c Humbert 1c

Amanda Humbert

Dr. Erin Dietel-McLaughlin

FYC 13100

29 October 2010

A Threat to Humanity

Does biotechnology represent an aid or a threat to human kind? This question has aroused

multiple diverse reactions through the years. It has been addressed both through exaggerated,

fictional, and satirical pieces such as Aldous Huxley¶s ³A Brave New World,´ Michael Bay¶s

³The Island´, and scholarly journal articles such as James Kanter¶s "Europe¶s New Approach to

biotech Food" and Robin Finn¶s ³From Superseeds to Mutant Tomatoes´ from The New York

Times, among others. By using these sources, which vary in published dates, I attempt to

demonstrate how human concerns on the power of biotechnology have not changed greatly, but

are rather constant. Moreover, I intend to support my arguments with actual and real examples

that have come to effect recently. A critical overview of the negative and positive aspects of this

technology suggests that we need to find a balance in the utilization and creation of genetically

engineered products and organisms in our lives. The main issue lies on the fact that society is

sleepwalking through technological advances as Langdon Winner expresses on his text:

³Technological Somnambulism.´ Even though I support certain practices of biotechnology such

as the manipulation of bacteria, diseases and harmful genes, I am convinced that we have to

impose limits on its practices to prevent chaotic and regretful results. If not controlled,

genetically engineered creations are going to be detrimental on the long run and they might

disrupt natural selection.

In the first place, one of the most impacting and terrifying achievements of biotechnology
c Humbert 2c

is genetic engineering of organisms. This concern has been expressed differently through a

series of medias in the past, and it keeps coming up. It is mainly feared because it is a menace

against nature and life as we know it today. As the knowledge on manipulation of genes and

cells increases, the practice will increase as well. These manipulations can result in the

interference of natural selection (which can be described as the way traits become more or less

common given to survival of the fittest) since they will produce biased outcomes in gender and

traits.

On his successful novel ³Brave New World´, written in 1931, Aldous Huxley makes a

subliminal prediction on the effects of biotechnology by developing a story about a utopian

society ruled by a totalitarian government that designed five different castes. In this world,

humans are genetically bred according to specific predetermined castes, and are conditioned to

slight intellectual and physical differences. For instance, the Epsilons were hampered by oxygen

deprivation and chemical treatments so that they were meant to carry out unskilled or easy tasks.

Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so

frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And

then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They

all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with

Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read

or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly color. I'm so glad I'm a

Beta. (Huxley)

From this quote we can extrapolate the level of power Huxley wants us to see technology

is capable of achieving. The quote demonstrates thoughts that had been literally implanted in an

individual¶s mind to control society as a whole. Later on the book, there is a powerful moment
c Humbert 3c

where one of the characters is recalling what he considers a µmemorable¶ saying. He says: "You

all remember, I suppose, that beautiful and inspired saying of Our Ford's: History is bunk."

(Huxley). This quote shows the radical parameters biotechnology can reach; resulting in the

devaluation of something as treasured as history. In the novel¶s case, society has lost its identity

and past. It shows that social stability at the expense of natural life is preferred in this world. In

the entire text, Huxley is prophesying and warning us about the control that technology might

impose in our lives.

Similarly, the film ³The Island´ which was released on 2005 deals with a company that

bred perfectly healthy human replicas. These served as the insurance policy of millionaires

around the world. When the µreal¶ person (the one who bought the insurance) needed an organ

or such they would just use their clones to provide it, regardless of their wishes. This is another

example of the atrocities that genetic engineering can come to be guilty of. I believe it

noteworthy that even though these sources differ in release date by more than seventy-five

years, the similarities are remarkable. Considering the time differences of both pieces and their

similarities, we can conclude that anxieties on this topic are increasing and getting stronger with

time; people are starting to realize that some of the changes that might lead to a catastrophe are

already taking place. In addition, the fact that this film is not a µutopian¶ view of society, but

rather a science fiction but relatively possible situation confirms our fears are intensifying. The

plot of ³The Island´ is not a far-fetched story used to reflect society¶s major issues like ³Brave

New World´ is, but rather a story on the possible frightening future we might be facing.

Like in ³Brave New Wolrd´, in the film, the clones were named under a certain pattern.

