Moral and Ethical Decision Making

JOURNAL ENTRY: FUTURE OF HUMANITY

Journal Entry: Future of Humanity

In the case study 10.1, professor Sarkar makes an observation indicating that Dr. Oliver Dickerson is involved in falsification, which is a form of research misconduct. Even though professor Sarkar indicates that she is not making an allegation of misconduct against her colleague, it is important to note that she provided evidence on what could be done to determine the said misconduct. Therefore, as the institutional research integrity officer, I am obliged to deal promptly with the evidence provided by Sarkar about possible falsification for it is more acceptable to do what is just and right (Prov 21:3). For this reason, I will first review the evidence provided formally to determine whether Dickerson is indeed involved in the reported misconduct. If I find out that the said doctor is involved in falsification as indicated by the evidence, I will determine the appropriate sanctions for him and ensure that Sarkar is protected from retaliation. However, if after reviewing the evidence I find out that Dickerson is not involved, then I will take the relevant steps so as to restore his reputation.

In the second case study 10.3, it would be prudent to note that Joshua Hanani did not protect the privacy of the DNA gel analysis image when he decided to share his critique with his faculty colleague. This is more so the case given that, as an independent investigator, he should have ensured that the image was protected by keeping the information confidential. In addition, it was ethically wrong for Joshua to tell his editor to underexpose the DNA images to make them invisible. Moreover, Ellen behaved unethically when she offered an alternative solution indicating that the image should be cropped. If I were to advise them, I would first direct Joshua ensure maintenance of privacy for the DNA gel analysis he was performing. In addition, Joshua should follow relevant procedures associated with the said analysis by, for instance, conducting the hypothesis even though it was likely to take 6 to 8 months for it to complete. Joshua should also present the DNA gel analysis image as it appeared in the paper.

Genetic testing happens to be a useful procedure in medical practices. This is more so the case given that it helps in determination of medical conditions such as sickle cell. However, it would be prudent to note that taking samples of an individual’s DNA and analyzing the same could have some ethical implications. For instance, genetic tests may have negative consequences on the people involved. Essentially, individuals who are found to have some genetic conditions may be discriminated against, i.e. by some insurance companies (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2020). In addition, genetic tests may reveal information about a family as having diseases such as those that are sexually transmitted. As a consequence, the said families may be discriminated against. Apart from stigmatization, the said families may face psychological distress and family discord. For this reason, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2020) suggests that genetic testing should be conducted with the highest levels of privacy and informed consent. Genetic testing may also have other consequences with regard to an individual’s reproductive, marriage, and career options.

Genetic testing may be a form of neo-eugenics. According to Epstein (2003), eugenics - which equates to well-born - essentially means that performing neo-eugenics leads to production of better offspring. For this reason, trying to produce better offspring through testing may lead to ethical problems. This is more so the case given that, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2020) points out, prenatal testing may be for the purposes of terminating a pregnancy after detecting fetal condition or to prepare for a potentially affected child. Essentially, a woman may make a decision to terminate a pregnancy after getting the genetic information. This may be against the will of God, in which case children are referred to as a reward and the fruit of the womb as well as a heritage from God (ps 127:3). Therefore, according to Epstein (2003), neo-eugenics should be discouraged so as to prevent abortion, or rein in efforts to prevent reproduction by the “unfit”. This happens to be potential breeding ground for stigmatization, emigration quotas, sterilization and castration, institutionalization, prevention of racial mixing, and prevention of marriage (Epstein, 2003). Despite the negative consequences of eugenics, genetic testing should be performed in eugenics so as to promote breeding of desirable characteristics.

Sex selection is unethical owing to the fact that it may lead to devaluation of one gender as it favors the other gender. In Isa 49:1, the Bible indicates that even from the womb, God had already determined the name of the child - essentially meaning that it is beyond human capacity to grasp or change the gender of a child. Therefore, determining the sex of a child would be against the will of God towards humanity given that humans exist for the purpose of God and not for their self-ordained purposes (Col 1:16). However, sex selection may be allowed if it is perceived that the said selection would be to avoid sex-linked diseases (Dickens, 2002). In this case, selecting a girl would be more appropriate since males who are more likely to have sex-linked chromosomes are associated with sex-linked diseases. Even if this was the case, sex selection to prevent sex-related diseases would be morally wrong given that it would send a bad signal to individuals who have the said diseases, i.e. by indicating that their sex should have been pre-determined. Sex selection may also be allowed if its prohibition poses risk to women’s lives (Dickens, 2002). There are also other exceptions that could be taken into consideration. For instance, consider a scenario whereby a couple has managed to only bear girls, and desires a baby boy. In such a case, prohibiting sex selection may burden the woman as she tries to bear a male child. However, even with this proposal in mind, there is need to point out that according to Dickens (2002), sex determination may also be promoting of sexism which may lead to discrimination against a certain gender. As a consequence, sex selected abortion may result. This would be morally wrong.