Genetic Enhancement and the future of humanity

Fellow ATS Members,

I have a few more questions that I would like to propose to you. I am particularly interested in the interactions between biotechnology and society, and I am wondering if anyone else out here is. The relatively recent explosion in the amount of biological information available, especially on the molecular level, has increased exponentially since Watson and Crick described the structure of DNA in the mid 20th century. This coupled with the concurrent advances in computer science have permitted the complete DNA sequencing of multiple organisms, the study of individual genes and their function as well as study of the interaction between multiple genes.

This of course has certain consequences, both positive and negative. Take the example of human growth hormone (HGH): In the not too distant past, people with much less than average height could receive HGH treatments. HGH was still being isolated from glandular tissue at the time, and limited supply was available. The limited supply meant that it was expensive and generally only an option for people with much less than average height.

The advent of recombinant DNA technologies allowed for inexpensive large scale production of recombinant HGH (rHGH) in bacteria. The relative abundance of rHGH has of course lowered the price, but also made it readily available. The large availability of this product has resulted in what some people would describe as overuse. The Gary Coleman�s of the world have all they need and it�s less expensive. This is arguably a positive outcome. However, now people who are simply less than average in height have the option of taking this hormone to make themselves �normal� height. And physicians do prescribe it to these individuals. This example may not be such a horrible thing, and is not a GE technology, in the sense that genes are being altered. It does however support the notion that people are willing to utilize these new technologies for �enhancement� of themselves.

Prenatal screening is a version of this type of enhancement. Essentially it attempts to eliminate �undesirable� genetic elements from the gene pool. For example, consider the case of Down�s syndrome: couples are often advised during prenatal stages that there child may have an �unacceptably� low intelligence, couples who are carriers for cystic fibrosis also has this option. This is not a moral argument regarding the choice to terminate a pregnancy. I merely wish to use to underscore the idea that an individuals potential and subsequent contributions to society cannot be measured by any test. Consider the case of Stephen Hawking, afflicted with a debilitating genetic disorder. The contributions of Hawking to cosmological disciplines are invaluable, even on par with the accomplishments of Einstein in the minds of some.

The current technology has also resulted into a shift in public opinion regarding an individuals own destiny. For example, there is currently are currently large studies investigating genetic predispositions to a wide variety of things including cancer, obesity, criminal behavior, and intelligence. This is not to say that there isn�t a relevant genetic component in any of these examples. However it tends to downplay the environmental influences, especially when one considers the recent increases in both cancer and obesity that, based on the time, must have occurred with very little change at the genetic level. Genetic information is capable of making individuals feel helpless about their own circumstances.

The investigation of cancer at a genetic level is arguably a positive thing. I would be inclined to argue the opposite about intelligence or criminal behavior. For example, studies have been performed (recently) that attempt to correlate intelligence based on race. Why race, most likely because it is the most visible difference between individuals. However, why is this anymore relevant of an indicator than head size (investigated in the distant past), or arm length, or penis size for that matter?

This also brings to mind the question of who decides which genes are good and bad. As an example what is intelligence? Is that the ability to understand calculus or is it the ability to write poetry. Furthermore, consider the case of sickle cell anemia; the homozygous genetic state can induce cell sickling. However individuals with a single copy of the �defective� gene, have increased resistance to malaria. It has recently been suggested that heterozygous cystic fibrosis carriers have increased resistance to typhoid. Evolution has not allowed these �defective� genes to persist in the gene pool without any potential benefit.

Expanding on the idea of �bad� genes: Nicolo Paganini, virtuoso violinist was thought to have been affected by a genetic condition called Marfan syndrome. This results in exaggerated digit length and extremely flexible joints. It�s likely this is what permitted him to develop his gift. There is also speculation that Rembrandt was �Wall-eyed� giving him his unique perspective. There is also speculation that Picasso may have been afflicted with color blindness. Who's to say which genes are 'good' or 'bad,' especially considering the technologies are really in their toddler stages.

So� any interest? What do you guys think?

Matt

I think it is a bad idea, and if people wouldn't hound me about it I would say I "know" it is.

Genetically modifiying anything is supposed to be done naturally, over time.
We have not a clue as to what the future results of interfering with such a process will turn out. Sure there are beneficial uses for genetic sciences, however the odds are in favor of abuse.

I'm against it, despite the possible good that may happen.

Man playing god, no matter how one looks at it, is not reasonable.

genetically modifying us will lead to problems and we might create a being who will kill us all. haha

Genetic engineering does have the potential to be used for harm, but then again, so do computers, cars, a pen, a knife, petrol, animals, planes, drugs... see a pattern here? Yes, there will be people who will inevitably use genetic engineering for bad purposes, but that is no reason to be against it and all the good things it could do for humanity. I'm talking about the poor people with spina bifida, or quadraplegics. People with muscular distrophy etc...

Genetic enhancement huh.
Wow, can totally see the possibilities. 'Super Humans' able to live 200 years. Bench Press 1000lbs. I.Q.'s that would make Einstein look " mentally challenged" damn near limitless possibilities. The majority of the people in the world would kill someone to have that kind of power.

But, man, This is a power WAY above anything the human race has discovered. When you say it can be abused like drugs? Dude, thats like comparing the army of Haitai to the army of the U.S. Not even in the same catagory.
it would only take 1 person to "abuse" and that person could wipe out the human race.

On that note,
Sign my *** up for test subject

Originally posted by LordGoofus
but that is no reason to be against it and all the good things it could do for humanity. I'm talking about the poor people with spina bifida, or quadraplegics. People with muscular distrophy etc...

