Download - Hub Zwart

More documents

Recommendations

Info

H. <strong>Zwart</strong>the more zealous students recorded his intentionsin their notebooks: Begin at the beginning.‘‘These’’, he waved his hand, ‘‘are the incubators.’’And in opening an insulated door heshowed them racks upon racks of numberedtest-tubes. ‘‘The week’s supply of ova. Kept’’, heexplained, ‘‘at blood heat; whereas the malegametes’’, and here he opened another door,‘‘they have to be kept at thirty-five instead ofthirty-seven’’. Still leaning against the incubatorshe gave them … a brief description of themodern fertilizing process; spoke first, ofcourse, of its surgical introduction – ‘‘theoperation undergone voluntarily for the goodof Society, not to mention the fact that it carriesa bonus amounting to six months’ salary…’’etc. (Huxley 1932/1947, p. 9).This quotation was taken from the famous openingchapter of Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave NewWorld (1947) in which literary tools are used for anexploration of the future. Huxley did not write hisnovel in a vacuum, ex nihilo, of course. On thecontrary, it was a contribution to an already existingstream of literature that had begun to emerge around1900 and consisted of publications written predominantlyby authors who were scientist, novelists, orboth. Gradually but steadily, the ideas addressed inthese writings migrated from novels, plays and storiesinto scientific publications. Indeed, in the course ofthe 20th century, there was a steady trek of such ideasfrom utopia (or dystopia) to science, to borrow afamous title from the writings of Friedrich Engels(1880/1976). What Engels outlined with regard tosocialism, applies to bioscience as well: due to theinitial immaturity of scientific developments, thevisions involved, envisioning an ‘‘ideal’’ sciencedrivensociety (as alluring as they were uncanny),were more a matter of foresight and fiction thanreality. They were idealistic and even naïve, andcondemned to producing utopian (or dystopian)views—utopian or dystopian depending on the(technophilic or technophobic) denomination of thereader. And the more these views were fleshed out indetail, the more their phantasmatic nature becameapparent. Yet, in the course of the century, this clearlychanged. In 1978 Louise Brown, the first IVF childwas born, an important milestone for reproductivebiomedicine, but also an example of science fictionbecoming reality, or utopia becoming science. Inpublic media, this ‘‘test-tube’’ baby was emphaticallypresented as a perfectly normal and healthy child. Yeta technique that was initially directed towards reproducingnormalcy, could in principle provide a windowfor modification and enhancement as well.Finally, the century that began with Mendel and Loebresulted in a famous Press Conference (June 26 2000)where President Bill Clinton, together with FrancisCollins and Craig Venter, formally announced that thehuman genome sequencing effort was nearing itscompletion, opening-up a plethora of potential uses ofhuman genomics information in various fields. Thepress conference amounted to something of a scienceshow, the penultimate movement in a technoscientificstrip-tease, for in reality nature still strived to concealherself even then, as Herakleitos had already stated: theConsortium had to continue its sequencing efforts foranother 4 years to come before the Human GenomeProject could really be considered ‘‘completed’’.The question I intend to address in this article ishow we are to assess the bioethical and biopoliticalchallenges these developments entail for healthmanagement by individuals and society, for personalas well as for public health. There is a widespreadconviction that, as scientific research is moving intonew terrain, philosophical and bioethical discoursesare challenged to adapt themselves to the novelcircumstances thus emerging. Massive, technologydrivenresearch efforts, directed at producing staggeringamounts of bioinformation, are bound to raisenew issues that reanimate the philosophical andbioethical paradigms of the recent past. But what dothese challenges amount to and what would beneeded in order to address them in adequate ways?The article will start with a short historicalretrospect concerning the maturation of utopian ideasinto scientific research practices as outlined above,focussing on literary writings by Wells, Huxley and(finally) Houellebecq. Building on this concise historicalreview of fiction and forecast, I will thenaddress the question what kind of future is awaitingus, what kind of utopia (or dystopia) is implied incontemporary genomics science as it is currentlyemerging, and what this entails for the conceptualframeworks and methods of biophilosophers andbioethicists. In order to address this question, I willfirst of all reflect on recent writings of the Germanphilosopher Peter Sloterdijk and, to a lesser extent, on123
