Many ethical questions have been raised during the course of history. Different times have different dilemmas, and that of this decade is one of genetics. Scientists, priests, educators, governments, consumers, farmers, doctors, and inquiring citizens all have valid interests in the ethics of genetics. The ethics of genetics are not yet set in stone, and what is deemed proper in the years to come will have an earth shaking consequences, not only for the present generations, but for the whole human genome of possible future generations. It is imperative that the issue of what is ethical be answered as soon as possible because of this effect on the future. While so much information remains undiscovered and questions remain unanswered, the quest for knowledge through genetic experimentation and testing must continue, but with extreme caution.

Genetics, which was a little known field in the past, has begun to receive wide-spread attention as a result of an explosion in exploration and discovery in the world of biology during the past decade, and more specifically, the research into the vast expanse of the genetic make-up of humans. A project, known as the "Human Genome Project" was started a few years ago and will eventually cost taxpayers as much as 3 billion dollars. The Human Genome Project's mission is to map every gene on every chromosome in the human body. Grand results have already been achieved from the exhaustive work so far: scientists working on the project have mapped over 100,000 genes, an estimated 1% of the total genes in the human body. Aided by super computers, the scientists compare, sequence, and contrast different segments of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) which is made up of gene chromosomes. Despite the progress, the idea of a detailed gene map for use by everyone will never be achieved. Instead, a more general gene map will be uncovered which will act more like street names; there is just too much difference between any two individuals to develop a map with every house's address. "... the only genomes that really exist are the DNA molecules in each of our cells."(Mauron)

When talking about the ethics of genetics, one must first ascertain what is ethical. The next step to developing a code of ethics for genetics is for people of all professions directly or indirectly affected by genetics to converse and come up with a standard. Scientists and doctors agree that the sooner proper ethics for genetic testing, screening, experimentation, and implication are defined, the better. The questions which must be asked when talking about the ethics of genetics are how and who genetic procedures will affect today and in the distant future, what impact it will have on the ecology of the earth, and what effects the results will have on the human genome as a whole down the evolutionary line.

Although not necessarily bad, many consider the genetic alteration of foods to be a big concern. Livestock and vegetation alike have felt the ironic twists of genetic alteration. Strands of genes from a fish have been added to tomatoes to make them more durable. Bovine, swine, and equine have also been altered by forced breeding, artificial insemination, and recombinant genetic alteration in order to produce a superior product. There is no question that genetically engineered foods will be of great benefit to farmers, but the effects on the consumers who purchase the products is questionable. Most of the average persons who were polled in Australia, and who possessed some knowledge of genetics, stated that the sale of genetically altered products was fine as long as the items were clearly labeled. (Fellow) John Hagelin, 1996 Natural Law presidential candidate and quantum physicist, believes that the government should not prohibit the genetic engineering of food, but has stated that the products should be properly labeled so that consumers may make an informed decision. Hagelin stated during a campaign speech in Columbus, Ohio during the 1996 election season that he came from a farm and that "We have been able to get a large pig to mate with a small pig, but we've never been able to get a fish to mate with a tomato".

Another strong ethical question relating to genetics is that of gene fetus scanning and in vitro genetic testing. It is possible that in the next few years a tissue sample from a fetus may be scanned for hundreds of genetic defects. Many believe that the scanning of the fetus itself is not unethical, but believe that unless there is already a cure for a certain genetic disorder, no test should be performed to detect that disorder. Although there have been successful gene treatments, Dr. David Rimoin, chairman of pediatrics at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and president of the American College of Medical Genetics says that the problem is to make it realistic. "You need a smart bomb to get the DNA to the right place, and a smart detonator to set it off at the right time and for the most part, those mechanisms are not yet available". (Time) Others believe that the scanning itself should not be done at all as it will increase the number of abortions. Two years ago, the National Academy of Science formed a panel to make some ethical decisions on genetics. They stated that abortion was a "reasonable" option in instances where the fetus had a "profoundly damaging genetic trait", but not if a couple was upset that it was not the sex they wanted it to be. (Blonston) "Presumably, many more abortions will take place when serious weaknesses appear, creating a market in prescreened, high-grade embryos.... The most obvious danger is that genetic screening will provide one more excuse to divide the world into superior and inferior." (Leo)

Another of the possible risks of genetic screening is that insurance may be denied to those who have been genetically screened and found to have fatal disorders within their chromosomes. There are genetic tests for over a dozen genetic diseases and more are on the way. These tests, and the cures that are just around the corner may save countless lives "but it also could prove a fearsome threat to the sanctity of life, independent choice, and personal peace." (Blonston) At what point does one become a human? Is human life defined by wisdom, birth, or by the union of egg and sperm during fertilization? Bioethicist, J.F. Malherbe, is a defender of "personhood of the human embryo since fertilization". Malherbe states that form is not appearance. Malherbe continues by saying that form defines essence and that Medieval biology is no longer valid today. "... we now know that human "form" gives structure to human "matter" as soon as the genetic information (in-forma-tion) required to define a particular genetic patrimony is assembled."((Malherbe, 1991) Mauron) The abortion of fetuses should not be allowed as a result of genetic testing, the knowledge of the future, as illustrated in Shakespeare's MacBeth, can be very dangerous....

The third ethical question that must be asked is one of generational equality. How will this affect the next generation? "We do not own the world, we borrow it from our children" is a theory that seems to be surfacing many places. (Mauron) When asking if a genetic issue is ethical in this mind-set, it is important that a person can fathom the effects and the effects of the effects 10, 100, 500 years down the road. By altering one or two humans' genomes(the essence of every gene in any particular strand or strands of DNA) today, it may be found that the genome of humanity as a whole in the future will be changed. "We should not influence future generations in ways that merely express the contingent values held by our own generation". (Mauron) This is the hardest of all genetic ethics questions to answer because the society of today does not know what the values of the society of tomorrow will be, although today's society directly affects that of tomorrow's. It is because of this that there should be no rushed decisions which may only be beneficial in the next few years, yet harmful in the future. One example of why we should be careful is Sickle Cell Anemia. Sickle Cell Anemia, which is considered to be a deadly disease, most common in African Americans, is a disease in which the red blood cells have a sickle shape which may cause them to get stuck in a blood vessel. One might say that the genes responsible for this trait should be removed from the human genome, but this could be a very dangerous mistake, because those who only inherit one Sickle Cell gene (as opposed to two) have the pleasant characteristic of being immune to Malaria, a vicious viral disease carried by mosquitoes in some parts of Africa.

Although many of the issues and ideas surrounding genetics and ethics remain unanswered, and no doubt they will be questioned and re-questioned, it is vital that research is continued, but not at the risk of endangering the society of tomorrow. In the search for the perfect cure, for the perfect human, perfect watermelon, and perfect tomorrow, humanity must not be allowed to be inhumane. With the proper labeling of foods and other genetically enhanced or altered products, and the morality of not killing a fetus because it has a flaw, it is possible to improve the society of tomorrow. With a realization that what is done today affects a world not yet in existence, a world which we are borrowing from our children, the question of ethics will no longer need to be asked.