|
（歡迎翻印、流通本文及網路連接；：做其他用途，請先連絡作者易象乾博士。電郵地址：namofo@earthlink.net）
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：
對於重組DNA帶來的疾病的可能性，華生於一九七九年三月寫道：「我不屑一顧！」（華生一九七九年：113）。他的立場是：不入虎穴，焉得虎子；災難危險，在所不惜。他說，學習嘛，就是要這樣才行：不到老虎吃你，你怎麼會知道森林的危險？[註13]
這譬喻錯在哪？他自己甘願被吃，那是他的事；他有什麼權利把所有的人一起拖下水，一起被吃？當基因工程製造的生物被釋放到環境裡，禍殃眾人，豈止他一人？
以上的一位傑出科學家的話，清楚地告誡我們，不可倚賴科學界的「學閥」來替我們在道德上拿主意。事關重大，並非所有的基因學家都如此掉以輕心，或是不清楚所冒的風險。不幸的是，見到或關心潛在的問題的人卻是少數。這並不奇怪，因為有許多人洞察到問題的一些根本，要麼改行，要麼根本不去淌這趟混水。而許多人是發現一來可以混碗飯吃，二來名利雙收，油水也還不少，所以樂此不疲。
當華生作以下的陳述時，他本身也清楚地見到一些問題：
這「基因工程」事關重大，不能全由科學界與醫學界掌控。認為科學永遠是進步的，乃無稽放任之談，令人聯想起「如果任由美國商業自由發展，一切問 題就會迎刃而解」的思想。正如企業的獲利，並不一定使人類的處境獲得提升；每一個科學上的進展，也並不會自動令我們的生命更具「意義」。[註14]
世界知名的物理與宇宙學家，身兼英國劍橋大學數學「盧卡斯」教授（他之前為艾塞克•牛頓爵士所任之職）的史迪芬•霍京，雖然他不是基因學家，卻常公開評論基因工程的前景，例如：
主要以「大爆炸」和「黑洞」理論馳名的霍京，近來致力研究人類如何適應未來的宇宙－－如果真能適應的話。他提出的一種可能：當一個智能生命達到我們現階段的水準時，就會開始自我毀滅。然而霍京是樂觀派，傾向於主張人類將會更改DNA以重造人，將人的攻擊性減到最低，並賦與我們長期生存的更好的機會。他說：「人類會改變基因構造，從而創造更佳的智能與更強的記憶力。」[註15]
霍京假設人類縱使瀕臨毀滅，仍有知道再造自我的智能。果真如此，我們又怎會要先瀕臨自我毀滅呢？霍京是否假設基因控制智商與記憶，而智商與記憶又等於智慧嗎？或者主張有一個司智慧的基因？所有這些假設都非常有疑問的。智能只是人之一小部份，一小部份中的更小部份拿來試驗，藉以全然暸解身為人的意義，這套思想理論從根本上裡就很有待探討。如果取身之一小部份，以這一小部份之形象進行自我塑造，所得者必然是更小之物，或是對一種嚴重的人性扭曲物。
先撇開這些問題不談，霍京的確明白地表示，自然進化已到盡頭，取而代之的，是人類開始與自己的基因組成結構「過不去」。基因工程標誌著：科學從對自然界與自然機制的探討，到重造自然的轉移，這與我們對科學定義的概念大相逕庭。正如同前文舉出諾貝爾生物學得主喬治•華德教授所說的：「迄今為止，人類的道德觀念是：學、學、學，學習自然界中一切可學事物，然而，重新架構自然並不包括在這項「交易」內。」[註16]
附註：
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〉）
15. 一九九六年四月十三日刊載於《舊金山紀事報》之《物理學家霍京著眼於生命》一文。
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
namofo@earthlink.net 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
_____________
NOTES:
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,
<http://www.discover.com/science_news/index.html>).
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
|
