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

Over the past several decades, geneticists have succeeded in identifying the generic mutations associated with disease. New strategies for treatment, including gene transfer and gene therapy, are under development. Although genetic science has been welcomed for its potential to predict and treat disease, 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 risk, we must clarify what it means to be "human". This paper inquires how "humanness" has been defined within various academic fields. The views of several legal theorists, scientists, bioethicists, psychologists, philosophers and anthropologists whose works seem to best reflect how "humanness" is understood in their respective fields of study are considered. Our survey attempts 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 what 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 symbiotic; genetic intervention which alters one of them could have repercussions on one or more of the others. In conclusion, we offer guidance to those participating in genetic research and treatment regarding the parameters within which they may proceed without threatening the preservation of what is distinctively human.