Brave New Britain?

Those of us who take our starting-point within the Judeo-Christian tradition confront the moral and political agenda of the 21st century with our loyalties and energies pulled in many directions.

We see fundamental assaults on human rights and dignity that are essentially new versions of ancient challenges — including slavery, poverty, terror, crime, prejudice and autocracy.

We see the distinctive challenges arising from the social reconstruction of human sexuality, family and community; hallmarks of an emerging, if disorderly, post-Christian culture, undermining our assumptions about the taking of life in abortion and euthanasia.

What is human?

The seemingly disparate character of these issues is, of course, misleading. They all share a common focus in the answer to the question: What does it mean to be human? and its affiliate: How should we treat human beings? For at the fulcrum of every human culture lies a set of assumptions about human nature — what it means to be a member of the tribe. These assumptions are typically unstated, self-evident to members of the group and therefore almost invisible in their common life. They are made evident as we become aware that they are in dispute; that the culture is unsure of its assumptions; that it is in the process of changing them.

And it is in this context that a ‘third wave’ of challenges to our assumptions about human nature is set to break, driven by emerging technologies of which biotechnology is the most evident. While we may not yet discern their final implications, these challenges seem set to dwarf every current social and political question. They are not chiefly concerned with assaults on humans, or even the reconstruction of the human community and its values. They cut to the quick of our anthropology. Their focus is the fundamental relationship between technology and human being, between our manipulative capabilities and our own selves.

Abolition of man

It was this recognition that drove C.S. Lewis, back in the dark days of 1943, to write his prophetic essay on ‘The Abolition of Man’, perhaps the most penetrating statement yet made of the greatest question that will confront the 21st century. The pivotal significance of our belief that we are made in the image of God is about to be tested as never before.

Lewis argues that while technology is said to extend the power of the human race, ‘what we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.’ There can be no ‘increase in power on Man’s side. Each new power won by Man is a power over Man as well. Each advance leaves him weaker as well as stronger. In every victory, besides the general who triumphs, he is a prisoner who follows the triumphal car. . . . Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won. We shall have ‘taken the thread of life out of the hand of Cloth’ and be henceforth free to make our species whatever we wish it to be. The battle will indeed be won. But who, precisely, will have won it?’ Because ‘the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please . . . . Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of Man.’ By taking to ourselves the power to determine who we shall be, we turn ourselves into creatures of our own design, artefacts of our own manufacture.

Dignity and biotech

Developments in the life sciences and their application in biotechnology have for a generation gripped the imagination of both scientists and public alike, with their hope of widespread cures for inherited and degenerative diseases. Just as antibiotics have, in our culture and within the lifetimes of parents and grandparents, made death by infectious disease largely a thing of the past, so the future of medicine is keyed to advances in genomics, cell biology, and nanomedicine. Indeed, it is not any longer possible to isolate biotechnology from those other, increasingly related, disciplines and fields that are commonly referred to as ‘emerging technologies’, chief among them nanoscience and nanotechnology. What has been described as the ‘convergence’ of these technologies (together with information technology and, more controversially, cognitive science) presents us with the prospect of the increasingly rapid growth of our human power over nature in all of its forms, and including human nature itself. We are speeding up an exponential curve, and while observers draw its slope and our place on it in different ways, there is no doubt that the compounding character of our knowledge and its application through emerging technologies gets faster every day.

New powers

The question we face is what to do with the extraordinary new powers that we are taking to ourselves. We have high hopes of cures for terrible diseases. Whatever the scientific merit or ethical status of research on embryonic stem cells, so-called ‘adult’ stem cells from cord blood and many parts of the body are curing dozens of intractable diseases in clinical trials all round the globe. The US National Cancer Institute, accused by some of undue optimism, claims that by 2015 (just eight years from now) death and serious suffering from cancer will be a thing of the past — thanks chiefly to developments in nanomedicine. The future is bright with the prospect of our using these new technologies to turn the tables on cancer, degenerative diseases, and inherited genetic disorders.

Abnormal UK

Yet, as we know, our concern to defeat disease, combined with our fear of suffering and death, can lead to hype in our expectations and can ride roughshod over vital ethical lines in the sand. The most telling example, of course, lies in so-called ‘therapeutic cloning,’ in which it is said you clone your embryonic twin to develop stem cell lines that are a perfect match for you. Whatever our view may be of using so-called ‘spare’ IVF embryos as a source for stem cells, we should note the striking contrast between the determination of the United Kingdom to press ahead with cloning experiments (with, it seems, the support of all major political parties) and approaches in many other countries. If Dolly’s creator, Professor Ian Wilmut, were to conduct his planned ‘therapeutic cloning’ research in Canada, he would not receive government funds but a potential five-year prison term. He might prefer that to doing it in France. The penalty there for ‘therapeutic cloning’ is seven years.

