I believe that as we continue to make amazing progress in scientific breakthroughs, we have so much potential to improve the health of hundreds of millions of people, even billions of people in our world. However, as a society, do we have a good, common understanding of the purpose of science, the values that guide our decisions, and the effect it has on the health and well-being of our society? How has it been in times past? Historically, how have societies thought of the philosophy of biology and health?
Until the late 18th and early 19th century, there wasn’t a clear distinction between a “philosopher” and a “scientist.” Up until this period they went hand in hand with one another; philosophy helping create the scientific method and science allowing for a sound way to test philosophical theories. The Philosophy of Science is thought to have begun with early western philosophers, including the likes of Plato and Aristotle. In modern times, the Philosophy of Science has shifted. The roles have seemingly reversed. Scientific innovations are being made at breakneck speed and scale; considerations of purpose, values, and social impact seem to come as an afterthought.
In this regard, given my interest in biology and especially genetics, I find the example of Eugenics over the last century very instructive. In the early twentieth century, some in the American scientific community became preoccupied by the idea of creating a “stronger” society through “preferred” breeding. While not nearly as extreme as the horrors that occurred in Nazi Germany, there is a dark history of abusing scientific ideas and innovations under the pretext of social good even in the US. In the early 20th century, the ideas of Gregor Mendel – the father of genetics – and his work regarding inheritance and the human genome were still fairly new. His most popular work – providing an insight into the nature of dominant and recessive genes – became popular in American culture and the beginning of eugenics. Society began to compare people to livestock and promoted the benefits of selective breeding. This meant encouraging “fit” parents, based on societal norms, to have more children. On the flip-side, new laws were put into place restricting the reproduction of the “unfit” in society, including the poor, criminals, the mentally ill, and some racial minorities. Rather than treating, educating, and rehabilitating these people, society chose to follow the ideas of Darwinism – survival of the fittest. As a result, tens of thousands of Americans were unjustly sterilized. In order to further encourage selective breeding, states such as Indiana and Iowa hosted “best baby” contests at state fairs – crowning the winner based on ethnicity, mental capacity, and physical fitness.
While a seemingly harmless idea with the goal of bettering society, the execution abused scientific knowledge and unethically stripped people from basic human rights. Despite the blatant ethical issues with these practices, very little was done to protect people from such policies. For example, in Buck v. Bell, the SCOTUS ruled the practice of authorized sterilization as legal and in compliance with one’s constitutional rights. I went back and reviewed the case syllabus to learn the reasoning behind this ruling. Buck v. Bell followed Carrie Buck, a “feeble minded white woman” who came from a line of other“illegitimate feeble minded” women. The court supported the decision of authorized sterilization on two counts. One factor was “that experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, imbecility, &c.” In their opinions, legalizing authorized sterilization of any patient that displayed these hereditary traits was for the “best interests of the patients and of society”. The second factor was that the operation proceeded only after “months of observation,” therefore allowing for due process of the law and not interfering with one’s constitutional rights (Justia US Supreme Court). Despite the clear ethical issues with such programs and how they promoted racial and scientific ignorance, laws, and society deemed it appropriate to continue. It wasn’t until after the horrors that occurred in Nazi concentration camps during World War II that these ideas began to change.
Despite the halt of such programs in the second half of the 20th century, the advent of new scientific breakthroughs in the 1970s proved another test for society’s philosophy of biology and health. In 1978, Louise Brown became the first human conceived through IVF, thanks to scientific advancements made by Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards. The science itself was created for a good cause: allowing even those suffering from infertility to reproduce and have children and families. Over the decades, over six million babies have been born as a result of IVF! However, this new technology raised new concerns about ethics, social discrepancies, gender discrimination, and abuse. People were worried that these reproductive technologies would lead to editing life for cosmetic reasons: such as gender, intelligence, looks, or athleticism. In April of 1992, the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act was put into place to help regulate and control the use of such technology. Even the inventor of IVF Robert Edwards, later in 2004, spoke to the Parliamentary Committee on Science of Technology about the fine line between using genetic and reproductive technology for good rather than eugenics. Society, it seemed at least for the time being, had found a good balance to benefit from biology while limiting its ills. At least until the next scientific breakthrough!
In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui made the first genome-edited babies using new CRISPR technology. The twin girls had been genetically modified to reduce their risk and ability to contract HIV. Despite being a breakthrough in biotechnology, it also sent the science world into a frenzy. When should one be allowed to use such technology on other humans, based on ethical and moral codes? Should gene-editing be limited to cure disease, or could it also be used for preventive and cosmetic purposes? Should there be common global standards? Old ideas of superior breeding and using technology to create a stronger society – based on genetics – have led to both contemporary biological innovations and new ethical issues. This is only one example of how old ideas have throughout history reappeared and sparked ethical and moral questions as technology has evolved. New questions regarding the Philosophy of Biology and Health are still left unanswered. Challenges for my generation to take on and resolve!