Not All Change is Created Equal

In the article “Human Transgenesis: Definitions, Technical Possibilities and Moral Challenges”, there is a small section titled “Human Nature is Transgenic”. In it the authors begin by refuting the claim that gene therapy for the purpose of human genetic enhancement would alter the essence of human nature; the idea that humans are a perfected species made in the image of God. This common definition of human nature is incorrect, so they claim, because of our current understanding of genetics and Darwinian evolution. Our genes are not unchangeable, but very fluid and mutational. Thus gene therapy and genetic enhancement would do nothing different than what our genes already do all the time; change. So to the people who fear genetic enhancement would cause unknown harm by changing a set code of human DNA, the authors would say there is nothing to fear because human DNA changes all the time. I don’t find their argument very convincing, though. The mechanisms by which natural selection changes the phenotype of an organism is completely different than that of purposeful genetic engineering. In natural and artificial selection, the genotype is left to change on its own (through natural mutation) and either we choose the most advantageous phenotype that corresponds with that genetic change (artificial), or that phenotype is deemed advantageous because it enables the organism to survive or reproduce (natural). In both cases, the actual genetic change is left up to natural processes. The resulting phenotype is the driving mechanism for change. Genetic enhancement turns that process upside down. Now we are the catalyst for genetic change in the hopes of getting a desired phenotype, which is hardly the same thing as natural genetic mutation. Natural evolution is a slow process, a culmination of many gradual changes over time and multiple generations. Genetic enhancement runs the risk of changing the genetic structure of an organism too drastically and/or too quickly. While I can conceive of genetic enhancements that do neither of these, the possibility still exists to the extent of being a significant concern. Therefore worry on the side of unknown consequences from genetic enhancements is still justified and not refuted as the authors suggest.