Lord Goofus,

I am not saying I disagree with you re: helping people who would benefit from these technologies, however I feel the need to play devil's advocate here: The development of these genetic technologies is still in its infancy. As with any technology, this technology is currently, and will continue to suffer from growing pains, as the technologies are worked out. Often times these technologies can result in deaths, injury, or with genetic technologies, potentially inconceivable consequences. As the technology grows and continues to mature, there is significant potential to do harm on the way to acheiving our noble goals. You may remember the viral human genetic engineering trials that were going on 5 or so years ago that were suspended after the patient mysteriously died. As this technology matures this is likely to happen again. How does the potential for initial horrific consquences balance with the potential to help people in need at a later date.

Considering the human penchant for body modification, plastic sugery, and the like I feel it entirely possible that this will one day become an option for people. Vanity is the quickest way to appeal to people. Good or bad intentions involved.



[edit on 18-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]

Just curious....what site did you get that from? I'd like to read further

I too feel inclined to speak for both sides of this. On the one hand, genetic engineering can improve the way the world lives...minus disease, minus death...but at what cost? Overpopulation, ever-increasing intelligences, which can but lead to higher technology which leads to....well, we know where that goes. It's hard to say, when technology gets rolling, its hard to stop...but should it stop now than later?

Regarding this post:

Whether or not you are in favor of these types of technologies is almost not relevant. These technologies are being studied, researched, etc. right under our noses. The bioindustrial-corporate-university complex is a very real entity, with very strong influences globally. In my opinion genetic enhancement technologies are inevitable. The technologies are their infancy, and the debate about human germ line engineering has been well underway for a number of years. We are all aware of the variety of cloned mammals that now exist, and scientists have created cloned human embryos in the lab (see archives.cnn.com... for example)

So the debate is really no longer are we for or against these technologies; the debate is really centered around the idea of how far into our lives they will become entrenched.

For example: For now the corporations, lawyers, and judges in the US have stated that your DNA is your DNA, and as long as you don't remove it from your body, you can do with it as you see fit. The second you use a gene based therapy, you are paying licensing fees to people who 'own' your DNA sequence information. Many corporations have exclusive rights to genes, preventing others from developing competing products based on that sequence, and sometimes preventing even basic research for non-commercial purposes.

Another thing the Supreme Court has ruled that once tissues are removed from your body they are no longer yours. Corporations have been 'stealing' cell and tissue samples from patients for years and developing them into commercially available products with no consderation or compensation to source of said biological material.

Maybe no one cares about these issues in particular, but it really pisses me off.

Thanks for reading and for your input.

Matt.

Originally posted by LadyV
Just curious....what site did you get that from? I'd like to read further

Lady V,

Was this directed to me? If so, I just wrote that off the top of my head. If you are interested I can point you in some more specific directions, but that didn't come from any website.

Thanks for reading,

Matt

Overpopulation, ever-increasing intelligences, which can but lead to higher technology which leads to....well, we know where that goes. It's hard to say, when technology gets rolling, its hard to stop...but should it stop now than later?

This is a great point! Definitely something to consider. People on the biotech side would argue that significant overpopulation problems can be alleviated via genetic enhancement and modification of food crops and animals... corn that can grow in salty soil, larger cows that have quicker times to slaughter. Hell, aren't you aware of the huge positive impact rBGH has had on dairy farmers (sarcasm intended).

Originally posted by mattison0922
If you are interested I can point you in some more specific directionsThanks for reading,

Matt

I'd like that...there's too many results from a search to weed out the good from the bad...
Thanks....

I'd like that...there's too many results from a search to weed out the good from the bad...
Thanks....

LadyV... I understand what you mean... I am still not sure how to direct you... If you are interested in some specifics from my post I can point in the direction of those specific things. However if you are interested in a general sense, that makes it a little more difficult. I don't know of too many general sources for that type of info except books. If you are interested in learning more via books, I can recommend

"Bioevolution", by Michael Fumento. This book explores all of the positive effects and potential of biotechnologies without ever addressing the negative points.

"The Biotech Century", by Jeremy Rifkin, is a slightly more balanced perspective on the topic, but is still leaning towards "anti-biotech" in my opinion.

"Back Door to Eugenics," by Troy Duster is a scathing commentary on the interactions between biology and society, but a good and informative read.

Finally I could suggest "Dangerous Diagnostics: The Social Power of Biological Information," by Dorothy Nelkin and Laurence Tancredi

Let me know what else I can help you with.

There's so much grey area concerning the topic of genetic engineering / enhancement. To be completly honest, it's going to happen whether at the moment we like it or not. Our race is driven by technology. The first real applications will naturally be military, then will probably progress to hig-tech medical and then finally to the general populace. You'll be able to goto the body-alteration shop, get your tongue pierced, back tattooed...and an extra heart upgrade to cope with the extra stress caused by your insanely strong sharklike jaw muscles, and gorilla like upper body strength. But the big question is, how long will the return to base warranty's be? Will there be two for one sales? Can I fit a B16 heart into a B15 chassis? Can I fit 800cc pistons into my 1.6L heart chamber? How much boost will this give me while filing paperwork?

It's just gonna keep getting worse and worse. It may be my own personal opinion..but natural selection is NOT a farce. There are reasons why people die, and reasons why people are born. If people keep living and defying the natural order of selection, then havoc will wreak. The Day After Tomorrow may BE the day after tomorrow. If we keep living longer and longer, then cancer will evolve, then a new disease will break out that will take the lives of even MORE people. I think it's silly to rush evolution along. It will happen...if we were meant to live on mars...we will outlive this planet, adapt to different environs, and move there. But at this point, we should be preserving EARTH, not our lives. Cause if you can change your unborn child to have blond hair and blue eyes or an enormous...um....i mean........then you can change your unborn child to have super-strength, super-intelligence, and an immunity to whatever you want. Scary Children of the Corn......