.
Thomas W. Clark reports in his piece "Playing God, Carefully", that the discovery of a minimum genome is close at hand; thus, the "the biological interplay of DNA, proteins, and other subcellular components in supporting the necessary functions of lifeà would be completely understood"(2000, p.37). Essentially, this discovery will complete our ability to genetically alter any living thing at the most rudimentary level. According to ethicists, the crux of the debate lies in whether or not work on minimal genomes constitutes "playing God". If it does, our task becomes deciding if playing God is wrong. If it is, Clark concludes that "advanced biology does pose a threat and we might seek to limit research into what once were the mysteries of life"(2000, p.38). If it is not, "then a detailed analysis of life's mechanisms is simply a means to an end, not an intrinsic threat to the specialness of lifeà"(Clark, 2000, p.38).
Clark's summations aptly present the ethical root of the debate over genetic engineering. So far, science has not paid much attention to the playing God question, preferring to forge ahead and leave the ethical debate to society and government. And so genetic engineering has progressed in earnest; Congress has enacted no governing statutes, President Clinton has proposed no comprehensive regulatory approach, and no federal agency currently exists with jurisdiction over these matters(The New Republic, 2000, p.9).
Therefore, private researchers and genetic engineers have been able put human DNA into petri dishes and do what they want with it. Private sector scientists may experiment on human embryos in any fashion they deem fit: private funding virtually guarantees autonomy in the lab. Many feel that too many gene researchers are using their freedom to dangerous ends- in the quest for cures and scientific breakthroughs, the lack of any clearly articulated legal stan
...