Let’s note these countries. Canada is arguably the most socially liberal of all major states, and France the most secular. And they are far from alone. Indeed, the two relevant international instruments, the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (1997) and the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning (2005) take the same view. The Convention, which the UK has yet to sign, let alone ratify, prohibits any creation of human embryos for the purpose of research. The UN Cloning Declaration, which calls on all states to prohibit all forms of human cloning, was passed by the General Assembly with a majority of nearly 3-1. Its most outspoken opponent, to our lasting shame, was the United Kingdom; closely supported by the People’s Republic of China.

Destructive tests

On the genetics front, despite many years of research and vast expenditures, the development of clinical therapies has so far proved intractable. Genomics has aided the development of so-called ‘biologic’ drugs, and we may hope will at some points produce safe clinical applications to enable us to treat inherited diseases. At present, we have over 1,000 genetic tests, and their chief use is in enabling us to select and destroy affected embryos and foetuses. This rough-and-ready way of dealing with disease by destroying those who carry it offends the consciences of many more than those who call themselves ‘pro-life.’ It should perhaps be no surprise that in Germany, where they have not forgotten what eugenics means, in vitro fertilisation is perfectly legal, but embryos must be implanted without quality control.

Unwittingly marginalised

But we make a big mistake if we see this as chiefly a discussion around current reproductive and embryo issues, for the most sobering scenarios lie ahead and elsewhere.

What these examples demonstrate is the problem we face in developing ethical policy frameworks around existing technologies. One reason lies in the tendency for ethically-conservative religious people to define such debates in ‘pro-life’ terms, and in the process, despite their intentions, to have the effect of aiding those in the science, business and policy communities who are resistant to calls for ethical limitations in these technologies. By asserting their position on abortion as the paradigm of the agenda, they unwittingly marginalise their position and make it difficult to build common cause with wider forces in the culture who may share many of their concerns — about particular aspects of the technologies in question; about the need in principle for limits; and about the profound significance of these questions of policy.

We need to embrace a future in which emerging technologies greatly extend our human capacity to manipulate the natural order; but proportionate restraint and limitation must be placed upon the exercise of these new powers to ensure that they aid us in our quest to be human, and do not become the occasion for our subverting our humanity and sliding into the Brave New World order — in which humans come from a designer hatchery and eat ‘soma’ so they keep feeling happy. Since Huxley’s day, we have come a long way in the direction of this ghastly blend of eugenic artificial reproduction and what has come to be called cosmetic neurology.

The ‘pro-human’ cause presents as the great question of the 21st century, as we confront the rapid development of emerging technologies and their offer of powers to aid or undermine our humanness at the most fundamental level.

Key questions

Several sets of questions should be on our minds as we consider policy approaches to these technologies. They intersect, but offer different standpoints from which to view and critique both the technologies themselves and the matrix of law and practice within which they are applied. A future that is both pro-technology and pro-human will depend on their answers.

1. Commodification. As our powers extend over our own bodies and the bodies of others, and technologies lead to products and processes, questions of intellectual property will occupy centre-stage. A case in point: in the United States there was a recent debate over whether human embryos could be patented. The biotechnology industry, through its trade group BIO, argued that genetically-engineered human embryos were appropriate subjects of patent claims.

2. Eugenics. We have noted the growing pressure for eugenic uses of in vitro fertilisation, not simply to screen out embryos with genetic diseases, but even on merely social grounds. As genetic interventions become possible, where will the line be drawn? Hair and eye colour? Propensity to baldness or obesity? Any technically accessible genetic factor that could affect gifting and temperament? And within society, the corresponding pressure for genetic discrimination — in employment and insurance, especially — must be radically resisted.

3. Enhancement. Whether through genetics or nanotechnology and cybernetics, it is likely that we shall see the development of ‘enhancements’, especially in cognition, in effect blending human nature and machine nature through such means as the implanting of brain chips for memory, skills, or communication. The logic of such developments is far-reaching, since while they would begin incrementally and through dual-use devices with genuine medical applications (for example, for stroke victims), they would have longer-term impact through compounding both the intelligence and the wealth of a small segment of society, and leading finally to a new feudalism in which power of all kinds is concentrated in the hands of ‘enhanced’ persons. In his notorious essay, ‘Why the Future doesn’t need us’, technology guru Bill Joy proffered alternative scenarios of doom: either unintended disaster or intentional enhancement will ensure the end of human nature as we know it. We should also note the steady growth of ‘transhumanism’, a network of science-fiction enthusiasts and outlandish thinkers who deliberately seek radical changes in human nature. They have recently begun to move from the fringes of society into mainstream contexts, and are pressing the idea of radical ‘enhancement’.

