Recent advances in mapping the human genome suggest a vision of the future that might fill us with equal parts hope and dread. On the one hand, the possibility of identifying disease-causing genes may enable us to eradicate cancer, obesity, or depression before they ever develop. On the other hand, the idea that soon we could be “designing” our progeny, choosing physical and psychological traits we deem desirable, is fraught with deep moral complexities. But are these ideas realistic or just the stuff of science fiction? What real ethical problems does the current state of human genomics present? John and Ken map out the terrain with David Magnus, Director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics and co-editor ofWho Owns Life?This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in Berkeley, California.
虽然生物学领域的进步显然为医学的未来提供了令人兴奋的前景，但新的知识不可避免地导致新的伦理困境。例如，对于生殖技术的增长和“设计婴儿”现象，我们该做些什么?最终让婴儿拥有某些渴望的特质，如智力和运动能力的可能性令人恐惧。约翰认为这样的担忧是科幻小说;肯想象的范围都不可行，因为他假设我们对某些基因如何影响性状的了解要比我们实际了解的多得多。
To help separate fact from fiction, Ken introduces David Magnus. From the outset, David asserts that designer babies arenoton the horizon. Even if such technology eventually becomes available, bioethicists should worry about ethical dilemmas that are relevantnowand not those thatmightbe relevant in over 25 years. John, Ken, and David spend the majority of the rest of the show discussing what David thinksis一个紧迫的伦理困境:如何处理可用基因信息的爆炸。
David explains that there are conflicting principles at play in this domain. Whereas some bioethicists argue that patients deserve to know as much as possible about their own genes, others – such as David himself – insist that the duty of medical professionals is to do as much good as possible. Furthermore, this principle of beneficence entails that genetic information should be restricted, because full disclosure may be misleading to individuals who overestimate the accuracy or significance of results. John wonders whether this type of limitation is merely a classic case of paternalism. Ken agrees and puts the point more bluntly: is it that bioethicists find people “too stupid” to make good use of the knowledge? David insists that the giving out genetic information ought to be regulated because it is a part of the medical practice so should be conducted as safely as possible.
Ken finishes by expressing his continued worry about the possibility of designer babies. If science has figured out quantum theory, it seems probable that we could come to understand the complex genetics prerequisite for designer baby technology. David's proposed 25 year rule allows us to take comfort in the “far-off-ness” of such technologies rather than in their impossibility.
