James E. Trosko
Ph.D. in Genetics
Professor, Dept. of Pediatrics/Human Development
Division of Human Genetics, Genetic Toxicology, and Oncology
College of Human Medicine. Michigan State University
United States of America
To try to address the plethora How does one begin to deal with
of ecological, psychosocial and in- the challenge of finding a “moral com-
dividual moral crises caused by the pass” in a world in which individuals
proliferation and misuse of scientific must: “make sense of the senseless”;
knowledge and technological ad- do the right thing on a daily basis to
vances in our culture by examining deal with short-term needs while not
each one in isolation of the larger understanding the long-term con-
“global” issues, fails to recognize the sequences; find a psychological ra-
underlying philosophical basis for the tionale for surviving in one’s cultural
plethora of moral dilemmas we are environment which suppresses fun-
witnessing. In essence, it has to be damental human needs; deal with
said that the ecological, cultural and frightening unknowns created by
individual psycho-social problems of new technological advances which
today cannot be ameliorated by recy- challenge outmoded world views;
cling pop bottles, training more psy- not use knowledge and powerful
chiatrists, imposing traditional philo- technologies to deny basic human
sophical and religious indoctrination needs and rights of individuals ; and
on everyone or arranging “pre-emp- search for some “universal” truths to
tive strikes” on tyrants perceived as assist moral judgments in a pluralistic
abusing human rights. We must at- world of conflicting religious ethical
tack the cause not the symptoms. The values? Try to imagine, if one is a
cause, I propose, resides in our head member of one of the few remaining
in the form of a bankrupt philosophy primitive tribes, how you could cope
of human nature. Moreover, I make with the changes demanded of you
Scientific Opinion
the assumption, as others have,1,2,3 when you are confronted with new
that each individual holds a view of experiences, choices and challenges
human nature, which shapes policies to eons of unchanging traditional
and practices of human intervention, values? How can any one of us, in
which, in turn, influence biological a growing population of over 6 bil-
and psycho-social development. lion people, deal with the stresses
Their refusal to consider their respon- that will be more or less complex; the
sibility in these matters does not seem motions of the planets are sublimely
to them to comprise their intellectual indifferent to our earth-bound as-
integrity… They set the stage for dis- tronomy. But the behavior of man is
aster; then, like Pilate, they wash their not independent of the theories of hu-
hands of the consequences.”6 man behavior that men adopt.”8
While it might be argued that “For their moral bases the ‘liberal’
to draw any comparison with this societies of the West still teach—or pay
philosophical/political conclusion lip-service to—a disgusting farrago of
and with some well documented, Judeo-Christian religiosity, scientific
Scientific Opinion
this out nicely when he stated that Scientific Views of Human Nature
the universe is run by natural forces
and laws, not by moral laws. How- 1.Nature and Nurture Model
ever, human societies that live in
the natural world must live by moral Ashley Montagu’s statement ac-
laws. If those moral laws contradict curately describes this model: “He-
redity, then, is the expression, not of There are those who, while agree-
what is given in one’s genes at con- ing, with the “scientific” interpreta-
ception, but of the reciprocal interac- tions of these situations, could also
tion between the inherited genes and claim that there are “supernatural”
the environment to which they’ve elements that must be integrated with
been exposed.”15 As a blueprint of the scientific facts. In other words,
a house is not a real house, nor is what has this analysis gained anyone?
the DNA “blueprint” of a fertilized In other words, even the scientific
human egg a real “human” being. It interpretations of the “real world”
is a single living cell that has the po- are limited and constantly changing.
tential to be born looking like a hu- The only difference of a scientific
man being and then later acting as a interpretation is that it is potentially
moral agent. The “nature” of human self-correcting, whereas, religious in-
beings (the unique gene information terpretations are usually more stable
of the DNA inherited from the moth- and more resistant to quick self-cor-
er and father) must interact with the rection.
“nurture” factors [physical, chemi-
cal, dietary, biological, psycho-social The concept of “human nature”
and cultural) to unlock that genetic has for centuries evoked sterile ar-
potential. Just “looking like a human guments, primarily in the context
baby” is insufficient to be a moral of whether that “nature” is a “blank
valuing and functional human be- slate” to be molded by the physical
ing. After all, that which defines us and cultural environment or one in
a “human” is our conscious ability which one’s “nature” is constitutive
to recognize self; to be aware of our as determined by “fate”, or genes.
