The Bioethics of Jurassic Park: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » The Bioethics of Jurassic Park » The Bioethics of Jurassic Park

The Bioethics of Jurassic Park

Page: 1 2 3

The Bioethics of Jurassic Park

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 457

Posted 10/24/09 - 10:18 AM: Subject: The Bioethics of Jurassic Park	#1
With the slew of new fossils being discovered lately (e.g. Ardi), I thought this would be a fun topic to kick around. Efforts have been underway for some time to clone woolly mammoths, and DNA has been recovered from other extinct creatures, as well (e.g. Neanderthals, whose genome was actually sequenced a few years ago). And proteins (and possibly soft tissue) have been recovered from T-Rex bones (though no actual genetic material I'm aware of). So, the possibility of "resurrecting" extinct species is moving from the realm of science fiction into the realm of actual science. Would such a thing be ethical? Is there in fact an ethical imperative to do this? Do ethics bear upon the question at all?
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 165

Posted 10/24/09 - 10:40 AM:	#2
I don't see how this relates to ethics at all. Can you please explain why you raised such a question?
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 457

Posted 10/24/09 - 10:53 AM:	#3
Dragohunter wrote: I don't see how this relates to ethics at all. Can you please explain why you raised such a question? Well, it does relate to bioethics. Again, given recent scientific developments, I just thought it would be a fun topic to discuss (certainly lighter fare than abortion, euthanasia, etc). If you either saw the movie or read the novel 'Jurassic Park', you'll know that Crichton essentially framed it as a morality play, with admonitions against "playing god", discussions on the uses of scientific knowledge, the hubris of man in believing he can bend nature to his will, etc.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 10/24/09 - 08:27 PM:	#4
The "playing god" argument is some kind of anti-technology argument that is pretty annoying. Bending nature to man's will is what men do. That's why we can go to the arctic, under the ocean, into deserts and volcanoes and to the moon. We dam up rivers and drain the world supply of oil to drive our cars. We have been modifying animals, forcing them into a codependent relationship for thousands of years. There is a Sufi saying, "God made the night, and man made the lamp". I think there are already examples of resurrected species, the "ibex", (a mountain goat), went extinct in 2000. Here is the story. It died a few seconds after birth this time. Maybe its morality is up there with genetically modified foods -- except these genes were already evolved and tuned by nature in the first place. Depending on which model of evolution you use: if you prefer the competitive model, then an extinct species is extinct for a reason, at the time, and bringing them back undermines the evolutionary process of eliminating unfit species. On the other hand, bringing back species automatically becomes part of the potential success of species and may eliminate some bad luck, (asteroid impacts, for example), and give them another shot. If you are more of the ecological niche school, then resurrecting extinct species allows that species to fill a previously unavailable niche, (dinosaurs eating people in San Diego, if I remember the 3rd movie, for example). Thus our process is helping provide evolution with additional variation and competition which would mean more diversity which is currently a "good" value. Then you depend on what you are resurrecting. You mention Neanderthals? That gets into "human" cloning, along the borders. Societies have to deal with the introduction of species which is on the border of deserving human rights. Would they get health care and be allowed to join the Republican party, (sorry, couldn't resist)? We might also be faced with the possibility that Neanderthals might have an evolutionary advantage to modern humans and humans can be quite egotistical.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 457

Posted 10/25/09 - 02:50 AM:	#5
swstephe wrote: The "playing god" argument is some kind of anti-technology argument that is pretty annoying. Bending nature to man's will is what men do...Depending on which model of evolution you use: if you prefer the competitive model, then an extinct species is extinct for a reason, at the time, and bringing them back undermines the evolutionary process of eliminating unfit species. I agree with these sentiments wholeheartedly. In the JP movie, Jeff Goldblum's character (mathematician Ian Malcolm) rebuffs another character's point that resurrecting dinosaurs is akin to creating a flock of condors (which are severely endangered) by saying, "Nature selected dinosaurs to go extinct..." as if natural selection were some conscious entity, whose wishes must be obeyed! If this isn't an instance of the naturalistic fallacy, it's something quite close. Another argument made against the cloning technology in both the JP movie and novel is the danger supposedly inherent in the enterprise due its unpredictability, as described by chaos theory. And, of course, something goes wrong and the dinosaurs rampage all over the island putting cute kids in danger, thereby "proving" the point. However, this line of argumentation ignores that there is inherent danger in nearly every new enterprise humans engage in. Recall the early astronauts who perished in a fire on the launch pad, for instance. The possibility of danger is not grounds for cowardly failing to push the boundaries of science and technology.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1023

