Ethics has been around since the first human civilizations, with written ethical frameworks emerging in Asia as early as 1500 B.C.E.. Throughout the centuries, ethics has evolved to reflect more modern understandings of equality and justice, but certain frameworks like the virtues framework have remained relatively unchanged. What has changed, however, is the situations in which ethics needs to be applied. Bioethics is a rapidly growing field that attempts to address the complicated moral questions proposed by the astounding advancements in medicine, life sciences, and technology that have been developing. Bioethics considers whether everything that we theoretically can do, such as cloning or human genetic editing or the use of stem cells is something that we should do, and involves the principles of nonmaleficence (don’t do bad), beneficence (do good), respect for autonomy, and justice (making sure that everyone is treated fairly). Some frameworks used in bioethical decision making are The Utilitarian Approach, which is focused on which option does more good than harm, The Common Good Approach, which is focused on how actions affect the community life, The Rights Approach, which centers on respecting the fundamental rights of individuals, The Justice Approach, which involves treating individuals equally, and The Virtue Approach, which asks the question “What kind of person would I be if I did the action in question?”.
Superintelligence!
We got the opportunity to apply these principles and approaches in several ways. One of the first things that we did to practice our bioethical decision making was to watch a TedTalk and come up with an ethical argument about the benefits or drawbacks of the technology being discussed. I chose the talk “What happens when our computers get smarter than we are?” by Nick Bostram because I don’t know as much about AI ethics, aside from the dramatized apocalypses I’ve seen on TV, and I’m very worried about the loss of natural human intelligence due to AI. Bostrom argues that if there are only relatively small differences between the minds of humans and chimpanzees, but yet a very dramatic difference between the capabilities of the two species, then further small changes to the human brain and how we humans think could have very major consequences for humanity. He suggests that although the initial development of AI would take many years and lots of hard work, the AI would then quickly move past human intelligence, and then that superintelligent computer would be the last invention that humanity ever needed to make. He reasons that superintelligence is like an optimization process, and that to control AI, which he suggests would quickly go beyond human control, superintelligence would need to be motivated to please humans and learn human values.
I agree that we cannot assume our control over an AI model and use traditional methods to dominate the superintelligence, but I would then suggest that maybe we shouldn’t develop superintelligence at all. However, that is probably unrealistic, as even if the government and big companies moved away from superintelligence, then individuals would still find a way of creating the AI, maybe with even less safety regulations. I worry that we already are losing our ability to think critically because of AI, and think of a world like the one in WALL-E, where humans let AI do all the thinking for us and waste away. Nonetheless, I see all of the benefits of AI, like self-driving cars and improvements in medicine, and would recommend the video because we all need to think about the consequences of AI as a very real and current issue and debate the ethics of superintelligence if we are going to go into the AI age informed. I think that many people would defend superintelligence using the utilitarian approach, saying that the good AI does outweighs the bad, but I would argue that superintelligence could negatively impact the rights of those affected using the rights approach, because AI might start taking away the autonomy of people to make choices, might distort the truth, therefore denying people the right to informed consent, and might impact the right to privacy as well by listening in to people’s private conversations and using the data without permission.
CRISPR, stylistic rendering
We also watched the documentary Human Nature, which was mainly about the creation and ethics of CRISPR. I especially liked the beginning of the documentary, which discussed the mechanism of CRISPR and CRISPR’s connection to yogurt cultures. I was fascinated to hear about how while CRISPR is named for the repeats in bacterial DNA that scientists observed, the spacers that are from the virus that infected the bacteria were actually what was very important in CRISPR-Cas9 acting as an immune system for the bacteria. In terms of ethics, CRISPR raises many concerns, such as how CRISPR could bring about a society where the rich are genetically “superior” to the poor and divisions in society are even more substantial than today. Many people are uneducated about genetics and might assume that genes determine everything about a person, when in fact genes are only a part of a complex network of factors including environmental ones that determine who a person is. I personally don’t think that the CRISPR technology is inherently evil, or that humans are, I just think that in the wrong hands, and without the right regulations, the technology could be used in evil ways, so the field of biotechnology is essential.
