Last spring World Watch interviewed South African writer Nadine Gordimer on her concerns about human genetic engineering.
Last year, in Durban, you gave a speech at the U.N. conference on
racism, and you suggested that human engineering could be the new face
of racism. Could you elaborate?
Nadine Gordimer: There are precedents for breeding that
is politically manipulated. You only have to think of the Nazi
German ideal, the blond blue-eyed German. There’s a very
big distinction between the sort of genetic engineering that
could prevent certain diseases, and the possibility of breeding
a different or separate race of people. There’s always
a good that can come out of it, but how do you control the evil?
WW: In some of your writing, you have pointed to the
possibility of a two-tiered health care system in which the
rich or mostly light-skinned people have access to the new genetic
medicine, while the poor, mostly dark-skinned people have not.
NG: Yes. I was thinking particularly of my own country
[South Africa], and I was thinking specifically of AIDS. Now,
among people who have money to provide themselves with the drugs
that are available to control HIV or AIDS itself, there’s
a good chance to go on living. But in the poor, mostly black
majority of our population, they simply cannot afford these
drugs. So AIDS is a death sentence for them.
WW: So, you are saying that just as the antiretroviral
drugs that help treat the symptoms of AIDS are only available
to a small minority, any genetic breakthrough that we are likely
to see in the next few decades is likely to be similarly priced
and accessible only to a few.
NG: We are looking at a terrible imbalance between the
rich and the poor of the world.
WW: Sometimes we wonder whether scientists don’t
simply do everything they can because that’s what they
are driven to do. If they are able to split the atom, they will
split it. If they are able to make clones, they will make them.
Maybe it’s a part of our hubris that we just rush forward
and build whatever we can, and inevitably we encounter consequences
we haven’t foreseen.
NG: There is something wonderful about the constant
wish to discover. If you’re a writer, you are always looking
for the meaning of human life; your whole writing life is a
process of discovery, of solving the mystery of human nature.
So I can see that if you are a scientist you have this urge
to discover. But unfortunately, when you are brilliant and lucky
enough to strike on something, it may be a Pandora’s box
that you have opened, not the key to the world’s wisdom.
I know that toward the end of his life, Alfred Nobel had many
doubts about his dynamite, and what it would be used for.
WW: Let’s go back to the concerns you raised with
the United Nations, when you suggested that genetic engineering
could lead to a “new racism.” How might a genetic
racism be manifested? Do you mean that people might be manipulated
to be more accepting of the political regime?
NG: Or even to have memories that block out certain
WW: Such as…?
NG: Well, for instance, it’s come through the Truth
Commission that there were plans to use drugs for crowd control,
to make people more docile. I think it’s possible you could
torture somebody and then block out the memory of that.
WW: Obviously we’re not talking about one technology.
As our knowledge of the genome and of neurosciences expands,
it opens up a whole range of frightening scenarios—from
crowd control to the drugs that Aldous Huxley talked about,
which could numb a whole society.
NG: Yes, I suppose we have all tried in one way or another
to manipulate our consciousness—most of us with cigarettes
or alcohol or music. This is a personal choice that you make,
and you’re not forcing it upon other people. But if certain
physical characteristics and mental attitudes can be genetically
induced in some way, that becomes the superiority that leads
to some people being regarded as custodians of everybody else.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
biotechnology and public policy issues. We believe this constitutes a
'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.