The Lives to Come

Philip Kitcher's The Lives to Come is a thorough, nuanced look at the moral and social issues surrounding new genetic technologies. Kitcher starts the book with clear explanations of the basic science of genes and genetic technology, making the book accessible to non-scientists, and laying the groundwork for the rest of the book. He then addresses questions about uses and misuses of genetic technologies, including genetic profiling, forensics, and gene therapy. He discusses philosophical dilemmas around "playing god", the idea of human nature, and the fear that unveiling mysteries about human biology will diminish our sense of meaning and abolish the notion of freewill. The real heart of the book is his delve into the topic of eugenics, which he calls "inescapable" with our current technology. He disambiguates the general concept from previous eugenic practices in Europe and the US, and lays out guidelines for a system of "utopian eugenics". These guidelines include personal decision-making, health education and counseling, and equal access to technologies. Though Kitcher's book was published almost a decade ago, the issues it explores are just as relevant--and unresolved--today. It remains one of the best explorations of the vital moral and social issues brought up by our rapidly increasing biotechnological capabilities.

This is a credible and sober work. Kitcher considers the expansion of gene- testing which is about to come , and its implications. He relates primarily to 'negative eugenics ' and the possibility of preventing disease and human suffering. He does not really speak about the more fantastic kinds of ' genetic engineering ' which would enhance humans. The work was published ten years ago, and there has been great scientific progress in this time, including the mapping of the human genome. But most of the problems and questions here are still of great importance. And this book can provide valuable insight into them.

I use this book in a class covering biology and ethics. This is still the only book that I have found that addresses such a range of genetic ethical issues in an accessible way that doesn't overwhelm (or overly bore) students. I occasionally have to give students updates on where some of the technology is now (almost a dacade after the book was first published). In general students find it to be an enjoyable read as well as enlightening. I also thingk it is well written and is especially accessible to those with an interest in genetics who may not have a large amount of background. I wish an updated revised edition would be printed.

This thorough analysis of the implications and responsibilities of "the loss of genetic innocence" (that is, the obtainment of knowledge on our DNA that can and will propose novel ways of conducting ourselves in society)is explored from practically every possible perspective. It is historically confronted with nazi eugenics as well as projected towards the twentyfirst century with a brave-new-world-type hypothetical "genetic report card" of every citizen. But most importantly, the author uses real and current situations to expose to the reader many plausible interpretations and uses of that genetic understanding. Unlike other reviews posted here, I do not believe that the key issue in this book is trying to decide which specific traits we should "select for or against" (or even who to clone), but to reflect upon how are we to decide, as a scientifically initiated society with major political and ethical responsibilities, what the demarcations for genetic health or sickness are, as well as when personal or collective actions need to be taken. In sum, how to take the best advantage of that knowledge -because we cannot ignore it-, without surrendering to its mistakes.

The Genetic Revolution and Human Possibilities by Philip Kitcher, he takes a shot at several aspects of eugenics without ever really coming to grips empirically with the data, but does a fair job of bringing forth relevant issues that need to be debated from all perspectives. Kitcher sounds the alarm with regards to disability activists who are fearful that terminating pregnancies because of genetic disease will "worsen the plight of those who are born with conditions, both through the withdrawal of support and through loss of respect." As I noted earlier, this is absurd, as society is marching towards ever greater empathy and concern for others, while improving human chances of a life free of disease. The polio vaccine did not bring about less support or empathy, and there is no evidence that genetic screening and aborting children who will have little chance of a meaningful life will do so either. So we must dismiss such concerns without some evidence to the contrary. Kitcher supports what he calls laissez-faire eugenics (personal eugenics henceforth) while dismissing utopian eugenics (social eugenics henceforth) as going too far. His objection is simply with social eugenics, asking what traits would be enhanced? I would argue that intelligence, being the only trait humans are noted for, one that separates us from other creatures, while all other traits are part of the limbic system and are common to other animals, that we can select intelligence as the one trait worth selecting for. Free of disease, the human that has a higher intelligence has been shown to be on average more moral, more responsible, freer of violent action, and will be more productive resulting in making more resources available for the betterment of all people. Kitcher points out that the most money spent on health care in the US is used to treat people in the last 18 months of life. It would seem that this will only become more of a financial burden on society, and we must have a population that is very productive in the short time allotted for production rather than benefiting from shared resources. That is, people in the future may only work about one-third of their natural lives. The majority must become more productive in order to meet the demands of an ever aging population. He does feel strongly that children that would be born into the world with little chance of hope should be aborted, and that this shows the greatest respect for human life. And I have to agree with him that even those who believe that humans have souls, abortion would only free the soul from a physical body that has little chance at a meaningful life, and may not even be capable of finding salvation because of a lack of cognition. Abortion it would seem would save such a soul from eternal damnation and would be the only humane thing to do. After all, God has given all humans free will according to evangelical Christians, and a severely retarded person could not