Ch. 13— Genetics and Society • 259 
enlist or physician tor daring to "play (lod?” Is it 
because we ha\e t'orgotten the Semitic (biblical) 
conception of creation as Clod's ongoing col- 
laboration with man? Creation is our Clod-gixen 
role, and our task is the ongoing creation of the 
yet unfinished, still e\ ol\ ing nature of man. 
Man has played (lod in the past, creating a 
whole new artificial world for his comfort and 
enjoyment. ()h\iously we ha\e not always dis- 
played the necessary wisdom and foresight in 
that creation: so it seems to me a waste of time 
and energ\’ for scientists, ethicists, and laymen 
alike to heat their breasts today, continually 
pleading the question of whether or not we 
have the wisdom to play (lod with human na- 
ture and our future. It is ohv ions we do not, and 
never will, have all the foresight and prudence 
we need for our task. But I am also convinced 
that a good deal of the wisdom we lack could 
hav e been in our hands if we had taken serious- 
ly our human vocation as transcendent crea- 
Science and society 
The public’s increasing concern about the ef- 
fects of science and tecbnoIog\' has led to de- 
mands for greater participation in decisions on 
scientific and technological issues, not only in 
the United States but throughout the world. 
The demands imply new challenges to systems 
of representative government; in every West- 
ern country, new mechanisms have been de- 
vised for increasing citizen participation. An in- 
creasingly informed population, skilled at exert- 
ing influence over policymakers, seems to be a 
strong trend for the future. The media has 
played an important role in this development, 
reporting both on breakthroughs in science and 
technologv' and on accidents, pollution, and the 
side-effects of some technologies. 
One result has been tbe growing politiciza- 
tion of science and technology. VV’hile perhaps 
misunderstanding the nature of science as a 
process, the public has become disenchanted by 
recent accidents associated with technology, by 
experts who openly disagree with one another, 
and by the selective use of information by some 
scientific supporters to obtain a political objec- 
tive. Tbe public has seen that technology affects 
tures, creatures oriented toward the future 
(here and hereafter), a future in which we are 
cocreators. 
Genetics thus poses social dilemmas that most 
other technologies based in the physical sci- 
ences do not. Issues such as sex selection, the 
abortion of a genetically defective fetus, and in 
vitro fertilization raise conflicts between in- 
dividual rights and social responsibility, and 
they challenge the religious or moral beliefs of 
many. Furthermore, people sense that genetics 
will pose even more difficult dilemmas in the fu- 
ture. Although many cannot fully articulate the 
basis for their concern, considerations such as 
those discussed in this section are cited. The 
strong emotions aroused by genetics and by tbe 
questions of bow much and what kind of re- 
search should be done are at least partly rooted 
in deeply held human values. 
the distribution of benefits in society; it can 
have unequal impacts, and those who pay or 
w ho are most in need are not necessarily always 
those who benefit. 
A national opinion survey of a random sam- 
ple of 1,679 U.S. adults conducted for tbe Na- 
tional Commission for tbe Protection of Human 
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research"* 
made clear that there is public doubt concern- 
ing equity. Sixty percent of those polled felt that 
new tests and treatments deriving from medical 
research are not equally accessible to all Amer- 
icans. Seventy percent felt that those most likely 
to benefit from a new test or treatment of lim- 
ited availability were those who could pay for it 
or w'ho knew an important doctor. This should 
be compared with the 85 percent who felt that a 
new test or treatment should be available to 
those who apply first or who are most in need. 
■‘■'Special Study, Implications of Advances in Biomedical and Be- 
havioral Research," Report and Recommendations of the National 
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical 
and Behavioral Research, DHEW puhlication No. (OS) 78-0015. 
