Distributive Justice and Genetics Colin Farrelly, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK What will the demands of distributive justice be in the postgenetic revolutionary world? Will genetic inheritance be regarded as socially distributed goods? This may seem a more reasonable position to assert as biotechnology progresses further toward human genetic manipulation. Advances in genetic and biological knowledge bring usclosertoaworldwherewewillhavetheability,or atleastamuchgreaterabilitythanwecurrentlyhave, to manipulate our genetic make-up. With this new ability will come new questions concerning what the demandsofdistributivejusticeare.Distributivejustice concerns the just division of bene®ts and burdens in society.Thepolitical,socialandeconomicinstitutions of our society in¯uence the distribution of many different kinds of bene®ts and burdens. These institu- tions confer on us, for example, certain rights and freedoms(e.g.therighttovote,freedomofexpression) andbringaboutacertaindistributionofgoodssuchas income and wealth. Our institutions also ensure that we ful®ll certain obligations such as paying our taxes andrespectingtherightsofothers.Theindexofgoods onebelievesthestateshouldbefairlydistributingisa much-debated topic in political philosophy, and the new genetics promises to raise a number of new concerns for these debates. Asoftheyear2002,thegeneswehavearetheresult ofthe`naturallottery'oflife.Noonehastheabilityto manipulate the genes we are born with, and thus the differentadvantagesanddisadvantagesthatourgenes conferonusaretheresultofbruteluck.Somepeople arebornwithgeneticdiseasesorhaveahigherriskof developing certain diseases than other people. Some are born with genes that increase their chances of developing valued physical and behavioral traits. Thesepeoplehaveadvantagesthatothers,forexample those whose genetic pro®les impede their ability to develop these valuable traits, do not have. No one is responsible for this unfair division of the advantages and disadvantages that our genes confer on us. There isnothingwecoulddo,collectivelyasasociety,about it. However as our knowledge of how genes work increases, and with it the prospect of being able to successfully intervene in the natural lottery of life, this will no longer be the case. The decisions we make regarding the regulation of biotechnology will determine who receives the greatest share of the bene®ts these technologies confer: Macro decisions determine (1) what kinds of health-care serviceswillexistinasociety,(2)whowillgetthemand onwhatbasis,(3)whowilldeliverthem,(4)howthe burdens of ®nancing them will be distributed, and (5)howthepowerandcontroloftheseserviceswillbe distributed. (Daniels, 1985) What will the demands of distributive justice be in thepostgeneticrevolutionaryworld?Willourgenesbe viewedasoneofthesocialgoodsthestateshouldfairly distribute?Thispositionmayseemmorereasonableto assert as biotechnology progresses further toward human genetic manipulation. The prospect of inter- veninginthenaturallotteryofliferaisesfundamental questions on both intragenerational and intergenera- tional justice. The new genetics raises a number of pressing and complex questions for theories of distributive justice. Firstly, we must decide which genetic advantages or disadvantages should be included within the domain of distributive justice. Does justice require that we fairlydistributegenesthatin¯uenceeveryconceivable advantage and disadvantage, ranging from the risk of diseasetothelikelihoodofdevelopingvaluedphysical andbehavioraltraits?Oneextremewouldbetoargue thatall(ormost)oftheadvantagesgenesconferonus should be within the domain of distributive justice. Such a position would be consistent with recent egalitarian theories of justice which have become: ... dominated by the view that the fundamental aim of equality is to compensate people for undeserved bad luck ± being born with poor native endowments, bad parents, and disagreeable personalities, suffering from accidents, and illness, and so forth. (Anderson, 1999) Those attracted to such a version of `luck egalitarian- ism' might find the notion of `genetic equality' appealing, as it applies the principle of equal oppor- tunity wholesale to our natural endowments. How- ever,suchaproposalassumesthatitwouldbepossible to employ very sophisticated levels of genetic inter- ventionaswellastohavefantasticknowledgeofhow genesinfluencethesevariousassets.Evenifwehadthe knowledgeandtechnologytotaketheideaofpursuing genetic equality seriously, there are other concerns: Thefactofvaluepluralismandthefactthatthevalue of traits is relevant to social conditions call for caution about any commitment to genetic equality. (Buchanan et al., 2000) Advanced article Distributive Justice and Genetics NATURE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE HUMAN GENOME / &2003 Macmillan Publishers Ltd, Nature Publishing Group / www.ehgonline.net 42