Homo Sapiens 2.0: Ethics and Biotechnology

I've played it safe for a while with my blog postings. It's time to have some fun again. ;-)

“…if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we? What's wrong with it? …Evolution can be just damn cruel, and to say that we've got a perfect genome and there's some sanctity to it? I'd just like to know where that idea comes from. It's utter silliness.” –James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA.

Advances in genetic technology have brought humanity to the edge of a new era in the existence of our species. Whereas the earliest incarnations of biotechnology (basic agriculture and the domestication of animals) allowed humans to shape the destiny of various plants and animals through selective cultivation and breeding, the resultant changes were the product of patience and the passage of time. The technological developments of the last few decades, however, have permitted us to act directly within the genetic structure of different life forms to immediately bend them to our own design. Using this technology we have created crops that are resistant to disease and endowed with the ability to grow under harsh circumstances, as well as animals that have been altered to provide more food or other useful products for our health, comfort, or consumption. The final frontier, it seems, is the one that collectively we are most hesitant to explore – using the technology that we have acquired to directly modify our own genes.

The advantages would seem to be numerous, though proponents almost always couch genetic technology’s potential in terms of an opportunity to provide medical benefits and thereby to relieve the suffering of genetically-linked diseases rather than in terms of the general improvement that might be available to the entire species. Modifications to the human genetic code could potentially bring about stronger, more intelligent (not to mention better-looking) future generations who, in addition to being less susceptible to diseases that had previously been passed from generation to generation, are less prone to chemical imbalances and allergies.
A number of authors have observed that opinion about the use of genetic technology can be described as falling into four different quadrants that relate to the type of modification (somatic v. germline) and the purpose of the modification (therapeutic v. elective). The results of a worldwide poll about attitudes on the reasons behind the use of genetic technology found overwhelming optimism and support for its potential medical uses, while 83% said that these were its only proper uses. In short, many would support therapeutic uses of the technology who would oppose its use for the kind of “designer babies” that have been promised (threatened?) by the media. While the proponents of modifying the human germline are loath to admit it, the likelihood is that technology that would allow genetic alterations for therapeutic purposes would very quickly be converted to the sort of commercial purposes that many find so repugnant.

Regarding the different types of alteration, the first (and more generally accepted) way of affecting these types of changes is the less-permanent somatic cell treatment. Somatic cell gene therapy incorporates new genetic material into cells for therapeutic purposes, while somatic cell genetic mutation (also called acquired mutation) actually changes the genetic structure. In either case, the adjustments would not be of the type that could be inherited by the children of the treated person, but rather would be localized in their effects (whether positive or negative) to that individual. At the species level, this technique is the evolutionary equivalent of being satisfied with treating the symptoms of a disease rather than undertaking a course of treatment that potentially might bring about a cure. Those who claim that this is the only ethical type of genetic modification usually invoke the necessity to contain potentially catastrophic mistakes that could be made due to an absence of foresight on the part of the scientists re-forming the genome, as well as the potential for lawsuits to arise from the genetically modified offspring should anything go wrong. Practically, however, any attempt to distinguish ethically between this type of modification and the next is of questionable validity because the difference is one of scale rather than of kind.

The second (much more controversial) way of using genetic technology in the pursuit of an improved human condition is to engage in inheritable germline modification, which would result in a permanent shift in the course of human development. By creating changes to the genetic structure that could be passed from one generation to the next, humanity would be moving from the limited version of natural selection that we already exercise in the selection of our sexual partners to active, unnatural selection of the genetic traits that we desire for our offspring. There is still much research to do before this sort of routine is truly viable on a large scale, but experimentation has already taken place in animals and human trials are conceivable in the not-too-distant future. It is in the potential for this type of radical reconstitution of the human gene pool (as well as the likelihood that its benefits will be restricted to the wealthiest nations, widening the gap between the world’s haves and have-nots) that is the most apparent source of concern among those who oppose progression toward this goal.

What are your thoughts on human genetic modification? Are you for it or against it? What ethical/religious issues do you think it raises? If you could ensure certain genetic traits in your children, would you do it? Why or why not?

[As always, I have plenty of thoughts on this. I'll share them after we've gotten some responses.]