Glenn McGee

Most parents want to improve the lot of their children. Providing a safe environment, a healthful diet, a good education, exposure to diverse experiences are some of the more conventional means of enhancing the health and opportunities of children. Increasingly, parents or would‐be parents are being offered genetic means for enhancing their children's lives. To whichever means parents turn, the road to enhancement is paved with some deadly and not‐so‐deadly sins that all parents and social stewards ought to learn to avoid. They are calculativeness, overbearingness, shortsightedness, hasty judgment, and pessimism.

William James and John Dewey insisted that pragmatic philosophy finds meaning in its struggle to deal with emergent social problems. Ironically, few have attempted to use pragmatism to articulate methods for ameliorating social difficulties. This dissertation attempts to do just that by putting James' and Dewey's philosophy to work on the moral and scientific problems associated with genetic engineering and the Human Genome Project. The intention is to demonstrate the usefulness of a pragmatic approach to applied ethics and philosophy of biology. ;The work of proponents and critics of genetic engineering is examined, including LeRoy Hood, Hans Jonas, Leon Kass, Robert Nozick, Jeremy Rifkin, Robyn Rowland, and Paul Ramsey. It is concluded that excessive optimism and pessimism about genetic engineering rests primarily on two errors. The first, basic to the Genome Project, is that organisms are essentially determined by their genes, and that the expression of genes is identical across human populations. I draw both on Richard Lewontin and on Dewey's Logic: The Theory of Inquiry to argue that the formation of human natures is instead the result of a fluid and interpenetrative relationship between hereditary information and varying environmental conditions. Organisms express DNA in different ways under different circumstances, and DNA itself is modified by exposure to mutagens. ;The second error prevalent in the literature is the belief that genetic engineering is uniquely problematic, requiring a new kind of ethics. To counter the received view, I detail numerous cases in the history of biology and philosophy in which humans have faced moral choices similar to those present in the new genetics. In addition, I resituate new reproductive decisions in the context of everyday problems faced by parents in society, arguing that the hopes and choices of parents provide a matrix within which genetic decisions can be made. I caution against the expansion of genetic diagnosis, and detail some of the greatest real dangers present in positive genetic engineering. Finally, I suggest pragmatic alternatives to positive genetic engineering, including education and health care reform

Although he devotes little explicit analysis to ethics, Whitehead’s understanding of the human moral life immerses both human moral agency and environmental ethics in the natural world, judging good actions in the context of complex and interdependent histories of value present in societies of what he calls actual occasions. In this sense, Whiteheadian environmental ethics draws on the most interesting features of Michel Foucault’s genealogies of values that suffuse institutions. Nevertheless, a Whiteheadian notion of environmental ethics exceeds Foucault’s work in that Whitehead acknowledges the possibility of responsible human values and actions with regard to the environment.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10.1 (2000) 103-108 [Access article in PDF] Letters "Small Sacrifices" in Stem Cell Research Madam: I agree with Professors McGee and Caplan (in their article "The Ethics and Politics of Small Sacrifices in Stem Cell Research," KIEJ, June 1999) that the question of the nature and status of the source of stem cells must be addressed. However, in their eagerness to convince us of the smallness of the sacrifices, I think the authors use some unfortunate rhetorical devices and move much too quickly over some necessary distinctions.The rhetorical display is unfortunate if the article is intended to be a fair and rational development of an argument--e.g., those who hold a position in opposition to the authors do not argue they "inveigh." The section on the political area of the controversy seems particularly dismissive of other's positions.However, I will focus on just two areas where I think a more nuanced consideration would make the question of the moral legitimacy of the "small sacrifices" of embryos less obvious than the authors' rhetoric would suggest.First, they claim that opponents of such research assume some sort of "super status" for an embryo. The rights generally conceded to born human beings may not be as "weak" as they characterize. But even considering only the "negative right against unwarranted violence," I think the authors misdescribe the situation. Contrary to their assertion, I do not know when "adults and even children are... forced to give life... in the defense or at least interest of the community's highest ideals and most pressing interests" (p. 153). Could they be speaking of capital punishment, justified in the name of protecting the community? But then why mention children?It is true that not everyone can be guaranteed every means to preserving and enhancing life. But this limitation on positive rights is not a "forced giving." Adults may be compelled to risk life--e.g. in a draft for the sake of a war. But, again, the more or less justifiable imposition of a risk is not the same as selecting out one particular individual or class to be directly killed. Neither adults nor born children are compelled to be killed for the sake of organ "donation," even if a greater number might be saved. If one grants equivalent status to the embryo (as the authors seem to do here for the sake of argument), opponents do not have to claim a "super status" for embryos, just the ordinary human right not to be killed even for "compassionate" motives.A second area where I think the authors move too quickly is in their impoverished definition of the essential humanity of the early embryo as exhaustively represented by the physical structure of its DNA. The authors seem to recognize [End Page 103] that, ordinarily, there is more to personhood than sheer physical structure. For example, they mention memories and habits (p. 154). They could also speak of relationships, attitudes, and the like. Since an early embryo has no such components of personality as we experience it, the authors hold that its identity could only be contained in its DNA. Since this DNA is preserved, even spread far and wide, by the use of stem cells, it almost seems as if we are doing the early embryo a favor by breaking it up.However, just because the embryo does not have any conscious memories or other attributes of character or personality, that does not mean its identity is constituted only by its physical structure described statically. The early embryo is not just a bundle of discrete structures, and its DNA is not just an inert lump made up of certain smaller lumps. Both the embryo and its DNA are active. Thus the identity of even an early embryo includes both its current processes and the innate potential for further activity and development. Although lacking a conscious will, the early embryo is already in a sense an agent, already doing things--growing, changing, and heading toward something that...

: Pluripotent human stem cell research may offer new treatments for hundreds of diseases, but opponents of this research argue that such therapy comes attached to a Faustian bargain: cures at the cost of the destruction of many frozen embryos. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), government officials, and many scholars of bioethics, including, in these pages, John Robertson, have not offered an adequate response to ethical objections to stem cell research. Instead of examining the ethical issues involved in sacrificing human embryos for the goal of curing fatal and disabling diseases, they seek to either dismiss the moral concerns of those with objections or to find an "accommodation" with those opposed to stem cell research. An ethical argument can be made that it is justifiable to modify or destroy certain human embryos in the pursuit of cures for dread and lethal diseases. Until this argument is made, the case for stem cell research will rest on political foundations rather than on the ethical foundations that the funding of stem cell research requires.

This essay argues that while we have examined clinical ethics quite extensively in the literature, too little attention has been paid to the complex question of how clinical ethics is learned. Competing approaches to ethics pedagogy have relied on outmoded understandings of the way moral learning takes place in ethics. It is argued that the better approach, framed in the work of Aristotle, is the idea of phronesis, which depends on a long-term mentorship in clinical medicine for either medical students or clinical ethics students. Such an approach is articulated and defended.

Most parents want to improve the lot of their children. Providing a safe environment, a healthful diet, a good education, exposure to diverse experiences are some of the more conventional means of enhancing the health and opportunities of children. Increasingly, parents or would‐be parents are being offered genetic means for enhancing their children's lives. To whichever means parents turn, the road to enhancement is paved with some deadly and not‐so‐deadly sins that all parents and social stewards ought to learn to avoid. They are calculativeness, overbearingness, shortsightedness, hasty judgment, and pessimism.