pending death or mortality; to be Our biological sciences have clearly
able to abstract symbols; to be able and unequivocally shown that our
to communicate with these symbols; biological phenotype is the result of
to manipulate our environment by nature and nurture, not nature versus
converting abstract ideas into things, nurture. The current argument ex-
and to value the choices of our po- ists on the human behavior level. To
tential to change the environment what extent does our behavior have
we find ourselves. Is a living ball of “nature” or genetic components? The
Scientific Opinion
is a unique genetic “sensor” for all als fifth.”21 Any religious view of hu-
those environmental signals which man nature that isolates the human
“turn-on” or “turn-off” the expression being from the forces of the physical,
of the genes of that individual. Given chemical, biological, psychological
that no human being (except identi- and cultural world has already cre-
cal twins) starts with the exact set of ated a view of human nature that is
genes and no individual, including bound to generate ethical values that
identical twins, ever gets exposed to will either suppress human nature
the exact set of environmental trig- or jeopardize human survival. Up
gers, is it any wonder that no two until now, the consequences of these
humans will be identical with regard views of human nature, while being
to either their physical phenotype tragic to millions of human beings,
or behavioral phenotypes? On the has not eliminated the human spe-
other hand, the influence of each of cies. With the power of modern tech-
the genetic and environmental facts nologies to make survival-threatening
can be seen when one stereotypes changes to human existence because
the looks of a given ethnic group these changes can occur globally,
or the political values of a certain crossing political boundaries and hu-
regional or religious group. All this man generations. Human beings sim-
demonstrates is that, while most of ply cannot escape the consequences
the individuals of the ethnic, regional of their individual or collective ac-
or religious group “look alike or be- tions. While the effluence of human
have” in a similar fashion, not all do. action in the past made local and
Those “odd” individuals have some- transient changes in environment,
how broken-free from any genetic or only rarely did they lead to the ex-
environmental “determinism”. This tinction of the following generations.
suggests these individuals have either Today, we, as a world that is using
or both different genes and environ- knowledge and technology, guided
mental histories. by short-term and non-scientifically-
derived values, which have powerful
2. Hierarchical View global and cross-generational, con-
of Human Nature20 sequences, can jeopardize human
existence. In other words, today, we
Scientific Opinion
but walls build men”. Previous pre- act, creates a crisis in moral hypoc-
human and early human actions risy. To use scientific knowledge to
and their detritus had ecologically- control deaths in newborns [Sterile
repairable and “biologically-degrada- handling of newborn; use of antibod-
ble” consequences and, with minor ies, drugs; nutrition; etc], but not to
exceptions, did not have long lasting use knowledge/technology to con-
of human nature based in scientific dilemmas? Our best hope under this
examination and scientific rigor of situation is, at best, “miserable sur-
experimental testing. To show that vival”29 for most human beings. Or
human DNA can be damaged by as Rene Dubos stated: “Man makes
environmental agents, that can cause himself through enlightened choices
mutations known to occur in bacte- that enhance his humanness.”30
onic or adult stem cells for regenera- components of making any ethical
tive medicine?”, “Ought genetic engi- decision, namely, the “ factual” com-
neering be permitted to remedy ge- ponent and the “value or ethical “
netic disorders?”; “Ought the informa- component. What we determine as
tion gained from the human genome “facts” was, in the West, the purview
project be used for insurance screen- of science. Science’s job is to deter-
mine the “is’s” of the natural world, moral values are not independent of
while philosophers and theologians the human making the value choice
were to determine the way the world or of human experience or “facts”.
“ought” to be. Facts, therefore, are Therefore, if there is not a real
thought to be “objectively” deter- mutual-exclusive distinction between
mined, while the moral “values” must “facts” and “values”, it is philosophi-
be intuitively obvious, to be given by cally untenable to claim that neither
holy writs, or by religious or “spir- scientific or philosophical/theological
itual” insight. Facts, as they are de- ways of knowing can claim exclusive
termined by the scientific enterprise, domain of one or the other compo-
will always be, at best, incomplete nent of ethical decision-making.
and at worse, dead wrong. Naïve
views of scientific facts were thought The consequence of this mod-
to be “value-free”. ern way of viewing ethical deci-
sion- making is what Dr. Potter was
On the other hand, values are not thinking when he coined the term,
determined as “right” or “wrong”, nor “Bioethics”.33-35 The idea that indi-
can there be any objective calculus to viduals with knowledge should not
determine which ethical value choice use that knowledge as “shamans” but
is “correct” or “incorrect”. Do these to use knowledge to assist in a man-
ethic values stand-alone from either ner to reduce human suffering and to
the ethicist or from the feedback of maximize a sustainable environment
the short or long-term consequences for all to survive in a manner better
of the ethical choice? Dr. Potter’s than a “miserable survival mode”.29
answer is definitely not. If the “Natu- His first step outside the realm of his
ralistic Fallacy” is bankrupt, as is any expertise as a cancer scientist and on
“scientism” view of moral values, his way to flesh out his “bioethical”
namely, that ethic values can be de- philosophy was when he coined the
rived from facts, then are we saddled phrase, “humility with responsibil-
with the current Western legacy of ity”.36 How then can one start to
the mutual exclusive domains of sci- understand “bioethics” if one can no
ence and of philosophical/theologi- longer adhere to the mutual exclu-
cal thought? Cannot there be some sive domains of facts and values, be-
Scientific Opinion
integration of our ideas of “facts” tween the “is” and the “ought” or to
and “values”, since philosophers of a scientism that claims the “oughts”
science and scientists themselves are can be derived from the “is’s”? Dr.
