It is an unfortunate fact of life that politics and technology are often intertwined. While the scientific ideal may be that research and scientific breakthroughs should be allowed to occur unfettered by political considerations, the truth is that a lot of what is happening in the scientific community today is pushing up against the comfort zones of some religious conservatives, which immediately makes it a political issue.
Two widely known examples are stem cell research and cloning. Both of these technologies offer a huge amount of promise in curing problems that afflict the human condition, but some aspects of the technology currently rely on embryos. That puts the technology in the cross-hairs of the Religious Right, since in their view the use of embryos in such a manner is akin to murder. Never mind that the embryos being used were headed for a dumpster behind a fertility clinic anyway; they must think it better to stand on principle and let humanity suffer from ailments like paralysis or organ damage rather than use embryos that were destined for disposal anyway. Thankfully, most Americans don’t see the issue this way.
This is not all to say that emerging trends in science should not be subjected to an examination of its ethics. Writers and technologists like Ray Kurzweil predict an imminent acceleration of science in nanotechnology, biotechnology, and robotics that in just a few decades will fundamentally alter the very definition of what it means to be human. As described in his book, “The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology,” we are headed towards of a future of sentient computers, ever-lasting life, a clean environment, and a merging of humans with machines. Such a future is both exciting and frightening, but undoubtedly fraught with much ethical peril. Kurzweil himself admits that these emerging technologies could also be used to extinguish all life on the planet far more efficiently than anything available today.
The ethical question to ask, then, is what we should do with such dangerous technology–and whether its benefits outweigh its potential dangers. That’s a different question from asking whether the technology offends the religious sensibilities of some people, especially over as unanswerable a question as whether life begins at birth or at conception.
Bill Joy, the founder of Sun Microsystems, has nightmares about Kurzweil’s future, which caused him to write his seminal article in Wired titled “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us.” He examined the probable end result of emerging technology and concluded that it is so dangerous that humanity should relinquish it:
These possibilities are all thus either undesirable or unachievable or both. The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge…The new Pandora’s boxes of genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics are almost open, yet we seem hardly to have noticed. Ideas can’t be put back in a box; unlike uranium or plutonium, they don’t need to be mined and refined, and they can be freely copied. Once they are out, they are out. Churchill remarked, in a famous left-handed compliment, that the American people and their leaders “invariably do the right thing, after they have examined every other alternative.” In this case, however, we must act more presciently, as to do the right thing only at last may be to lose the chance to do it at all.
Relinquishment may or may not be a pipe dream–has humanity ever NOT researched a potential area of study? But at least Joy and people like him are asking the right questions: what are the implications of the technology for the human race and the planetary environment? Will the problems caused outweigh the potential benefits? Does the fact that industry rather than government will have control of these new technologies (unlike nuclear weapons) give greater cause for concern? Will we increase the divide between the “haves” and “have nots” because of the expense of adopting new technology?
Politicians are not competent to answer these questions, especially those driven by the religious beliefs of a few. They generally lack the background in philosophy, ethics, and technology required. Even if they attempt to control the technology’s development they are bound to fail and only end up harming their own constituencies. The only result of Bush’s ban on use of government funding on stem cell research using human embryos is that the United States is falling behind the curve compared to other nations who are continuing their research. Thankfully, privately funded efforts like the new Harvard Stem Cell Institute are filling some of the gap, but it is shameful that our government is not fully behind this important research.
The job of politicians is to understand the profound impact that new technology has on improving the economy and enhancing our standard of living, and to promote the education needed to maintain our technological edge in these fields. They should also implement safeguards against the known dangers of new technology, such as the FDA’s proposed regulation of nanotechnology materials. It is not their job to engage in grandstanding and adopt moral principles based on religious values not shared by all. Scientific communities like the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence are well aware of the ethical and philosophical implications of their work and are best suited to bringing the necessary experts together to devise ethical guidelines for other researchers to follow. A general consensus on the part of our citizens is also important–a solid majority of people approve of stem cell research, for example.
I’ll be writing about new advances in technology in this otherwise mostly-political blog, because I’m a strong believer in the power of technology to improve the human condition, the environment, and our economy. The rise of global competition makes it more important than ever that the US maintain its creative edge and scientific prowess. As such it is imperative that we understand what’s going on in scientific circles and pressure our politicians to facilitate rather than block these wonderful new technologies in a responsible manner, guarding the safety of humans and the environment with the minimum amount of regulation possible.
