Scientific Advances Carry A Moral Price Tag

The history of science is full of examples of advances that seemed marvelous at first, but later turned out to have unexpected effects. Synthetic chemicals--detergents, for example--were produced and used on a large scale before anyone recognized the problems caused by their inability to biodegrade. A similarly adverse situation manifests itself today in the depletion of the ozone layer. The problem is more troubling when the effects of scientific development are legal or sociological. In such cases, developers are even less able to anticipate the consequences, since they lie beyond their expertise. The field of genetic engineering and DNA manipulation--applied, for instance, in the creation of DNA "fingerprints" for criminal investigations--is an important arena in which such problems are likely to occur. Assuming the reliability of genetic identification, major issues of privacy loom ahead, given the abundance of genetic information about individuals that could become available. Will such information be destroyed after a case is over? If it is kept, where? And if kept, who will have access to it? Will the individual be informed about its uses? Another rapidly developing field involves genetic susceptibility to cancer and other environmental hazards. We now know that there is substantial individual variation among people in their responses to chemical exposures, one of the variables being the genetic ability to overcome the effect of exposure to a specific substance. The degree of such genetic ability will often help determine whether exposure in fact leads to disease, and tests to identify relevant "genetic markers" are being developed for law enforcement agencies and employers. Many employers, once armed with this information, may well decide to limit their liability and medical costs not by removing the hazardous substance in the workplace, but by removing the susceptible worker. When such susceptibility is associated with race or national origin--determined by tests that are not yet sensitive enough to pinpoint individuals within these groups--the potential for discrimination looms large. This scenario is not fanciful. Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court decided a case in which a manufacturer of automobile batteries decided to bar women of child-bearing age from certain jobs because exposure to lead might cause fetal defects in women who became pregnant. The court struck down the practice as a violation of federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in employment. But similar problems could arise if employers tried to bar people with sickle-cell trait, which occurs most frequently among blacks; glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, which is most common among blacks and people of Mediterranean descent; and serum alpha antitrypsin deficiency, which correlates with lung disease and is most prevalent in people of Central European ancestry. A new law protecting people with disabilities from employment discrimination may provide some protection, but the law is not clear in this area, and the social, economic, and political consequences are hard to anticipate fully. We need to think through all of this most carefully and codify our concerns into enforceable legal limits before we begin to collect genetic information. Scientists developing such techniques ought not to stop doing so because of such problems, but it is reasonable to suggest that they bear some responsibility to help those of us who will have to deal with the social and legal consequences of their inventions. Helping to anticipate such effects and guiding those who are not scientists through the technological thickets may be one of the most important endeavors for scientists to undertake as we move closer to acquiring powers that we used to think were reserved to God or chance. Ira Glasser is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York.

Scientific Advances Carry A Moral Price Tag

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of