We've discussed the ethics of genetic engineered
food on and off over the past couple of years, and now I see that it has gone to
the level of policy debate in GB. I'm still not sure what the central ethical
issue is however.
Some of the debate, at least, seems to be that "it's not
nice to mess with mother nature." Gregg Easterbrook, the environmental
gadfly, just published an article in The New Republic (March 1 issue) which
questioned stem cell research for basically that reason. He quoted Thomas
Aquinas and Roe v. Wade in the same paragraph!!
However, I'm still a bit confused. Is it "always"
ethically suspect to modify genes? Is that because they are fundemental as
opposed to phenotype which is an expression? All organisms modify there
environment, it's necessary in order to survive. But is modification of basic
units such as genes prohibited. I'm not saying either way, I'd like to hear what
someone else thinks.
A journey to our primal world may bring answers
to our ecological dilemmas. Such a journey will lead,
not to an
impulsive or thoughtless way of life,
but to a reciprocity with origins
declared by history
to be out of
reach.
Paul Shepard
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/feb99/1999L-02-19-01.html
