接下來是相反的意見：兩個支持基因工程的著名科學家。DNA碼的發現人之一，諾貝爾得主詹姆士•華生博士（Dr. James D. Watson）的觀察角度如下：
13. 詹姆士•華生（J.D. Watson）一九八六年九月二十二日及二十七日，發自冷泉港的私函。見狄柏•桑拓（Tibor R. Szanto）所著「科學裡的價質社區：重組脫氧核醣核酸（DNA）的真相」一文，收錄於湯瑪斯•布藍特等編輯、紐約奧爾班尼市SUNY出版社出版的《爭議性的科學：從知足到鬥爭》第二六0頁， 附註五。
14. 華生，一九七八出版，第一五九頁，引用於狄柏•桑拓（Tibor R. Szanto）所著「科學裡的價質社區：重組脫氧核醣核酸（DNA）的真相」一文，收錄於湯瑪斯•布藍特等編輯，紐約奧爾班尼市Suny出版社出版的《爭議的科學：從知足到鬥爭》第二四四頁。華生也對基因療法的安全問題作如下評論：有人呼籲對於基因療法持謹慎態度，並遵循政府管理章程，我對此嗤之以鼻。華生是紐約長島（Long Island）冷泉港實驗室（Cold Spring Harbor Laboratary）的總裁，他於一九六二年因解讀出脫氧核醣核酸（DNA）的結構而獲得諾貝爾獎，並成立人類基因集計劃。華生說：「如果我們等到體腔細胞的工作完成後，才嘗試生殖細胞的工作，太陽可能早就燃燒完了。」他對於以一概全認為一切基因改造都是不好的說法，也頗不以為然。他質疑：「如果我們知道如何加入基因，而能改進人類，為甚麼不去做呢？」「我們最大的道德問題在於不運用我們的知識。」（凱曦•斯菲陶（Kathy Svitil）所著，一九九八年五月二十日公佈於《發現雜誌》網站的「勇敢新基因」一文。〈http://www.discover.com/science_news/index.html〉）
16. 喬治•華德（George Wald）所著「對基因工程的控訴」一文，收錄於強生與史蒂哲編輯、一九七九年由紐澤西州鷹歌林崖市（Englewood Cliff, NJ）的新學徒堂出版社（Prentice-Hall）所出版《重組脫氧核酸（DNA）的辯論》第一二八頁。（翻印自一九七六年《科學》第九/十月期。）
(Permission is granted to reproduce this article, to distribute it without charge, and to provide links to it. Please contact the author at
firstname.lastname@example.org regarding other uses.)
In contrast, here are two examples of prominent scientists who support genetic engineering. Co-discoverer of the DNA code and Nobel Laureate Dr. James D. Watson takes this approach: On the possible diseases created by recombinant DNA, Watson wrote in March 1979:
'I would not spend a penny trying to see if they exist' (Watson 1979:113).
Watson's position is that we must go ahead until we experience serious disadvantages. We must take the risk of even a catastrophe that might be hidden in recombinant DNA technology. According to him that is how learning works: until a tiger devours you, you don't know that the jungle is dangerous.13
What is wrong with Watson's analogy? If Watson wants to go off into the jungle and put himself at risk of being eaten by a tiger, that is his business. What gives him the right to drag us all with him and put us at risk of being eaten? When genetically engineered organisms are released into the environment, they put us all at risk, not just their creators.
The above statement by a great scientist clearly shows that we cannot depend on the high priests of science to make our ethical decisions for us. Too much is at stake. Not all geneticists are so cavalier or unclear about the risks. Unfortunately the ones who see or care about the potential problems are in the minority. That is not really surprising, because many who did see some of the basic problems would either switch fields or not enter it in the first place. Many of those who are in it have found a fascinating playground, not only in which to earn a livelihood, but also one with high-stake prizes of fame and fortune.
Watson himself saw some of the problems clearly when he stated:
This [genetic engineering] is a matter far too important to be left solely in the hands of the scientific and medical communities. The belief that... science always moves forward represents a form of laissez-faire nonsense dismally reminiscent of the credo that American business if left to itself will solve everybody's problems. Just as the success of a corporate body in making money need not set the human condition ahead, neither does every scientific advance automatically make our lives more 'meaningful'.14
Although not a geneticist, Stephen Hawking, the world-renowned physicist and cosmologist and Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University in England (a post once held by Sir Isaac Newton), has commented often and publicly on the future role of genetic engineering. For example: Hawking, known mostly for his theories about the Big Bang and black holes, is focusing a lot these days on how humanity fits into the future of the universe— if indeed it fits at all. One possibility he suggests is that once an intelligent life form reaches the stage we're at now, it proceeds to destroy itself. He's an optimist, however, preferring the notion that people will alter DNA, redesigning the race to minimize our aggressive nature and give us a better chance at long-term survival. "Humans will change their genetic makeup to give them more intelligence and better memory," he said.15
Hawking assumes that, even though humans are about to destroy themselves, they have the wisdom to know how to redesign themselves. If that were the case, why would we be about to destroy ourselves in the first place? Is Hawking assuming that genes control IQ and memory, and that they are equivalent to wisdom, or is Hawking claiming there is a wisdom gene? All these assumptions are extremely dubious. The whole notion that we can completely understand what it means to be human with a small part of our intellect, which is in turn a small part of who we are is, in its very nature, extremely suspect. If we attempt to transform ourselves in the image of a small part of ourselves, what we transform ourselves into will certainly be something smaller or at least a serious distortion of our human nature.
Those questions aside, Hawking does make explicit that, for the first time in history, natural evolution has come to an end and has been replaced by humans meddling with their own genetic makeup. With genetic engineering science has moved from exploring the natural world and its mechanisms to redesigning them. This is a radical departure in the notion of what we mean by science. As Nobel Prize winning biologist Professor George Wald was quoted above as saying: "Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain."16
13. Watson, J.D., personal communication, September 22 and 27, 1986, Cold Spring Harbor, in Tibor R. Szanto, "Value Communities in Science: The Recombinant DNA Case.
Controversial Science: From Content to Contention. Thomas Brante et. al. eds. (Albany, NY: SUNY Press), 260, n. 5.
14. Watson 1978:159, quoted in Tibor R Szanto, "Value Communities in Science: The Recombinant DNA Case."
Controversial Science: From Content to Contention. Thomas Brante et. al. eds. (Albany, NY: SUNY Press), p. 244. Watson has also commented on the safety issue in gene therapy:
Calls for a cautious approach to gene therapy, guided by government regulation, met with scorn from James Watson, president of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New York. Watson won a Nobel Prize in 1962 for his work deciphering the structure of DNA and established the Human Genome Project. "If we wait for the success of somatic before trying germ line, we risk the sun burning out," said Watson, who was equally critical of blanket statements that all genetic enhancement is a bad idea. "If we can make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we do it?" he asked. "The biggest ethical problem we have is not using our knowledge." (Kathy Svitil, "Brave New Genes," Discover Magazine website, posted 5/20/98,
15. "Physicist Hawking Focusing on Life." San Francisco Chronicle, April, 13, 1996.
16. George Wald. "The Case Against Genetic Engineering." The Recombinant DNA Debate. Jackson and Stich, eds. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979): 128 (Reprinted from The Sciences, Sept./Oct. issue, 1976).
To be continued