CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

MARTIN ŠOLC

CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ

4.1 The Intangibility of Human Genome? The first of the mentioned problems is closely connected to deep philosophical questions of the meaning and significance of nature or essence of human beings and the human condition. While it is an important issue, it cannot be addressed in this article. We can only note that rejection of human genome modification as such is usually based on its alleged incompatibility with human dignity or with human nature or essence. Both claims are in need of a profound explanation. As widely used in debates as it is, human dignity lacks a universally recognised definition 83 . The claim based on human nature or essence is connected to essentialism, which is an ontological theory according to which objects have some essential properties. If the object lost its essential property, it would no longer be the same object. 84 Therefore, the claim that genetic modification harms human nature means that it threatens to somehow diminish our humanity. While essentialism has been strongly criticised in modern philosophy, 85 it remains an influential way of understanding the world. Regardless of whether the critique is based on human dignity or nature, there is another major question that needs to be addressed. For the genetic modification to be found unethical as such and under any circumstances, it would have to be convincingly explained why it is qualitatively different from all other ways the humans transform their environment as well as themselves. In this respect, different understandings of the term nature might confuse the debate. Most importantly, we would face the question to what extent are the creative powers of human beings part of their nature, and to what extent is this natural character of creative powers transferred to the results of human creative efforts. If we considered our abilities and willingness to constantly change our environment a part of our nature, and if we believed that this leads to the conclusion that the outcomes of our work are natural, then a modern city (or genetic modification) would be no less natural than a bird’s nest. If, on the other hand, we believed that the technical skills of man are somehow not a part of human nature, then we would come to the conclusion that clothing, building houses, healing the ill and injured, or agriculture are not natural. In that case, we would have to explain where is the line between permissible and impermissible interferences with the nature, to which of these categories human genetic modification belongs, and why. Last but not least, the opponents of all genetic modification would need to explain whether and for what reason a change of a disease-causing gene variant into the more common form of the same gene is to be considered unnatural 86 . 4.2 The Threat of the Creation of Designer Babies If we admit that human genetic modification as such can be permissible, it might be argued that human germline modification is impermissible because it could lead to the creation of designer babies. Also this issue is connected to many philosophical problems. First, there is 83 See for example RILEY, Stephen, BOS, Gerhard. Human Dignity. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. accessed 1 June 2019. 84 See for example Encyclopaedia Britannica. Essentialism. accessed 1 June 2019. 85 See for example Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Essential v. Accidental Properties. (18 April 2016.) accessed 1 June 2019. 86 See BEGLEY, Sharon. As calls mount to ban embryo editing with CRISPR, families hit by inherited diseases say, not so fast. STAT. (17 April 2019.) accessed 6 June 2019.

374