Seeking Foundations for Biotechnological Ethics
When Chinese scientist He Jiankui genetically modified human embryos in 2018, leading to the birth of the first genetically "enhanced" children, the world held its breath. This experiment, compared to "driving a car with blindfolds on" 2 , revealed the chasm between technical capabilities and ethical dilemmas in biotechnology. Modern laboratories have become arenas where fundamental values clash: the dignity of life, the freedom of science, and responsibility for the future of our species. How do we find a compass in this axiological jungle?
Key dispute: Is a human embryo a subject of rights or just research material?
Flashpoint: Research on embryonic stem cells (ESC) requiring blastocyst destruction. As biologist Prof. Ewa Zuba-Surma emphasizes, technologies creating "artificial blastocysts" (e.g., therapeutic cloning) open the door to human cloning - intentional or accidental 1 .
Axological conflict: Bonum utile (useful good - potential for disease treatment) vs. bonum honestum (honorable good - respect for embryonic life) .
Genetic modifications (e.g., CRISPR-Cas9): Do we have the right to alter the genetic heritage of future generations? He Jiankui's experiment proved technical feasibility but revealed catastrophic lack of reflection on social and biological consequences 2 .
"Human as mechanism": Could cell therapy, leading to replacement of damaged tissues, reduce doctors to "body mechanics"? As Zuba-Surma notes, while the drive to repair the body is inherent to human nature, it must not cross dignity boundaries 1 .
The problem of scientism: The belief that scientific progress is the supreme value, and morality slows it down. Philosopher Leszek Kołakowski pointed out that scientism subordinates human life to the "Tribunal of Rational Reason," rejecting axiological reflection 2 .
"Modern man says: 'Your moral formulas aren't worth a farthing; I prefer to go with progress'" (G.K. Chesterton) 2 .
| Result | Scientific Conclusions | Ethical & Social Impacts |
|---|---|---|
| Birth of twins | Mosaic effect (not all cells changed) | Children as experimental objects |
| Unintended "off-target" mutations | Lack of control over long-term effects | Risk for future generations |
| Global condemnation | Immature technology | Erosion of trust in science |
This experiment became a symbol of the technological imperative detached from ethics. It showed that lack of axiological frameworks leads to treating humans as experimental objects 2 .
Utilitarianism (Peter Singer): Evaluates actions through consequences ("greatest good for the greatest number"). Risk: disregard for individual rights (e.g., embryos).
Deontology (Kant-inspired): Emphasizes inviolable principles (e.g., "humans must never be means but always ends"). Risk: rigidity facing new challenges 2 .
| Approach | Basic Principle | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utilitarianism | Maximizing benefits | Flexibility, pragmatism | Risk of life instrumentalization |
| Deontology | Absolute moral norms | Protection of individual dignity | No room for exceptions |
| Virtue Ethics | Moral development of researcher | Focus on intentions and character | Unclear practical guidelines |
Precautionary Principle: "If an action may cause irreversible harm, lack of full scientific certainty shouldn't justify inaction" (e.g., moratorium on germline editing).
Hans Jonas' Ethics of Responsibility: "Act so that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life on Earth."
Technical alternatives:
| Source | Therapeutic Potential | Main Ethical Problem | Axiological Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Embryonic (ESC) | High | Embryo destruction | High conflict |
| iPS | High | None | Low conflict |
| VSEL (adult tissues) | Promising | Technical challenges | Low conflict |
| Umbilical cord blood | Moderate | None | No conflict |
Key "materials" for ethical biotechnology:
| Tool | Function | Application Example |
|---|---|---|
| Bioethics Committee | Risk vs. benefit assessment; participant protection | Approving clinical trial protocols |
| Principle of Subsidiarity | Choosing least invasive methods | Using iPS cells instead of ESC |
| Transparency | Openness about methods and conflicts of interest | Publishing negative research results |
| Social Dialogue | Incorporating values of diverse groups | Consultations on gene editing research |
| Codes of Good Practice | Scientific community self-regulation | Helsinki Declaration on experiments |
Biotechnology doesn't need brakes but a moral compass. As Prof. Marek Pawlikowski reminds us, biomedical research is ethically permissible only when it serves human welfare without violating human dignity or the dignity of other human beings . Seeking axiological foundations isn't a sign of scientific weakness but of its maturity. In an era when technical possibilities overwhelm our ethical imagination, let the motto for the future be: "Can we? Yes. Should we? That's an open question."
"In the laboratory, ethics is tested at many levels: from research level to interpersonal relations" - Dr. hab. Ewa Zuba-Surma 1 .