Science and History and the Angel of Death
How can one individual play god? In the name of science is compassion and humanity overthrown? What right does a person have to decide who should survive and who should be destroyed? This is the power that was instilled in Josef Mengele, a Nazi scientist, torturer, and a deliverer of death. His time at Auschwitz, the infamous concentration camp, death factory, and crematoria, was spent mutilating and torturing children and then dissecting their dead bodies. He was also given the task of deciding, out of the new Jewish arrivals at the camp, who would survive to be put to work and who would go straight to their deaths. In David Suzuki's "Genetics After Auschwitz" he discusses, in brief detail, some of what Mengele had accomplished throughout his career, and recants some opinions Suzuki's fellow scientists have on the subject. It is to his colleagues that I believe he is trying to convey his message, because not only does Suzuki sound a bit on the defensive about his previous writings, he focuses the attention on genetics, the education process of becoming a scientist, the availability of research, and the demand and craving that scientists have for an answer. "Scientists focus even more than ever on work going on now and in the future" says Suzuki. It is this point that Suzuki states could cause a reoccurrence of scientific "horrors" of the past and why science in history should not be forgotten or "selectively" recalled.
Suzuki continues to hammer the importance of understanding history in science, but also points out that scientists are people to. "...they are not evil or fanatics, but ordinary human beings who are totally caught up in their own ambitions and beliefs.. we must remember the pitfalls that the past reveals." I have to wonder though, while making this evaluation, why use Mengele as an example? His work did not lead to any breakthrough, did not cure any diseases, nor did he make any large discoveries. He simply destroyed helpless individuals in the name of science, with no appearance of remorse. Does this make Mengele a monster or a genetic engineer? Would he be considered an ordinary human being by today's standards?
Whatever the argument, Suzuki makes it clear that it is the "enthusiasm about new insights on the mechanics of heredity... that led some of the finest scientists to proclaim that human beings could be 'improved' through selective breeding." Nature always seems to find a way, and evolution can be an unstoppable force. In terms of genetics and genetic engineering, I have to wonder if Suzuki is right and if given the power, would humankind cause more damage than good when applying this science to people. If we as a species were all meant to be perfect creatures, wouldn't we be? Why is it that some of us are blonde and some of us brunettes, why are we Asian or Irish? Are genetic defects or flaws so terrible, and haven't we gotten past descriminating against people with not-so-perfect genes? If we were all perfect, there would be nothing to compare ourselves with. I believe that this natural selection is only important in breeding; the animals do it and we are no different when selecting an attractive mate. There are occasions however when a problem arises, and a child is born with a serious defect or abnormality, and it is easy to ask: "why?". But we are not God and why should we have the power to alter nature?
Suzuki continues to hammer the importance of understanding history in science, but also points out that scientists are people to. "...they are not evil or fanatics, but ordinary human beings who are totally caught up in their own ambitions and beliefs.. we must remember the pitfalls that the past reveals." I have to wonder though, while making this evaluation, why use Mengele as an example? His work did not lead to any breakthrough, did not cure any diseases, nor did he make any large discoveries. He simply destroyed helpless individuals in the name of science, with no appearance of remorse. Does this make Mengele a monster or a genetic engineer? Would he be considered an ordinary human being by today's standards?
Whatever the argument, Suzuki makes it clear that it is the "enthusiasm about new insights on the mechanics of heredity... that led some of the finest scientists to proclaim that human beings could be 'improved' through selective breeding." Nature always seems to find a way, and evolution can be an unstoppable force. In terms of genetics and genetic engineering, I have to wonder if Suzuki is right and if given the power, would humankind cause more damage than good when applying this science to people. If we as a species were all meant to be perfect creatures, wouldn't we be? Why is it that some of us are blonde and some of us brunettes, why are we Asian or Irish? Are genetic defects or flaws so terrible, and haven't we gotten past descriminating against people with not-so-perfect genes? If we were all perfect, there would be nothing to compare ourselves with. I believe that this natural selection is only important in breeding; the animals do it and we are no different when selecting an attractive mate. There are occasions however when a problem arises, and a child is born with a serious defect or abnormality, and it is easy to ask: "why?". But we are not God and why should we have the power to alter nature?