For instance the main characters belonged to the Delta and Echo groups. During the last scenes

of the movies the director emphasizes on how cloning is inhumane. The main characters,
c Humbert 4c

Lincoln Six-Echo, and Jordan Two-Delta start pondering and wondering what else is there to

life, since their lives revolve around their health conditions. After they escaped µthe island¶

where they were kept, they met their µowners¶ and in this particular scene one anxiety is

illustrated. Their owners¶ attitude was one of carelessness, greed, and ambition. They did not

care or sympathize with their clones, but rather got infuriated. On that scene, it was the clones

that had µhuman feelings¶ and valued life properly. This reflects anxieties on our own behavior,

as if the writer fears people will gradually find these inhumane practices normal, and even

support them.

Many might disagree with my conclusion that these sources serve a purpose to predict

and warn humanity of possible outcomes by claiming that this is only fiction and if even

possible way into the future. What they don¶t realize is that technologies of these kind have

already been significantly developed. The first one being the µbirth¶ of Dolly the sheep. This is

the case of the first cloned mammal in history. This was achieved by taking the nucleus of an

udder cell from an adult, Finn Dorset, white sheep and implanting it into an unfertilized egg, and

then fusing them with electrical pulses. Even though these may not sound so complicated it was

a major achievement in science and it has led to numerous experiments that try to improve these

processes. On the scientific journal Science News, John Travis (M.D., M.P.H.), states in his

article ³Dolly, Polly, Gene-send in the clones´ that: ³The cloning craze continues´ and he goes

on to say ³two biotech firms recently announced apparently major advances in cloning

technology.´ (Travis). In addition there have been recent notable advances in in vitro

fertilization and the manipulation of gender, specific genes, and traits in general. Now we are

offered the opportunity of choosing our babies¶ sex or eye color through invasive fertility

treatments and drugs. At first instance this may seem as something positive but it is really a
c Humbert 5c

threat to natural selection. In order for humans and organisms in general to survive as a species

genetic variation is essential, and genetic variation is what shapes and constitutes natural

selection. It is nature¶s role and not ours to choose which traits are more or less beneficial for a

species. Some scientists argue that this will not be the case since these procedures can cost over

$20,000 dollars. However, it is not going to take long for these practices to become cheap and

common. This can be supported by the fact that the first computer cost nearly 10,000 dollars and

it took up the space of a whole room. Nowadays the average computer costs no more that

$2,000. As we can infer, the case will be similar with manipulation of genes and fertilization,

where scientists will soon be able to modify procedures into simple and cheaper ones.

In the second place, biotechnology is affecting our health indirectly because as time goes

by we are increasingly consuming genetically exploited products. The intake of influenced and

artificial products has never proven healthy. Actually, it has always resulted in harmful diseases

or health conditions. In his article ³From Superseeds to Mutant Tomatoes´ published in The

New York Times, Robin Finn tells us about how Dr. Zachary Lippman, an Assistant

Professor Ph.D. at the Watson School of Biological Sciences at Cold Spring Harbor

Laboratory, is close to discovering a genetic intervention capable of turning a normal tomato

plant into what the author describes as a ³bionic fruit factory.´ Finn writes: ³Simply put, his

achievement is this: By manipulating a single copy of a mutant gene, he can make a tomato

plant increase its yield by half and simultaneously sweeten its produce.´ (Finn). I believe with

common sense and logic anyone can realize that nothing that makes a plant grow as rapidly as

this and is sweetened at the same time can be good to consume. Since the production of

modified products gradually grows, consumption does so as well. This has already resulted in

the emergence of many medical conditions and the worsening of others. If governments do not
c Humbert 6c

take control of these matters we will soon find ourselves paying irrational prices for µnormal¶

natural food. These ideas are sometimes unsupported and refuted by many for the sole reason

that this practices result in more than triple revenue than it would if done naturally. However,

these individuals are not being conscious about the effects this will have in the future and in

their personal health as consumers.

In third place, genetic engineering can be used negatively. In a paper published in 2003, the

Professor of Law at Georgetown University, David A. Koplow states: ³At this point, it is

abundantly clear to all that the struggle against bio-terrorism will be long, difficult, and multi-

faceted. The latest word regarding the possible threat of smallpox bioterrorism in the United

States«,´ and he goes on to say: ³Yet it is prudent to prepare for the possibility that terrorists

would kill indiscriminately, who do kill indiscriminately, would use diseases as a weapon."