Additionally, we practiced our bioethics skills through being given scenarios and then choosing one of two options based on which we thought was more ethical, before explaining our reasoning and why someone might think differently from us. I really liked that we had to come up with counter arguments because there are usually no perfect answers in bioethics and all different opinions have validity. I chose the case study on reporting incidental findings where a woman named Barbara participated in a genetic study to help her son but then found out that she was at high risk for developing Alzheimer’s. I said no, Barbara participated in the study to help her son and had not expressed any interest in learning about her own genetics. The researchers delivered grave news about a disease she cannot prevent. My specific opinion, though, is that the researchers acted unethically by not telling Barbara ahead of time that the study could uncover information about her genome unrelated to her son’s MS. She should have been allowed, using the principle of respect for autonomy, to decide whether she would participate in the study or not knowing that her participation could lead to the uncovering of her genetic predispositions for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, which would have allowed her to give her fully informed consent to the study. Telling Barbara about her risk for a disease with no cure and no preventative measures when she had not expressed interest in learning about her own risk does harm, going against the principle of beneficence, because now Barbara worries all the time about her risk and may be at higher risk for depression or anxiety due to the risk. We learned in class from the genetic counselor presentations that before genetic testing, all family members have to sign a lot of paperwork, ensuring that the individuals know about what genetic risks could be uncovered by the testing, so the researchers should have followed a similar protocol with Barbara. My choice actually was in the minority of votes, with only 40% agreeing with me. I think that’s because I made my choice based on my opinion that the scenario was unethical, with Barbara not being fully informed ahead of time, not because I thought that the researchers were necessarily wrong in telling her.
Others might argue that telling Barbara was right because of the principle of beneficence, because telling her could do her good by allowing her to better plan her life and motivating her to continue to maintain a healthy and active lifestyle. People with the view opposite to me might also argue that telling her conforms to the principle of justice because if healthcare providers start deciding what information about genetic risks should be shared with a patient, some patients might unfairly not be told about a genetic risk, while others are told. Additionally, someone might argue that telling Barbara about her genetic risk is essential because healthcare providers shouldn’t ever be allowed to keep information about a patient from that patient, whose autonomy as an individual with a right to know all available information before making future medical decisions would be compromised.
My team’s pGLO transformation lab results!
In class, we got to genetically edit E. coli to make the bacteria glow green under UV light, which was a very exciting hands-on way to apply what we had been learning about biotechnology. I like the logic of the experiment, particularly the use of plates with ampicillin to select for transformed bacteria, since the plasmid that we used for transformation also conferred resistance to the antibiotic. Ethically, I think that the genetic modification of bacteria is not very controversial because no humans or sentient beings are harmed. In fact, connecting with the principle of beneficence, the genetic modification of bacteria can lead to some very positive effects, such as how bacteria can be genetically modified to produce human insulin for people with diabetes.
Overall, I think that bioethics is a very interesting subject that asks us to look deeper at the moral effects of our actions, and I hope to see bioethics continue to grow in the future as technology continues to develop. As someone who hopes to go into biotechnology in the future, I’m glad that I have been exposed to bioethics here at NDB so that I can think about the ethics of new treatments, that, while created with the best of intentions, might have unintended negative consequences.
Here are some links to learn more:
If you want to learn more about genetics, check out my posts here and here!
- You can watch the trailer for Human Nature here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9612680/
- You can practice bioethical decision making yourself here: https://knowgenetics.org/bioethic-considerations/
- You can learn more about CRISPR-Cas9 here:
- https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/genomicresearch/genomeediting/
- You can watch Nick Bostrom’s Ted Talk here:
- https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_bostrom_what_happens_when_our_computers_get_smarter_than_we_are
- You can learn about pGLO transformation here:
- https://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article/81/1/52/91863/Transformation-of-Escherichia-coli-with-the-pGLO
As always, thank you for reading! I hope that you enjoyed learning about bioethics!
No comments:
Post a Comment