
Epistemological Reductionist have been discussed. Each school of thought has valid
arguments for or against CRISPR and comparing these opposing views provided
valuable insight into the challenges we still face. The implication of CRISPR, as seen
from broad spectrum of views and opinions, was highlighted.
What is ultimately deduced is that the adaptation of such a controversial technology
may split society into two apposing classes. Those who are pro–genetical modification
and those who are against it. The former will embrace the technology and eventually
reach "super-human" level through modifications. Those who opposed the CRISPR are
left out and eventually becomes the inferior class, subjugated by the wealthy. This leads
to various philosophical concerns in regard to principles of natural justice. Why should
those people with a differing worldview simply be excluded? Shouldn't those people also
get a vote? Considering the idea of Constitutionalism (a system upon which the majority
of the world basis its legal system) the answer to this question seems to be in the
affirmative, but if you look at social policy, the answer changes entirely. Certain
controversial technologies through the millennia have followed a certain predicable path
– Discovery, Initial adaptation for medical purposes, Adaptation by the general
community. Social policy dictates that curing preventable diseases in embryos using
CRISPR is morally correct. People opposed to genetical engineering might, at first, find
it acceptable to treat embryos, but this is a slippery slope. The line between curing and
enhancing will become blurred as this technology is increasingly adopted into
mainstream science.
CRISPR is a powerful tool and precautions must be taken to ensure its effective
adaptation.

Reference list:
 The Cambridge English Dictionary. 1995.
https://www.cambridge.es/en/catalogue/dictionaries/monolingual/cald Date of
access: 22 May. 2019.
 A. D. Smith, G. Lloyd, H. W. Noonan, M. McGinn, N. D. Smith, R. A. M. Stern, S.
Gardner, and S. Mulhall. 1998. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (In
word book encyclopedia, 8:5-12).
 Anon. 2018. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (In the word book
encyclopedia, 3:10-22).
 Anon. 2014. Philosophy terms. https://philosophyterms.com/ontology/ Date of
access: 22 May. 2019.
 Abelard. P, Magnus. A. 2016.
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_reductionism.html Date of access: 22
May. 2019.
 Brenden Greeff
29972396
Assignment 5
(Exam Assignment)