Chinese Scientist 'Playing God': Ethical Debate Over Creation of HIV-Resistant Babies - Free Paper Sample

Back in 2018, a Chinese scientist claimed to have used genetic engineering to create two baby girls that are resistant to HIV (Normile 1091). On the one side, the report is good news because it could represent a big step in the fight against AIDs, a disease that has resulted in the deaths of more than half a million people in 2019 alone (UNAIDS). On the other hand, the report sets precedence for similar studies that could see scientists “play God.” It is such studies that create discussion on how far, is too far? The limits of science are a theme that is very pronounced in Frankenstein because Frankenstein decided to play God by creating life out of dead body parts. The results were quite disastrous, even for Frankenstein himself. It raised the question of whether Frankenstein took science too far by deciding to create a living being out of dead body parts. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein adequately addresses the ethical issues of science and faith for audiences regardless of when they read the novel, by concentrating on the bad things that could happen if such an experiment goes wrong.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

One of the dilemmas addressed in Frankenstein is whether humans should have the ability to create new life. The creature created by Frankenstein was a new creature because it did not have its equal. Nothing like it had ever existed before, and that is what differentiated it from the rest of the species. By having such an ability, humans would have turned into creators, as evidenced by Frankenstein’s words, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me” (Shelley 54). In the world of religion, such a step would give humans the power of God, because only He has the power to create new life.

The creation of new species presents a moral dilemma because of its potential to undermine the value of life. According to Douglas, “the creation of artificial life will encourage reductionist attitudes toward the living world that undermine the special moral value accorded to life” (Douglas 688). It is rarity and demand that determine the value of something. The moment humans can create new life, then the value placed upon it will be reduced because it would no longer be rare.

Another reason is that artificial beings could have fewer human moral standings. Creating new life forms brings the worry that artificial organisms will have an uncertain functional status and, consequently, an uncertain moral principle. Although that is the question of nature vs. nurture, there are certain moral principles and personal beliefs that “stem from genetics” (Penn State). In the novel, the creature went ahead to kill Frankenstein’s brother, and wife-to-be (Shelley 171). While that is something that can also be done by humans, it is usually learned behavior. The creature performed these acts without learning them. It did not feel remorse for its actions and instead felt “exultation and hellish triumph” (Shelley 171). That is why the creation of artificial beings can be considered as taking science too far because there is the risk that the beings might not ascribe to human moral principles.

Shelley brings up some ethical questions regarding scientific definitions of life and death, such as at what point can a person or organism be pronounced dead. In Frankenstein, the scientists built his creature using body parts of dead bodies (Shelley 58-59). That raises the question of whether those people from whom the parts were removed can be defined as being dead. Is it possible for a dead body or dead body part to be used to give life to a new creature? Furthermore, if not, does it mean that the body parts of a dead person cannot be defined as dead? The scientific definition of life and death is still an elusive subject that has been evolving over the years. It is not uncommon for a person to be scientifically determined to be dead, only for his or her body to resume bodily functions. Early science used the heartbeat to determine the state of a person. However, that proved to be faulty because there was the possibility of bringing someone back to life as long as they still had brain functions (Condic 3). However, the reanimation of dead body parts in Shelley’s Frankenstein raises the question of whether the cessation of brain functions is the proper definition of death.

Shelley’s Frankenstein illustrates the power that science has to blur the power between life and death by using the monster created by Frankenstein. As earlier indicated, the creature was created using previously dead parts. Therefore, it is not clear whether Frankenstein’s monster can be termed as being alive, considering that it is made up of dead body parts. In such a case, the line between life and death becomes blurry because the creature engages in activities that living creatures perform despite being made of dead body parts. In such a case, it is not clear whether tissues are dead or alive because they can still be animated back to life.

The question of whether humans should create artificial intelligence (AI) is a current news item that is similar to the issue in Frankenstein. There is no doubt that the motivation behind the creation of the two differ in that Frankenstein wanted to be blessed as a source and creator (Shelley 54), while AI creators want to “amplify human effectiveness” (Anderson et al., 2). AI has the potential to change human society for the better, but it also raises some ethical questions similar to Frankenstein’s monster. Questions on whether AIs will have the same moral status as humans or will they be accorded a lower status. What AIs have the same moral principles as humans, and can they sustain such morality? It is questions like that make draw comparisons between Frankenstein’s monster and AIs.

Conclusion

Shelley’s Frankenstein was among the earliest and best examples of what can happen when the boundaries of science are allowed to go too far. The actions of Frankenstein’s monster show how things can go wrong when there are no boundaries to scientific experiments. It addressed the ethical issues of science and faith by indicating what could happen when a man tries to play God. There is no guarantee that artificial beings will have the same moral principles, even when given the same nurturing as humans. Furthermore, it raises the question of how such actions will affect the human perception of life.

Works Cited

Anderson, Janna, Lee Rainie, and Alex Luchsinger. “Artificial intelligence and the future of humans.” Pew Research Center 10 (2018).

Condic, Maureen L. “Determination of death: A scientific perspective on biological integration.” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine. Vol. 41. No. 3. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Inc., 2016.

Douglas, Thomas, et al. “Is the creation of artificial life morally significant?” Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences vol. 44,4 Pt B (2013): 688-96. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.05.016

Normile, Dennis. “For China, a CRISPR first goes too far.” (2018): 1091-1091.

Penn State. “Some personal beliefs and morals may stem from genetics.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 25 February 2019. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190225145632.htm>.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. Planet EBook.com, 1818, Planetbook, www.planetebook.com/free-ebooks/frankenstein.pdf.

UNAIDS. “Global HIV & AIDS Statistics - 2020 Fact Sheet.” UNAIDS, UNAIDS, 2020, www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet.