Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:03:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HAB:] re: distinctions and risks in genomic technologies


In any case, we agree that the distinction is
important. 

Of course, benefits aren't happening yet. The field is
young. 

Yes, Habermas is against the enhancement potential of
genomic technologies. But his arguments are invalid,
which I indicated in MUCH DETAIL late October and
early November, 2001. For example, the following from
0111.10:

Suppose clinically reliable options for genetic
enhancement, assuming *proven* genetic procedures
(nothing experimental). Suppose completely reliable
options to increase lifespan (e.g., prevention of
chromosomal telomere shortening while virtually
erasing cancerous risk) and increased mental potential
(e.g., immensely increasing neuronal density in the
brain and neuron growth/connecting rates), which
together result in gifted longevity. Suppose that
harmful side-effects are unknown in many years of
experimentation with mice and chimps. Such a
completely reliable research background would be
absolutely required by clinical services, for those
first parents have these procedures available. But in
time--rather quickly--it would be known increasingly
to be the case that harmful side-effects are unknown
with other children (first tens, then hundreds,
etc.)--something which would have been scientifically
predictable from animal models before clinically
available, but which "proves" this to the public. So,
I'm stipulating a situation, as does JH, where only
parental intentions relative to their future child is
the relevant consideration.  

In the event of counseled choice for genetic
enhancement, JH presumes that "the parents were only
looking to their own preferences, as if disposing of
an object" (NYU draft, p.63), rather than, say,
thinking about what's best for their child, i.e.,
enhancing their child’s capability and acting as
child-centered parents. He *presumes* this because he
doesn't consider other options, doesn't argue why this
one "looking" is the situation. Another way of looking
at JH's situation, though, is that his previous
subject-object argumentation [which I’ve covered at
length in earlier postings of the past week] compels
his sense of the parents (which is bogus) or compels
that he is concerned *only inasmuch as* the parents
act egoistically. But the latter begs the question of
evaluating the parents' intentions (probably good
parents vs. probably bad parents) and begs the
liklihood that JH is confronting us with a key problem
(that requires control by prohibitive law), rather
than understanding how to create ethical conditions of
enhanced parenting and how to prevent conditions of
unfairness. JH is working toward prohibitive public
policy rather than preventive public policy. It's like
a criminological approach to lack of education. It
echos a police state with authoritarian citizens. Is
JH arguing with his own adolescence?

[Again, this is a short passage in a long discussion,
covering most all paragraphs in Habermas's discussion
that are pivotal to his case.]

Gary



--- FREDWELFARE-AT-aol.com wrote:

>  
> In a message dated 11/11/2004 8:31:05 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,  
> coherings-AT-yahoo.com writes:
> 
> A  keynote of Hughes' book—shown by the
> regulatory-needs emphasis of the 
> quotes I  providedfrom his *Introduction*—is to
> address the dangers.People who are 
>  vaguely familiar with what the genomiccommunity is
> up to (which is very  
> criticallyself-oriented) act as if that community is
> vaguelyfamiliar with the  
> dangers—as if risk analysis issomething not
> inherent to  biotech.
> 
> 
> My awareness of the opinions of others is that this
> therapeutic-enhancement  
> distinction is
> not understood and that the genomic community is
> considerably misled.   It 
> seems that lobbying efforts are being made to
> qualify this field among the  
> bigshots who so far are not buying in, but the
> therapeutic benefits are not  
> happening and fears arise over the similarities
> between animal studies and  
> possible human experiments.  Now unless I have not
> understood Habermas, he  clearly 
> states that the enhancement thrust is not
> appropriate but this main line  of 
> his is being dissembled by his references as if the
> enhancement thrust is  
> potentially acceptable.  Just because Habermas
> refers to a particular  school does 
> not mean he has endorsed it!!!  But, you are failing
> to address  the political 
> issues I have raised!
>  
> Fred Welfare
> 
> 
> --- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed
> ---
> This message may have contained attachments which
> were removed.
> 
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
> 
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> ---
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 





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