Describing our "humanness": Can genetic science alter what it means to be "human?"

Over the past several decades, geneticists have succeeded in identifying th e generic mutations associated with disease. New strategies for treatment, including gene transfer and gene therapy, are under development. Although g enetic science has been welcomed for its potential to predict and treat dis ease, interventions may become ethically objectionable if they threaten to alter characteristics that are distinctively human. Before we can determine whether or not a genetic technique carries this ris k, we must clarify what it means to be "human". This paper inquires how "hu manness" has been defined within various academic fields. The views of seve ral legal theorists, scientists, bioethicists, psychologists, philosophers and anthropologists whose works seem to best reflect how "humanness" is und erstood in their respective fields of study are considered. Our survey atte mpts to chart a path for a more detailed study on the meaning of "humanness " in the future. We assess four traits commonly identified in the literature as defining wha t it means to be human: cognition, biological or physiological composition, social interaction with other "human" beings, and spirituality The nature of the relationship between these characteristics, in our view, is symbioti c; genetic intervention which alters one of them could have repercussions o n one or more of the others. In conclusion, we offer guidance to those part icipating in genetic research and treatment regarding the parameters within which they may proceed without threatening the preservation of what is dis tinctively human.