Robert C. Engesser

Science 1102/09

Dr. Heather Sutton

23 November 2004

Bioethics, Tocqueville, and Partisan Politic

Biotechnology, as defined by Dr. Peter Lawler of The Presidents Council on Bioethics, is the human race’s endeavor to replace natural evolution with human design. Dr. Lawler’s seminar focused on the moral and political ramifications of our burgeoning biotech society. While not casting the entire biotech industry in a bad light, Dr. Lawler conveyed his belief that our relentless pursuit for perfection may come at the cost of our very souls. His argument is made in three parts; Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, the battle between “Compassionate” Conservatives and Libertarians, and the growing danger of America’s chemical culture. It is Dr. Lawler’s assertion that, through government regulation and “compassionate” guidance, we can overcome the urge to rob ourselves of our humanity.

Though Tocqueville was a supporter of democracy, America in particular, he nevertheless saw an inherent weakness in it: Individualism. As Dr. Lawler pointed out, Tocqueville had good reason to be concerned about democracy. The individualism that we enjoy in this country is a natural by-product of our freedom. Yet, rather than liberate us, this individuality has locked us away from the rest of society. American’s have become “too short on love” and undeserving of compassion. A sort of “sickness of the heart” has occurred which has led us to a state of apathetic withdrawal from the rest of society. According to Dr. Lawler, we have become a morally indifferent culture obsessed with work and restless in the face of our inevitable deaths. This fear and isolation has brought us down a path to which we have convinced ourselves that only science can rescue us from our malaise.

As pointed out by Dr. Lawler, America’s political climate is becoming increasingly important in managing the encroachment of biotechnology in our lives. During the Clinton Presidency, Dr. Lawler believes that the Democratic Party shifted toward a Libertarian ideal, which is to say, “Anything goes.” This government policy of ambivalence towards our lives mirrored the indifference we felt about each other in our growing individualism. The “Compassionate” Conservative movement is believed to be the answer. Democrats, once the party of big government, have become more interested in increasing broad personal liberties. The Republican Party, however, has come to believe that if society cannot find its own moral barometer, then it should be the government’s responsibility to assume more control over our moral decisions. It is Dr. Lawler’s belief that without more government intervention in our lives, the biotech industry could tumble our society into the bizarre nightmare that was Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

Cordorcet was quoted as saying, “Modern Science will eventually create a world where people will no longer be moved by the prospect of death.” Dr. Lawler argued that as our life spans increase so to does our unhappiness. Over the last century, the human race has been architect to the most astonishing technological and scientific advances in history. Yet for all of our achievement, we are more detached and isolated from each other. In response to our unhappiness, biotechnology has developed chemical cures for just about any emotional problem. If one is chronically depressed, Prozac and other mood enhancers are available. Children who are perceived to be unmanageable and hyperactive can take Ritalin in order to be more calm and focused. Dr. Lawler believes that this chemical culture could ultimately rob our society of its ability to attain virtue. The true way to virtue is through the development of good habits. Neither good habits nor virtue can be attained by taking a pill. According to Dr. Lawler, the cost of feeling good, rather than being good, will be the loss of our nation’s greatness.

While I did not completely agree with Dr. Lawler’s conclusions concerning the political aspects of his argument, his overall message is valid. Technology is quickly overtaking our humanity. Biotechnology, if left unchecked and unregulated, could very well succeed in completely separating us from nature. The more separate from nature we become, the more miserable we will be. Science and progress should never be stunted or stymied, but we should be ever mindful of the fact that while we are capable of changing our nature, it does not mean that we should.