Basic HTML Version
26
he too can dabble in creation. He sees
the possibility that test tubes and tech–
nology may make him more than just
a passive recipient of what is.
Does mankind have the collective
wisdom to properly handle such knowl–
edge and use such abilities?
If
·
man
tmly develops
GODLIKE
capacities to the
point he can create at will
NEW FORMS
OF LIFE,
what wou!d he create? Who
would decide? How would such knowl–
edge be used ?
Asks Rosenfeld, "But
who
is it that
we will appoint to
PLAY GOD for m?
Which scientist - which statesman,
artist, judge, poet, theologian, philoso–
pher, educator - and of which nation,
cace, or creed - will you trust to write
out the specifications, to decide, like
Huxley's Predestinators, which charac–
teristics are desirable and which not
?"
(Page
153.)
Man must soon face these questions
and dilemmas. In the future computers
will be used to enable scientists to com–
pletely map out the human hereditary
blueprint. When that knowledge comes,
would
it
become possible for scientists
to draw up their own "programs,'' and
use computers to devise entirely
NEW.
ORGANISMS?
Would biologists )earn
how to manufacture completely novel
animals, creatures, beings - "improved"
plants, "improved" animals for special–
ized agricultura! purposes - perhaps
even superhuman [
?]
creatures, far sur–
passing meo in strength, intelligence,
and abilities?
This may sound like a Buck Rogers
science-fiction drama, but it isn't. lt's
reaL It's coming. . . . And its implica–
tions are frightening. But another sober–
ing avenue of research deals with the
prospect of man-made immortality.
Man Wants to
"PLAY
GOD!"
Clearly, scientists are beginning to
tinker with awesome powers. The
BIG
question is, how will mankind
USE
such knowledge?
The history of mankind is one filled
with bloodshed, wars , and violence.
Man has not learned to govern his vio–
lent impulses. In view of this,
shottid
geneticists continue playing with poten-
The
PLAIN TRUTH
tial powers which could - and accord–
ing to the testimony of history,
would
-be used amiss?
The possibilities of "gene warfare"
are terrifyingly reaL They compare with
the frightening potential of thermonu–
clear warfare. What are the possibilities
sucb warfare would engulf mankind in
the future? The prospects are not
encouraging, considering the dismal
record mankind has had in blundering
into war in the past.
The awesome new powers man is
developing, or envisions, could acceler–
ate all mankind toward an inevitable
day of reckoning - a bone-chilling day
of Frankenstein-like madness and
catastrophe.
A Moral Dilemma
Although many voices bave been
raised in warning, most scientists tend
to believe that man
ought
to do what–
ever he
can
do. And sorne theologians
go along with this reasoning. Said one:
"If
man can breed better races by gen–
etic
engineering or by making babies in
test tubes, why shouldn't he do it ?" He
added, "Basically,
it
is up to man to
shape his own life."
This conclusion is common. It rnay
sound very convincing. But is it really
valid? Should science do something
simply because it
ca1z
do it ?
Graoted, there is nothing wrong with
true knowledge itself, or knowledge per
se. Devoting one's mind to the acquisi–
tion of knowledge is not in itself neces–
sarily wrong. The basic error lies in
man's
approach
toward knowledge and
what he does with knowledge.
For exarnple, much of scientific and
biomedical research goes toward trans–
planting woro-out or diseased organs,
defective parts, rather than
PREVENl'JNG
the defects or diseases in the first place.
Shouldn't science apply its research
and knowledge production to the
PREVENTION
of the diseases of man–
kind through pursual of preventative
knowledge?
Heart transplants provide a clear
example of this approach toward
knowledge. Burgeoning technology is
making it possible for surgeons to do
September 1971
wooders in heart-transplant surgery.
Says Stanford's Dr. Paul Shumway,
"1
think we'll probably be able to do
about 2,000 to 3,000 heart transplants
annually in America 10 years from
now."
But the real issue, pointed out by Dr.
Thomas Gonda, acting director of the
Stanford hospital, is:
"Why aren't ot.tr
priorities at the other end
-
on the
PREVENTATIVE
MEDJCAL S!DE? ...
If
we could pay 17 cents a da
y
so that
poor expectant mothers could have ade–
quate nutnt10n during tbeir preg–
nancies, we'd be doing more good in
preventing major incapacities of their
offspring. Unless these real problems
are dealt with satisfactorily and
promptly all this spectacular pioneering
isn't going to make much difference."
If
science would devote its primary
effort to
PREVENTING
these medica! and
health problems from acising in the
first place, then great good could be
accomplished. But too many are spend–
ing it searching for sorne "magic bullet"
to cure cancer, sorne new breakthrough
in immunology, sorne new surgical tech–
nique to alter defective genes.
But there is even a more basic consid–
eration behind modero biological
science!
The Great Mistake
This involves the obvious danger of
man steering his own destiny. Such a
danger was very clearly discussed by Dr.
Leroy G. Augenstein, chairman of the
department of biophysics at Michigan
State University:
"Science marches on,
fast and frtl"iomly, lmt al/ too often ou1·
ability to hand/e or¡¡· newfotmd powers
does not keep pace.
Increasingly, the ad–
vances being made in many areas of sci–
ence and technology pose
ethical and
moral dilernrnas which CANNOT be
t·esolved by facls alone'' (Come, Let U.r
Play God,
p.
3).
In many areas of science, says Dr.
Augenstein, our knowledge is doubling
every 7 to 1O years. As the pace quick–
ens, the gap between our ability to dis–
cover new knowledge and to
handle
it
wisely
becomes increasingly greater in
magnitude and peril. The gap steadily