(Koplow). It is clear that biotechnology represents a threat to society and it is extremely difficult

for the government to control it. The genetic mutations and growths that can be achieved in a lab

have increasingly become a fear to scientists and governments. Since it has become easier for

scientists to manipulate genes this will be more common. Due to this we have to keep in mind

that a terrorist could be able to perpetuate and multiply harmful bacteria infinitely only by

getting his hands on it. He could insert it in society with no possible control of the government or

anyone.

Lastly, biotechnology challenges religion, morals and ethics. Everything that is done and

produced in an unnatural way (not done by a higher being or God) is not good intentioned or

might not have positive results for humanity. Particularly in the case of cloning, the Roman

Catholic Church rejects it for using embryos as objects rather than seeing them as potential

human lives with rights. It is often the case that cloned embryos are highly prone to experience
c Humbert 7c

medical difficulties such as neurological and developmental problems. Not only the church but

also ethicists in general are absolutely against researchers attempting cloning. They argue that it

is in opposition to sexual reproduction, which we have been practicing for millions of years now,

and it seems irrational to replace it by these methods. According to research done by the

Encyclopedia of Science and Religion: ³Some believe that cloning would confuse and probably

subvert relationships between parents and their cloned children. If one person in a couple were

the source of the clone's DNA, at a genetic level that parent would be a twin of the clone, not a

parent. This is assuredly not to say that parents may thereby select or control their child's

personality or abilities, because persons are more than genes.´ I believe this is a very powerful

quote that proves in multiple ways how biotechnology is plain unnatural. Regardless of religious

beliefs or practices, various reasons prove evident that genetic engineering will have catastrophic

results in the long run. An organism should come to life only by the power of nature, and

scientists have no right to mess with human nature. It is also stated in this article: ³some fear that

by its nature cloning moves too far in the direction of control and away from the unpredictability

of ordinary procreation.´ This particular excerpt can be directly connected to Huxley¶s fears of a

perfectly controlled utopian society and how biotechnology can be taken to extremes if not

regulated.

Every one of these examples should be reason enough to put a stop to biotechnological

research and advances. However, as we do so infinitely, we are sleepwalking, letting scientists

and researchers take over our lives and futures. As Langdon Winner argues that most of the time

we accept certain changes that have strong implications without really knowing about it; he says

this is as: ³signing the contract without knowing the terms´. (Winner). He is right to say we are

sleep walking through all these changes that are going to determine human existence. Although
c Humbert 8c

certain practices of biotechnology like the manipulation of bacteria, and harmful genes can be

helpful, the negative threats and potential possibilities it encompasses overweigh the positive

aspects. We have to take action and impose limits on its practices to prevent chaotic and

regretful results. If not controlled, genetically engineered creations are going to result in the end

of nature as we know it.

c Humbert 9c

Works Cited

"Cloning." Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Ed. Ray Abruzzi and Michael J. McGandy.

Macmillan-Thomson Gale, 2003. eNotes.com. 2006. 28 Oct, 2010

<http://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/ cloning>

Huxley, Aldous. _rave New World. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006. Print.

Koplow, David A. "That Wonderful Year: Smallpox, Genetic Engineering, and Bio-Terrorism.´

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications (2003): 495-96. The Scholarly Commons.

Georgetown University Law Center, Jan. 2010. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.

<http://scholarship.law.

georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=facpub>.

Robin Finn. "From Superseeds to Mutant Tomatoes." The New York Times - _reaking News,

World News & Multimedia. The New York Times Comp, 20 Aug. 2010. Web. 13 Oct.

2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22tomato.html?ref=genetic_engineering

The Island. Dir. Michael Bay. Prod. Kenny Bates. Perf. Ewan McGregor, Scarlett

Johansson, and Sean Bean. Dreamworks, 2005. DVD.

Travis, John. "Dolly, Polly, Gene---send in the Clones." Science News 152.8 (1997): 127.

Hesburgh Libraries // University of Notre Dame. Society for Science & The Public, 23

Aug. 1997. Web. 9 Oct. 2010.

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.nd.edu/sici?origin=sfx%3Asfx&sici=0036-

8423(1997)152%3A8%3C127%3ADPGSIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D&

Winner, Langdon. "Technological Somnambulism." The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for
c Humbert 10c

Limits in the Age of High Technology. 1986. 644-49. Print.

c Humbert 11c