in agreement that all facts are “value- Potter’s view was that if philosophers
ladened”? In addition, at least some and theologians continue to ignore,
ethical philosophers agree that our if not arrogantly defy, what modern
science is saying about the oneness the old adages of: “Them that gots,
of all human beings [We are at first gets!” or the classic definition of
all biological creatures; second, we the “Golden Rule”: “Them that gots
are all earthlings; third, we are all gold, get to rule!” One of Dr. Potter’s
social animals with individual genetic dreams was to educate Pope John to
abilities and potentials; fourth, we the biological nature of the human
are subject to the forces of nature; species. His view of Pope John’s
and fifth, we are culturally and ex- enormous platform of influence, of
perientially pluralistic in the way we his charisma, and of his symbolic in-
live, think and feel], we are, there- fluence of moral persuasion, was that
fore, setting ourselves up for contin- the Pope could reduce the misery
ued human conflicts, human misery and suffering of hundreds of millions
and suffering. of people by the transformation of
the religious symbols that generated
Only by either the total education his moral authority. He felt that this
of all human beings of these facts of was the most efficacious manner by
our universal common biological and which political, religious, sports and
social needs or the re-symbolic trans- entertainment idols, to whom mil-
formation of the religious symbols lions of individuals used as moral
and philosophical tenets that help role models, could help put the
shape the moral behavior of the dif- world on a more “global bioethical”
ferent pluralist/cultural world views, course.
can there be hope to bring about a
radical change from the destructive Dr. Van R. Potter’s thought evolv-
consequences of traditional philoso- ed in time from a simple, almost
phical/theological ideologies that naïve concept of “Bioethics”, to a
have used powerful scientific facts more scientifically-grounded Global
and technologies in unethical ways. Bioethics37 and then to a more sen-
With the use of the education option sitive way of knowing, “Deep Glo-
being almost hopeless to overcome bal Bioethics.”31 He understood that,
the unethical use of knowledge and from a very pragmatic point of view
technology by those who use it for in a pluralistic world, with people
short-term personal benefit at the having different world views born
Scientific Opinion
est scientific view of human nature. existed or are new because of the
Therefore, if one cannot educate or ignorant and unethical misuse of
coerce a scientific view of human knowledge and technology, we must
nature on everyone, how can all the find ethical means to deal with the
different religious and philosophical world-wide overpopulation issue, the
world- views be made to generate suffering of billions of people due to
the same or universal ethical values? polluted air and water, lack of food,
education and of self-dignity, the
His solution was to have each eroding ecosystems needed to sus-
religious mythology integrate into tain both biota and humans, the con-
the ethical-generating symbols sci- tinued generation of national con-
entifically –sound principles of hu- flicts, wars, and of terrorism. These
man nature and our relationship to issues dwarf any bioethical issues
an ever- changing ecological and due to modern medical science, in-
cultural world. It was not a matter cluding “cloning human beings from
that Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, or stem cells.”38
any other religious- value generating
role model, be replaced, but that this Bioethics is not just the ethics of
value- generating myth symbol must medical interventions. It is not just
be able to evoke “scientific role mod- the ethics of human decisions on
eling behavior”, to have the religious the environment. It must strive for a
leaders of each religion interpret the sustainable and stable biosphere29, 39
ancient myth stories to provide the one in which each individual could
easy to understand concepts that find dignity in their station in life. At
would allow the believers to share the bedrock bottom, human nature
a universal view of human nature has both an interacting genetic and
would be a more pragmatic solution cultural component. Human genetics
to our current problems. This is not makes human consciousness pos-
to suggest that this is, in itself, an sible. Human consciousness makes
easy solution to all the crises on the possible an almost infinite number of
whole human-biological eco-system. cultural environments. These cultural
After all, can one imagine educat- environments, in turn, shape human
ing the current world religious lead- consciousness. However, because the
Scientific Opinion
8. L. Eisenberg, “On the humanizing of human 25. C. Geertz, “The impact of the concept of
nature”, Impact of Science on Society, 23:213- culture on the concept of man”, in New Views
223 (1973). of the Nature of Man, ed. By J. Platt, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965.
