Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, 108 Seeley G. Mudd Building, Box 3040, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Theor Med Bioeth. 2012 Jun;33(3):163-78. doi: 10.1007/s11017-012-9220-6.
The ongoing revolution in molecular genetics has led many to speculate that one day we will be able to change the expression or phenotype of numerous complex traits to improve ourselves in many different ways. The prospect of genetic enhancements has generated heated controversy, with proponents advocating research and implementation, with caution advised for concerns about justice, and critics tending to see the prospect of genetic enhancements as an assault on human freedom and human nature. Both camps base their arguments on the unquestioned assumption that the science will realize either their dreams or nightmares. In this paper, I show that their beliefs are based upon two fundamental mistakes. First, they are based upon an unwarranted reliance in a genetic determinism that takes for granted that the traits that we might most want to enhance, like intelligence, aggression, shyness, and even athletic ability, can be causally directed by specific genes. In so doing, character descriptions are reified to be concrete and discrete entities, in this case, genes. Second, they have accepted on faith that there is, or will be, a science to translate their hopes or worries into reality when, in fact, that is unlikely to occur because of the irreducible complexity of phenotypic expression.
分子遗传学的持续革命让许多人推测，有朝一日我们将能够改变众多复杂特征的表达或表型，以多种不同的方式改善自身。遗传增强的前景引发了激烈的争议，支持者提倡谨慎研究和实施，而批评者则倾向于认为遗传增强的前景是对人类自由和人性的侵犯。这两个阵营的观点都基于一个毋庸置疑的假设，即科学将实现他们的梦想或噩梦。在本文中，我表明，他们的信念是基于两个基本错误。首先，他们基于对遗传决定论的不必要依赖，这种决定论认为，我们最希望增强的特征，如智力、攻击性、害羞甚至运动能力，可以被特定的基因因果指向。这样，性格描述就被具体化并离散化为实体，在这种情况下，就是基因。其次，他们盲目地相信，当他们的希望或担忧变成现实时，将会有一门科学来翻译，而事实上，由于表型表达的不可简化的复杂性，这很可能不会发生。
