Playing God 's Footsteps : Synthetic Biology And The Meaning Of Life

In “Defining Life”, Josh Gabbatiss expresses the difficulty of distinguishing between the living and the inanimate, and examines various attempts at this age-old yet still developing struggle through the perspectives of virology, chemistry, astro-biology, technology, and philosophy. “Defining Life” is contextualized by an extensive history of deliberation by both modern and historical figures such as Aristotle and Carl Sagan, and institutions such as NASA and the Christian Church. The relevance of this article is also shown through current advancements in physical and life sciences, engineering, and philosophical

Growing up in Switzerland and Oregon, I learned that nature is greatly valued and it is necessary to respect the environment to prevent impending environmental collapse. Living in a society whose morals and ethics include

He is in constant refusal of responsibility, and ends up essentially plaguing not only his life, but also the lives around him. After constructing and animating the creature, he’s in a flux never ending negative emotions. The creation gets turned into a monster both physically and mentally. Frankenstein describes the horrors that come along with scientific experimentation, and the pursuit of science unavoidably leading to tragedy. The novel presents insights that are just as valid today as when the novel was written in the 19th century. Dr. Frankenstein makes a scientific breakthrough in his creation of the monster, but at what cost? This novel shows us the dangers of attempting to find something we are simply unprepared to manage. Victor’s urges to truly learn the secret of making life completely blinds him to the consequences of achieving such a feat. This book also shows that our ethical (or unethical) actions have the potential to hurt not only ourselves, but also others around us.

In Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity, author Leon Kass argues that technology, although marvelous for what it permits us to achieve, has and may continue to threaten human flourishing. He argues that, many of our technological advancements have become a substitution for the development of our human capabilities (para. 22). Kass bolsters his argument by engaging readers with a comprehensive dialogue about the issues of technology. Though Kass does cover a number of issues in this book, they all specifically focus on the issues concerning biotechnology. Kass dedicates chapter 4 of Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity to inquire about the “moral meaning of the entire enterprise of genetic technology” (Leon Kass, 121).

Genetic engineering is a powerful tool that can be used to accomplish a multitude of tasks. From species population control to ensuring certain traits in a human baby, there isn’t a lot that genetic engineering can’t do. It is becoming more and more acceptable to genetically engineer organisms as our knowledge on the subject grows. There have been experiments manipulating entire ecosystems by introducing a genetically modified organism into it. It’s even possible to change tiny details all the way down to the color eyes a child has. However these developments are not without controversy. Many people claim that changing the genetic make-up of a living being is playing God, and are against it. The works of Kiera Butler, John J. Conley, Ronald Bailey, and Simon Wallace speak on the controversy as well as utility value of genetic engineering.

Although it is possible to convince the governments on the benefits that cloning and genetic engineering can provide, convincing those who believe heavily in their religion and faith is nearly impossible. For example, the Roman Catholic Church opposes reproductive cloning because “it severs reproduction from sexuality” as well many others believing that utilizing these technologies interferes with nature (Evans, 2002). In addition, a plethora of people believe that cloning and fabricating humans to our desire is against God’s wishes as Man would be playing God (Evans, 2002). To convince the public to accept these technologies, the many millions that believe in a greater being must be swayed towards

Synthetic life as a whole is solely based on engineering something within the biological field to produce a new living cell or enzyme. This is an attempt by many scientists to enhance the biology field, and make more living things for purposeful uses. However, with creating this new form of life, much speculation arises. Ethical issues come about from this engineering and many people do not agree with what scientists are doing.

One of the greatest factors that restricts advancement is the censorship of ideas that do not conform to the World State’s views. When censoring a biology paper, Mustapha remarks, “the author’s mathematical treatment of the conception of purpose is novel and highly ingenious, but heretical and, so far as the present social order is concerned, dangerous and potentially subversive. Not to be published” (154). Clearly, as a World Controller, Mustapha acknowledges the work’s value, but rejects it anyways. By censoring scientific knowledge, a moral code that is supposed to adapt along with society’s views has stopped evolving, limiting the capability of humans to move forward. Additionally, the science in the World State warns of the future of biochemistry in the modern world. Without a strong sense of ethical conduct, science has the capability to turn against its true purpose of improving the quality of human life. Instead, it is being used as a means of debilitating human bodies from birth. Although labeled as a form of science in the World State, it really is just a manipulation of technology for an unorthodox practice of eugenics. From birth, Henry Foster explains that there is “nothing like oxygen-shortage for keeping an embryo below par” (10-11). Science in the World State has not improved the