Cognitive science

One key area of concern, noted in the recent High-Level Expert Group report from the European Commission, lies in respect of cognitive science. Concerns may perhaps be most starkly illustrated with reference to the prospect of the ‘pursuit of happiness’ by means of cognitive ‘enhancements’ that involve the manipulation of perception and memory, whether through neuro-pharmacology (including what has been termed ‘cosmetic neurology’) or cognitive prostheses. A recent editorial in the journal Neurology discussed the challenge of nanomedicine in these terms: ‘ . . . its presence is already beginning to be felt in neurology. Cochlear implants are the sentinel example of mechanical interfaces providing sensory input to the human nervous system. Neural stimulators — for movement disorders and epilepsy — are other examples of technologies currently in (increasing) use. Some worry that these successes represent the beginnings of Cyborgs — individuals who are part human and part machine. For more than 50 years science fiction writers have imagined the potential for such human-robotic chimeras. Nanotechnology promises the potential of designing micromachines capable of dramatically advancing the potential of such interfaces.’ Since development of such technologies will be invariably ‘dual use’ — with initial applications that are properly therapeutic — the policy challenges they raise are profound.

Conclusion

The great issues of ethics and policy that we face are all focused on questions of human dignity and the significance of human nature. Developments in emerging technologies are leading to very great increases in our power over matter, including our human nature itself. While policy must address a wide range of questions, at the heart of the agenda for the 21st century lies the need to build a policy framework in which ethical principles set the ground-rules for our use of these new powers. In parallel with legislative and regulatory interventions in particular technology areas (for example, in relation to cognitive enhancement, or animal-human chimeras), the intellectual property landscape must be shaped to secure human nature from commodification; and genetic discrimination, itself the obverse of eugenics, must be comprehensively outlawed. A robust approach to each of these questions will enable us to welcome emerging technologies with their extraordinary capacity to enhance not human nature but our capacity to be human, that we may better fulfil our humanness. At the same time, as our recent experience of genetically-modified foods demonstrates, it is not in the interests of the scientific or business communities to develop technologies that are freighted with controversy, and those who would take a lead in the development of pro-human technology policies will find allies in many quarters.

Of course, every application of every new technology will be presented to us as yet another wonderful benefit for human beings that will make life better and easier. The Brave New World question that must always be asked is, at what cost? Lewis’s essay on ‘The Abolition of Man’ opens with a potent quotation from John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, with which we conclude. ‘It came burning hot into my mind, whatever he said and however he flattered, when he got me home to his house, he would sell me for a slave.’

Professor Nigel M. de S. Cameron is President of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future (http://www.thehumanfuture.org) and Research Professor of Bioethics at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, Illinois. Rachel Bell is a postgraduate student at the London School of Economics where she studies medical sociology and public policy. They are respectively Chair and Associate Director of BioCentre: The Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy in London (http://www.bioethics.ac.uk).

Nigel Cameron is also a consultant to CARE and co-authored with Joni Eareckson Tada How to be a Christian in a Brave New World (Zondervan, 2006). He recently edited Nanotechnology and Society: Issues and Perspectives, due from John Wiley in 2007. This article is based on his testimony to a House of Commons hearing on the future of Britain.

Reading:

C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, 1943 (Zondervan Publishing House, 2001), ISBN 0060652942
* A short but penetrating exploration of the relationship between man and technology.

John Wyatt, Matters of Life and Death (Inter-Varsity Press, 1998), ISBN 0851115888
* A consultant paediatrician discusses the moral dilemmas that modern medicine poses at the beginning and end of life from a Christian perspective.

Nigel M. de S. Cameron and Joni Eareckson Tada, How to be a Christian in a Brave New World (Zondervan Publishing House, 2006), ISBN 0310259398
* An accessible book designed to equip the lay Christian reader to engage in and shape the debate around new bio-medical technologies.

Nigel M. de S. Cameron, The New Medicine: Life and Death after Hippocrates (Bioethics Press, repr. 2001), ISBN 0971159904
* Surveys the collapse of the moral tradition in medicine and points to its future revival; an appendix discusses the theology of medicine

Websites:
http://www.care.org.uk: Follow the Issues link to Christian briefings on topical bioethics debates.
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org: The website of the Nuffield Council, a UK group of clinicians, lawyers, philosophers, scientists and theologians which produces in-depth analysis of bioethics themes.
http://www.linacre.org: Catholic perspectives on UK Bioethics.
http://www.thehumanfuture.org: Introductions to key bioethics themes, with international policy descriptions. The Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future includes morally serious thinkers and leaders from many perspectives.
http://www.nano-and-society.org: The related Center on Nanotechnology and Society.
http://www.bioethics.ac.uk: The BioCentre website, a UK think-tank focusing on the ethics and public policy of selected new medical technologies.

Human dignity and the new technologies of the 21st century