Ethical Issues in Biology

Why This Matters

Philosophy of biology isn't just about understanding life—it's about grappling with what we should do with that understanding. As biological sciences advance at unprecedented rates, you're being tested on your ability to identify the underlying moral frameworks that guide (or should guide) scientific practice. These ethical issues connect directly to core philosophical concepts: autonomy, moral status, consequentialism, deontological constraints, and the precautionary principle.

When you encounter these topics on exams, don't just memorize the controversies—understand what philosophical principles are in tension. Is it a conflict between human benefit and non-human welfare? Between individual autonomy and collective responsibility? Between scientific freedom and precautionary restraint? Every ethical issue in biology ultimately asks: Who or what deserves moral consideration, and how do we weigh competing goods? Master the conceptual categories below, and you'll be ready to analyze any bioethical dilemma the exam throws at you.

---

Manipulating the Genetic Code

These issues center on humanity's growing power to alter the fundamental instructions of life. The core tension is between therapeutic potential and concerns about "playing God," unintended consequences, and justice in access to genetic technologies.

Genetic Engineering and Gene Editing (CRISPR)

• CRISPR-Cas9 enables precise DNA modification—this unprecedented control raises questions about whether we have the wisdom to match our technical capability
• Germline vs. somatic editing represents a crucial moral distinction; germline changes affect future generations who cannot consent
• The "playing God" objection reflects deontological concerns about crossing natural boundaries, while consequentialists focus on risk-benefit analysis

Reproductive Technologies and Designer Babies

• Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows embryo selection, blurring the line between preventing disease and enhancing traits
• Eugenics concerns arise when genetic selection reinforces social inequalities or discriminates against disability
• Parental autonomy vs. child welfare creates tension—do parents have the right to determine their children's genetic makeup?

Stem Cell Research and Cloning

• Embryonic stem cells' pluripotency makes them scientifically valuable but morally contested due to debates about embryonic moral status
• Reproductive vs. therapeutic cloning distinction matters ethically; the former creates persons, the latter creates tissues
• Personal identity questions emerge with cloning—does genetic duplication affect individuality or dignity?

---

Moral Status and Non-Human Entities

A foundational question in bioethics: What characteristics grant moral consideration? These issues force us to examine whether sentience, rationality, species membership, or ecological role determines who deserves protection.

Animal Experimentation and Welfare

• The moral status of animals depends on which criteria you prioritize—sentience (capacity to suffer), cognitive complexity, or species membership
• The Three Rs framework (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) represents a compromise position that accepts animal use while minimizing harm
• Utilitarian vs. rights-based approaches diverge sharply; Peter Singer emphasizes suffering, while Tom Regan argues animals have inherent rights

Biodiversity and Species Preservation

• Intrinsic vs. instrumental value is the central debate—do species matter in themselves or only for human benefit?
• Anthropocentrism vs. biocentrism frames conservation priorities; biocentrists extend moral consideration to all living things
• Triage ethics emerges when resources are limited—which species deserve priority, and who decides?

Environmental Ethics and Conservation

• Holistic vs. individualist ethics creates tension; Aldo Leopold's land ethic values ecosystem integrity over individual organisms
• Intergenerational justice requires considering obligations to future humans who cannot advocate for themselves
• The precautionary principle argues for restraint when consequences are uncertain and potentially irreversible

---

Enhancement and Human Identity

These issues probe what it means to be human and whether there are limits to legitimate self-modification. The philosophical stakes involve authenticity, fairness, and the boundaries of medical intervention.

Neuroscience and Cognitive Enhancement

• The treatment-enhancement distinction asks whether boosting "normal" cognition differs morally from treating deficits
• Authenticity concerns question whether chemically or technologically enhanced achievements are truly "yours"
• Justice and access issues arise because enhancements available only to the wealthy could entrench social inequality

Synthetic Biology and Artificial Life

• Creating novel organisms raises questions about the moral status of entities that never existed in nature
• The precautionary principle applies strongly here—ecological release of synthetic organisms could have irreversible consequences
• Ownership and patenting of synthetic life forms creates tensions between scientific openness and commercial interests

---

Research Ethics and Governance

These issues concern how biological research should be conducted and controlled. The core principles—autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice—must be balanced against scientific freedom and progress.

Biomedical Research Ethics and Informed Consent

• Informed consent protects autonomy by ensuring participants understand risks, benefits, and alternatives before agreeing
• Vulnerable populations (prisoners, children, economically disadvantaged) require extra protections against exploitation and coercion
• The Nuremberg Code and Belmont Report established foundational principles after historical abuses revealed the need for explicit ethical guidelines

Bioweapons and Dual-Use Research

• Dual-use dilemma arises when research intended for benefit (understanding pathogens) could enable harm (creating weapons)
• Scientific freedom vs. security creates tension; excessive restriction impedes beneficial research, insufficient restriction enables catastrophe
• Gain-of-function research exemplifies the controversy—enhancing pathogen transmissibility aids pandemic preparedness but creates biosecurity risks

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Comparative analysis: Both CRISPR germline editing and reproductive cloning affect future persons who cannot consent. What additional ethical concern does cloning raise that germline editing does not?

2. Framework application: If an FRQ presents a scenario involving animal testing for a life-saving drug, how would a utilitarian analysis differ from a rights-based analysis? Which framework would the Three Rs principle best align with?

3. Concept identification: Identify two ethical issues from this guide that primarily involve conflicts between individual autonomy and collective welfare. What philosophical principle might help resolve such conflicts?

4. Compare and contrast: Environmental holists and animal welfare advocates sometimes reach opposite conclusions about the same action (e.g., culling invasive species). Explain the underlying philosophical difference that produces this disagreement.

5. Synthesis question: The precautionary principle appears in discussions of synthetic biology, gene editing, and dual-use research. What characteristics do these issues share that make precautionary reasoning particularly relevant? When might the precautionary principle be too restrictive?