Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:29:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HAB:] re: distinctions and risks in genomic technologies


re: Fred, re: "democratic transhumanism"

>This hoopla over enhancement at the expense of
therapeutic needs is itself problematic, 

G: Which hoopla? The quote you're responding to didn't
say anything about ignoring therapeutic needs. I
quoted from a book *about enhancement* culture as a
subject for democratic theory. It so happens that
Hughes (the author of the book) relies on Gregory
Stock's work, which is premised on the difference—as
well as focusing on the _Choice and Chance_ group
(which Habermas discussed), which is premised on that
difference. The distinction is common fare in the
genomic research community, including in the stem cell
debate.

F>  I think  that genetic enhancement is a necessarily
later development and goal than are the therapeutic
necessities.  

G: I think you're right—and the entire genomic
research community presumes such a prioritization, I
believe. 

F> There are very serious dangers to this
technology,....

G: A keynote of Hughes' book—shown by the
regulatory-needs emphasis of the quotes I provided
from his *Introduction*—is to address the dangers.
People who are vaguely familiar with what the genomic
community is up to (which is very critically
self-oriented) act as if that community is vaguely
familiar with the dangers—as if risk analysis is
something not inherent to biotech. In a sense, though,
biotech is all about gaining benefits without
significant levels of danger. (That's not to say that
the work is always successful at avoiding the dangers,
which is partly what makes it all so difficult—and why
there is the Food & Drug Administration— and why
politicization of the FDA is dangerous.) 

Gary





     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---