What's New in Life Science Research is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them The term "germline gene therapy" carries a conclusion - an inaccurate one - in its terminology. Modifying the genes we pass on to future generations is not useful or needed as a therapy. It is the technique with which to produce "designer babies" and a GATTACA-like future.
Parents who want to avoid passing on serious genetic disease to their children can accomplish that in far less complicated ways, without genetic manipulation, in all but a vanishingly small number of cases. In addition to the "low-tech" option of adoption, parents can use third-party gametes, screen prenatally and terminate an affected fetus, or use "pre-implantation genetic diagnosis" to screen embryos before pregnancy. (Of course, prenatal and embryo screening raise serious ethical issues of their own - who decides what kind of children should be born?)
Because there is so little medical justification for germline modification, it seems clear that at least some who promote it are motivated by enthusiasm for producing genetically "enhanced" children. The arguments against germline enhancement are so strong that it's already been banned in several dozen countries, including nearly all that have active biotechnology research going on.
One of the most persuasive reasons not to allow germline modification: It's a eugenic technology that would almost certainly increase social and economic disparities. It would always be expensive, and real or perceived "enhancements" would thus accrue to the offspring of the already affluent elites. Even proponents acknowledge that such practices could lead to the emergence of "genetic castes."
For much more on this important topic, please see the Center for Genetics and Society website. A good place to start would be our section on "inheritable genetic modification" - another term for germline modification.
Life Science
Comments
It sounds like this argument to me (except if one were to argue it 20 years ago):
We shouldn't use personal computers because they are expensive and hackers could misuse them to wreak havoc.
Posted by: Anna | December 10, 2008 10:58 PM
Marcy -
Why aren't you advocating the cessation of all genetic study? What's the point? Why not just leave everyone as they are, genetic diseases and all? Just toss your shoes into the nearest ABI 3730XL. Dr Isis probably has a few extra pairs she can contribute to the cause.
Posted by: Ian | December 11, 2008 8:08 AM
Don’t you think it’s possible to strongly support genetic research, and also work for responsible regulation and wise choices about how it’s applied?
Posted by: Marcy Darnovsky | December 11, 2008 3:25 PM
Not everybody could afford to give their children a better chance in life, so nobody should do it? I am a moderate leftist, but this argument sounds too much like Harrison Bergeron. So, when do we start handicaping people?
Posted by: Paladin | December 12, 2008 2:28 AM
Cloning humans or genetically human germline modification shouldn't be done at the moment because its unsafe (for the health of the resulting modified individual. Presumably in the future we will have perfected the techniques such that it can be done in a safe manner. I can't see a logical reason to ban the techniques at that point. We currently do a lot of 'unnatural' things that result in the survival of people who would have died as infants in the past (drugs, surgery, dietary modifications etc). Vaccinations and sterilization of medical equipment is pretty unnatural too.
If you remove religious based objections and those based on hypersensitivity over their countries actions in WW2 then there are little in the way of ethical objections to therapeutic alterations of human germline cells.
Posted by: Sigmund | December 12, 2008 1:58 PM
I didn't say there are no reasons to be careful, things can, and probably will, go wrong. But the reason that we shouldn't try to improve the "baseline" because we could get genetic "castes" is (how can i put it gently?) bullshit.
Let's try this: improved education gives someone a better chance in life. Also, the children of that person probably will "inherit" that improved education, and so on. On the other hand, right now not every one of our almost 7 billion population gets a good education, some do not even learn to read. But i don't hear anyone proposing to outlaw education, or at least to stop educating people until everyone can be educated equally.
Posted by: Paladin | December 13, 2008 2:48 AM
"One of the most persuasive reasons not to allow germline modification: It's a eugenic technology that would almost certainly increase social and economic disparities."
Actually, it would work towards penalizing the children of the rich and stupid, rather than rewarding them. Using GE to crop human babies is a great method for:
1. Producing major genetic defects in rich babies
2. Extracting HUGE funds from the very rich with negligible (positive) results.
3. Making the rich population more susceptible to diseases.
All in all, it sounds like a very good way to achieve social equality - the only ones harmed will be the children of the very rich.
It is a bit like what medicine used to be in the middle ages: an instrument of equality. If you were a poor peasant in the old days, you could get some decent herbs to help you overcome a headache or a cold, but no more. As a rich person, you would have been at the mecry of quack doctors who would poison you, bleed you to death, and take all your cash for it.
Posted by: Omer Moussaffi | December 15, 2008 9:37 AM
Here is a movie about the subject: http://www.4-8am.com/onthebeach/
Posted by: christophe | December 16, 2008 2:09 PM
Yes, Marcy, I do think it’s possible to strongly support genetic research and also work for responsible regulation and wise choices about how it’s applied. That's my point. Taking a Luddite position isn't responsible.
What you appear to be advocating is that it's fine for a child to have a change which prevents a given disease, but it's somehow quantititatively different to make a genetic change which will make a child smarter, or more resistant to disease, or heathily slimmer, or even better looking, or more athletic, or even taller.
But what you're practically advocating with this position is for these services to be provided only to the better off.
These services will inevitably be available, and if we take a medieval stance about them, what's actually going to happen is that those who can afford them will get them, and those less well-off will be denied them. In the end, it will be the wealthy who will have the smartest, healthiest children, and the poor will be the underclass.
I won't let that happen. Will you?
Posted by: Ian | December 17, 2008 8:12 AM
"One of the most persuasive reasons not to allow germline modification: It's a eugenic technology"
- This part isn't argument, it's restatement at best. I assume you aren't Godwining.
"that would almost certainly increase social and economic disparities."
Why almost certainly? Technology is also one of the great levelers financially, an engine of social mobility and even of equity. Cellphones in India, for example.
"It would always be expensive"
Name six technologies this is true about. I don't want to predict Moore's law here, but it would seem a safer bet than yours. Technology prices tend to come down, down, down.
"real or perceived "enhancements" would thus accrue to the offspring of the already affluent elites."
Would you also ban new AIDS drugs or antibiotics or bypass surgeries or private schools unless everyone can afford them?
Posted by: D | February 2, 2009 11:55 AM
i take it that not many of the correspondents have managed a child or adult with either painful or hemolytic crisis of sickle cell anemia. my guess is not many of you have seen a person writhing from bone pain that no analgesic, not morphine, not anything known to man can releieve.
this disorder is the result of a single amino acid mutation.
and we should do nothing about it? yeah, right.
Posted by: jim rooney | February 2, 2009 1:09 PM
D wrote:
Google the "Carlson Curve." Gene sequencing prices have been dropping at an exponential rate faster than Moore's Law for computer memory. So it seems premature to assume that this will remain an inaccessibly expensive technology. Furthermore, the expense issue is a red herring, as has been ably pointed out by previous comments. Our society does not consider it ethical to ban costly medical treatments simply because the poorest could not afford them. And yes, non-genetic treatment for medical conditions has multi-generational effects. Ask any child who lost a parent.
Also, the first paragraph of this article is unclear or wrong: the movie GATTACA depicts pre-implantation embryo selection, but NOT transgenic "genetic engineering" of any sort.
Posted by: Spaulding | February 3, 2009 4:01 PM