From Utopia to Sciencethose of Michel Foucault. Notably in his provocativelecture ‘‘Rules for the human park’’ (1999/2001),Sloterdijk deliberates precisely on this type of issueby announcing the emergence of what he refers to asa new wave of ‘‘anthropotechnologies’’, technologiesthat pervade our ‘‘essence’’ (notably our genome andour brain) and the question will be how we are toassess them in terms of ‘‘biopower’’ and ‘‘practices ofthe Self’’. Subsequently, in order to move from apanoramic and philosophical to a more concrete andbioethical level, I will focus on two particular fieldsof application where the implications of genomics forbiomanagement are now beginning to present themselvesand that therefore constitute important stagesettings for exploring the future uses of genomics andbioinformation, namely the professional sportsdomain and the animal husbandry domain.The Beginning: The Year 1900The year 1900 has been regarded as a quantum leapin the history of science, a kind of CambrianExplosion of novel ideas. In the realm of thehumanities, Freud launched the psychoanalyticalmovement with his Interpretation of Dreams andHusserl launched the phenomenological movementwith his Logical Investigations. The sense of rupturewas even more acute in the scientific realm, with theintroduction of the quantum concept by Planck(thereby launching quantum physics), the introductionof the mutation concept by De Vries, thediscovery of blood types by Landsteiner and (ofcourse) the rediscovery of the work of Mendel. All ofa sudden, the basic conviction proliferated amongscientists working in various fields (like an intellectualepidemic) that nature does make leaps (naturafacit saltus) and that characteristics of entities dependon the presence or absence of discrete elements, be itelementary particles, antigens or genes. This convictionwas at odds with the idea, dominant throughoutthe 19th Century, that nature progresses throughaccumulations of infinitesimal changes. Darwin forexample was so thoroughly convinced of this that heexplicitly stated on no less than seven occasions inThe origin of species that nature does not make leaps(natura non facit saltus).In that same period, around the year 1900, biologistJacques Loeb (1899/1905) put forward the idea thatbiology should give way to biotechnology. Organismscan be manipulated by adding certain chemicalsubstances to their environments. He discovered forinstance that, by manipulating their external milieu,‘‘artificial parthenogenesis’’ (non-sexual reproduction)could be induced in sea urchins and he concludedthat, in principle, artificial reproduction in ‘‘mammals’’(that is: humans) would be possible as well. Inthe textbook The science of life (1931/1938), writtenby H.G. Wells (the science fiction writer who also wasa prominent biologist) in collaboration with his sonand with Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous), Loeb’sideas were discussed in an anticipatory manner: ‘‘Inmammals (again: this should be read as humans) theovum is inaccessible to the experimenter, so that wedo not know whether artificial parthenogenesis ispossible. There is no reason to suppose that it isnot…’’ (1931/1938, p. 509). From here, Loeb’sseminal biotechnological ideas made their way tothe first chapter of Aldous Huxley’s novel, whichcontains clear references to Loeb’s experimentalwork. Basically, Loeb claimed that nature (includingthe human body) should be regarded as raw materialfor future biotechnologists to work with. Biologistsshould become bio-engineers, focussed on improvingrather than on understanding nature (Pauly 1987).Huxley’s novel basically seems to suggest that at acertain point, reproduction (biologically speaking ourmost important ‘‘assignment’’ in life) cannot be leftto individuals (or rather, to couples). Sooner or later,the modern nation-state has to assume its responsibility,has to begin to govern this process in a morerationalistic, scientific, post-fatalistic and evidencebasedmanner, in order to assure the physical andmental well-being and quality of life of the generalpopulation and of future generations through topdownfamily planning. Thus, Huxley’s novel is aliterary exploration of what Foucault (1976) and hisfollowers have analysed in terms of biopolitics andbiopower. In Huxley’s novel, the state is seen as animmense biological plant, a giant hatchery forproducing high-quality human beings, a modern,scientific version of Plato’s science-based ‘‘ideal’’state. Therefore, his novel is a modern counterpart ofPlato’s Republic, where the same proposition is putforward. In order to significantly enhance theperformance of the city-state, the guardians willhave to seize control over reproduction, training andeducation.123
Page 1: Medicine StudiesDOI 10.1007/s12376-
Page 5 and 6: From Utopia to Sciencenarrative of
Page 7 and 8: From Utopia to Scienceface the chal
Page 9 and 10: From Utopia to Sciencebe on the use
Page 11 and 12: From Utopia to Sciencethe laborator

Download - Hub Zwart

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?