One of the main negative aspects surrounding this science is the fact that bioengineers are riding the line between advancing medicine and “playing God.” This creates a raging storm of moral and ethical dilemmas. For instance, the synthetic biology involved in creating artificial organs leads some to conclude that scientists are going too far with their endeavors: “Whenever such culturally sanctioned boundaries are breached, researchers are inevitably accused of playing God or treading in Frankenstein’s footsteps” (Van den Belt par.1). Many believe these tasks are not meant to be performed by human hands. Moreover, though man-made organs spark controversy, the most disadvantaged aspect of biomedical engineering comes from the use of embryonic stem cells. The debate emerges due to the fact that “to obtain embryonic stem cells, the early embryo has to be destroyed. This means destroying a potential human life” (“Embryonic stem cell research” par.2). To clarify, this signifies that bioengineers must choose between two moral principles when faced with stem cell research: the duty to use their findings to alleviate the suffering of others or the duty to value even the earliest stages of human life. To reveal a connection, the question of whether bioengineers are playing the role of God can be related to Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein. In the novel, Shelley sought to expose the alarming reality of the

In life we are all confronted with the idea of nature along with society. Although both have their pros and cons they work together to give us freedom and order among individuals.

Can science go too far when it equips man with tools to manipulate life? Some of the underlying ethical dilemmas presented in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein are similar to ones we struggle with today, such as selective abortion. Shelley’s doomed creature mirrors the devastating result of bringing an unwanted offspring into the world, then shirking responsibility for it thereafter. The practice of playing God and choosing who does and who does not “earn” life ultimately results in profound negative moral consequences.

A potential methodology or set of methodologies (how do you plan to research your project?)

Another adjustment to the microscope, and we can examine Leopold's biocentric opinion of how environmental ethics should be governed. His approach enlarges the moral category to include soils, waters, plants and animals and claims our obligation is to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. Philosophers Devall and Sessions further define the biocentric view with the concept of deep ecology. Devall and Sessions argue that "the well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes." (503)

When it comes to playing god, humans have been aware of the consequences for centuries. Ruth Chadwick’s article in regards to playing god mentions that of ancient Greek mythology numerous times in relating the potential consequences that human perception sees in the event that humans take the role of making omnipotent decisions. Situations discussed by Chadwick begin with an argument revolving around the idea of “letting die”, particularly in the medical field. Further, I will discuss humans making decisions concerning life versus death. Chadwick, on a separate front, presents the playing god objection in the sense of moral limits regarding science and technology. Numerous questions have arisen in modern times concerning the use of proper ethics in science and medicine and with this have came the imposition of limits on said advancements. Certain thresholds are maintained and boundaries are set that are not to be surpassed and in Chadwick’s article, he attributes this to the supposed consequences that would follow if these boundaries were surpassed. This research includes acts that create life, as this ability is often only given to an omnipotent, divine being. Scientists argue that they are merely assisting creation by altering already existing materials, opponents argue that this genetic manipulation is actually an act of humans playing god. In this paper, a response and continuation of Ruth Chadwick’s ideas, I will go further into each of these perceptions

The advancement in technology and science has triggered a new way of thinking among many people. What seems challenging is drawing the limits of this advancement in terms of what is ideal and imperative for humanity. Science seems to provide concrete evidence for its discoveries. However, the increased reliance on scientific discoveries and technology is diminishing the human morals. All these are amidst the emergence of dualities such as religious fundamentalism and scientific fundamentalism, each trying to convert the other. Scientific advancements continue to trigger concern among many scholars. In his article “God, Science and Imagination”, Wendel Berry discusses how the concepts of religious fundamentalism and scientific fundamentalism are needless and destructive. To a large extent, Beery seems to criticize the scientists who dismiss the existence of God. He claims that science has over time changed to contradict its initial element of factual evidence. In her short story “The Made-to-Order Savior, Lisa Belkin writes about a medical procedure that convinces two couples to get another child in order to save the other child suffering from Fanconi anemia a rare genetic disease. The two families are willing to invest heavily in the scientific research on PGD that would help save the child. Their actions are indicative of the changes in morals introduced by scientific advancements. Although the medical technology helps save the life, it often