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 10/25/09 - 04:45 AM:	#6
The ethical issues, I suggest, would relate to the consequences, to the cloned and to others. We "play God" all the time, when you think of it. Would a cloned Neanderthal, or a T-Rex, be miserable, or a danger to others? If so, why "recreate" them?
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 457

Posted 10/25/09 - 07:10 AM:	#7
ciceronianus wrote: The ethical issues, I suggest, would relate to the consequences, to the cloned and to others. We "play God" all the time, when you think of it. Would a cloned Neanderthal, or a T-Rex, be miserable, or a danger to others? If so, why "recreate" them? Yes, that is a good point, and would probably constitute a strong argument against cloning any sort of hominid...the creature would be the only one of its kind and would have a brain sophisticated enough to be aware of this fact, leading to some Frankenstein-esque anguish. (Unless, of course, we cloned an entire population of them...)
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/25/09 - 10:23 PM:	#8
Arkady wrote: With the slew of new fossils being discovered lately (e.g. Ardi), I thought this would be a fun topic to kick around. Efforts have been underway for some time to clone woolly mammoths, and DNA has been recovered from other extinct creatures, as well (e.g. Neanderthals, whose genome was actually sequenced a few years ago). And proteins (and possibly soft tissue) have been recovered from T-Rex bones (though no actual genetic material I'm aware of). So, the possibility of "resurrecting" extinct species is moving from the realm of science fiction into the realm of actual science. Would such a thing be ethical? Is there in fact an ethical imperative to do this? Do ethics bear upon the question at all? Ian Malcolms' words here - "Building your themeparks over the shoulders (Newtons' quote) of giants - you didn't accumulate such knowledge yourself, you don't take any responsibility for it (result of cloning), building something just because you could, you forgot if you should (ethical responsibility)." A couple of lines of the first movie from different scenes, but they sum up what I think of biotechnology. No one can create a completely perfect natural biological organism in the lab, there is always a reference. In that sense, no one can play 'God' you always have a natural reference. You could compare the ethical cases off such processes, would educational goals be sufficient against the possible dangers that such scientific initiatives would bring? Would you be using DNA sequences of other animals to fill in the code, as per the movies? As Malcolm is quoted again, "Life finds a way..." and evolution has taught us that all life is determined to survive, in the most challenging of environments. In that sense, the moral and ethical case is clearly against such endeavours. In fact, we shouldn't clone anything until we perfect the process anyway. If we could clone a perfectly synthetic human being, we could expand on other species. And if you don't think cloning a human being is ethical, I don't it is as such for any other species. Extinct or in existence.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 10/26/09 - 02:40 AM:	#9
I can't agree that clones and genetically engineered species are "Frankenstein Monsters" or "freaks". Nature loves freaks. Every species was, at one time, a freak of nature of common ancestor. They are simply novelties as far as nature is concerned. DNA is still DNA, even if the code gets scrambled around. There are plenty of natural potential and actual freaks of nature. You could just as easily get a freak through selective breeding. Everything is part of nature, whether it is plastic or dinosaurs. There is no forward direction, (evolution and devolution aren't accurate names). It is possible to selectively breed animals based on similarity to their ancient ancestors. All the DNA is there, you just need to carefully select for an ancient version.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 457

Posted 10/26/09 - 03:47 AM:	#10
swstephe wrote: I can't agree that clones and genetically engineered species are "Frankenstein Monsters" or "freaks". Nature loves freaks. Every species was, at one time, a freak of nature of common ancestor. They are simply novelties as far as nature is concerned. DNA is still DNA, even if the code gets scrambled around. There are plenty of natural potential and actual freaks of nature. You could just as easily get a freak through selective breeding. Everything is part of nature, whether it is plastic or dinosaurs. There is no forward direction, (evolution and devolution aren't accurate names). It is possible to selectively breed animals based on similarity to their ancient ancestors. All the DNA is there, you just need to carefully select for an ancient version. When I made a reference to Frankenstein's monster, I was just drawing an analogy to the profound loneliness that the creature felt and the loneliness a resurrected hominid would likely feel. I wasn't comparing ALL biotech to Frankenstein, by any means.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.