There is no doubt that recent major breakthroughs in biotechnology have made a huge contribution to human life. We don’t have to look far to think of examples: how the human tissue grown into new skin was used by Dr Fiona Wood and her team, for example, to save the life of the victims of the Bali bombings. How wonderful to know that Herceptin, the first drug approved for use with a matching diagnostic test, is now available to treat breast cancer in women whose cancer cells express the protein HER2.
So it may seem churlish to introduce a note of caution in a discussion about the role of biotech discoveries in our future directions as human beings—but it is an important part of the bioethical debate being played out across the world.
Part of being human is the desire, even the urge, to become better—to strive for perfection. And who could begrudge such an urge? But equally, part of what makes us human is our differences, our very imperfections.
It is important, therefore, that we think clearly about the path we are taking towards the solution of all our human imperfections. How do we continue to cherish our diversity and individual uniqueness even while we try to use our human talents to improve our lot?
A good starting point in this discussion is Francis Fukuyama’s book, Our Post Human Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. Fukuyama's provocative book argues that the biotechnology revolution will ultimately have profound consequences for our society—and some of these may be quite damaging.
For example, he sees the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology as the possibility that it will alter human nature, and thereby move us into what he calls a "post human" stage of history.
We are generally an egalitarian species, and use our intellect and our resources as well as our good fortune to ensure the survival of our species. This applies whether we live in the developed world of the "haves", or the developing world of the "have nots".
So the notion of biotechnology as a way of "improving" us or our children goes right to the heart of the idea of altering human nature. We could consider this to be at one end of the interventionist spectrum that Fukuyama seeks to address.
At the core of his argument is the fact that biotechnology is allowing us to modify