Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
nature. “I have always believed that agriculture should proceed in
harmony with nature, recognizing that there are natural limits to our
ambitions,” Prince Charles wrote, adding, “We need to rediscover a rev-
erence for the natural world, irrespective of its usefulness to ourselves,
to become more aware of the relationship between God, man and
creation.”
61
In the United States, populist critics of biotechnology appeal roughly
to the same idea that nature has an essence or form that we disturb when
we alter genomes. This statement by Andrew Kimbrell and Jeremy Rifkin
is representative:
Is there any meaning in the morphology of animals or plants, both externally
and internally? Should we alter nature or mutate, perhaps permanently, the forms
or shapes of the biotic community so that they better conform to our agricul-
tural or industrial needs? . . . What are the ethical implications of the likely pro-
posal to engineer plant or animal genetic material into humans? Finally, who is
to decide these issues: Congress, Scientists, Corporations, Theologians, The
Public? Federal agencies?
62
These remarks capture what may be the most fundamental popular
concern about genetic engineering in agriculture—namely, that it is less
natural than conventional breeding. As one critic commented, “It is now
possible to insert genetic material from species, families and even king-
doms which could not previously be sources of genetic material for a
particular species, and even to insert custom-designed genes that do not
exist in nature. As a result we can create what can be regarded as syn-
thetic life forms, something which could not be done by conventional
breeding.”
63
That conventional breeding was limited, however, does not
imply that there are limits that humanity must respect. As one expert
cautioned, “The living world can now be viewed as a vast organic Lego
kit inviting combination, hybridization, and continual rebuilding. Life is
manipulability.
64
Philosophers and others who are concerned with the nature of
nature often take as a starting point Aristotle's concept of
telos
, that is,
the functional essence or form that identifies each plant or animal
according to its kind.
65
After Aquinas had appropriated Aristotelianism
for Christianity, as Bernard Rollin points out, “
telos
as function became
telos
as Divine purpose, thereby indelibly tainting the concept with a
supernatural flavour that potentiated its rejection by mechanistic,