9. J.E. Trosko, “Hierarchical and cybernetic na-
ture of biological systems and their relevance 26. E. Cassirer, An Essay on Man, Doubleday and
to homeostatic adaptation to level level ex- Co., New York, 1956.
posures to oxidative stress-inducing agents”.
27. R. Alexander, “The search for an evolutionary
Environ. Health Perspect., 106: 331-339, 1998.
philosophy of man”, Proc. Royal Soc. Vict.,
10. J. Monod, Chance and Necessity, Alfred A. 84:99-120 (1971).
Knopf, Inc., New York, 1971.
28. H. Horowitz,“Biology as a cosmological
11. D. Callahan, “Living with the new biology”, science”, Main Currents in Modern Thought,
The Center Magazine, 5:4-12 (1972). 28:151-157 (1972).
12. J. Dewey, quoted in “The scientific study of 29. V.R. Potter and L. Potter, “Global bioethics:
values and contemporary civilization”, by C. Converting sustainable development to global
Kluckhohn, Zygon, 1:233, (1966). survival”. Medicine Global Survival 2: 185-191,
1995.
13. M. Otto, The Human Enterprise, F.S. Crofts
and Co., New York, 1947. 30. R. Dubos, So Human an Animal. Charles Scri-
bner’s Sons: New York. Pg. xii., 1968.
14. J. Tonsor, Why John Henry Newman was
wrong: The connection between moral and 31. V.R. Potter and P.J. Whitehouse, “Deep and
intellectual virtue in higher education.” Lecture global bioethics for a livable third millen-
delivered at the Symposium on the Role of nium”, The Scientist, 12: 9, 1998.
Ethics in American Life at Bellarmine College,
32. V.R.Potter, “Bioethics and the human pros-
January 23, 1974.
pect”. In: D.H. Brock, ed., The Culture of Bio-
15. A. Montagu, “Chromosome and crime”, Psy- medicine: Studies in Science and Culture, Vol.
chology Today, Oct. 1968, p. 46. 1. University of Delaware Press, pp. 124-137,
1984
16. J. Ortega y Gasset, History as a System. Nor-
ton. New York. Pg. 217, 1941. 33. V. R. Potter, Bioethics, Prentice-Hall Inc., En-
glewood Cliffs, N.J., 1970.
17. V. R. Potter, “ Global bioethics: Linking genes
to ethical behavior”. Perspectives in Biology 34. W. T. Reich, “The word «Bioethics»: The
and Medicine, 39: 118-131, 1995. struggle over its earliest meanings”. Kennedy
Institute of Ethics Journal 5: 19-34, 1995.
18. V.R. Potter, “Getting to the year 3000: Can
global bioethics overcome evolutions fatal 35. W. T. Reich, “The word «Bioethics»: Its birth
flaw?” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, and the legacies of those Who Shaped It”.
34: 89-98, 1990. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 4: 319-335,
1994.
19. J. Platt, «A revolutionary manifesto». Centers
Magazine 5: 34-52,1972. 36. V.R. Potter, “Humility with responsibility-A
Bioethic for oncologist: Presidential address.
20. H. Brody, “A systems view of man: Impli-
Cancer Res., 35: 2297-2306, 1975.
cations for medicine, science and ethics”,
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 17:71- 37. V. R. Potter, Global Bioethics, Michigan
92 (1973). State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan,
1988.
21. E. Laszlo, The systems View of the World,
George Braziller, New York, 1972. 38. J.E. Trosko, “Cloning of human stem cells:
Some broad scientific and philosophical is-
22. V. R. Potter, “The probabilistic aspects of the
sues”. J. Lab Clin Med., 135: 432-436, 2000
human cybernetic medicine”, Perspectives in
Biology and Medicine, 17:164-183 (1974). 39. V.R. Potter, “Global Bioethics as a secular
source of moral authority for long-term human
23. N. Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings,
survival”. Global Bioethics 5: 5-11, 1992.
Doubleday and Co., Garden City, New York,
1954. 40. F. Grinnelll, J. P. Bishop and L. B. McCul-
lough, “Bioethical pluralism and complemen-
24. J. Delgado, “Brain technology and pyschoci-
tarity”. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine,
vilization”, in Human Values and Advancing
Technology, C. Hall, Ed., The Friendship 45: 338-349, 2002.
Press; New York, pg. 90, 1967.
Scientific Opinion
January-June 83 Year 2002