What's New in Life Science Research is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them This was the topic of debate among 10 University of California, Davis undergraduates last week.
Germ line gene therapy to cure disease is "like going after a fly with a bazooka" said team 1 who argued in favor of the ban.
"There are significant risks and unproven benefits. We don't fully understand how genes interact with each other so we cannot predict the long-term effects. With somatic gene therapy or only the individual is affected. Germ line gene therapy is passed down through generations."
Team 2 disagreed. "Why be hesitant to reduce suffering and remove painful diseases from the human population? All medical procedures carry risks. Think of Huntington's disease. This is a lethal disease does not kill someone until later in life, often after they have already unknowingly passed the mutant gene onto their children. Wouldn't it be better if they did not have the mutant at all? "
Team 1: "Gene therapy violates a fundamental natural law. Who gets to decide what is normal vs. abnormal? Think of plastic surgery- at first it was used for severe disfigurement but now individuals are seek treatment for cosmetic reasons. Gene therapy, which requires replacing or complementing a mutation with the wild-type human gene has risks. For example, germ line gene therapy may introduce new mutations that would be passed down into the next generation and forever change the human population".
Team 2: " Our species is not sacred. The human gene pool is enormous. Saying that changing one gene is going to drastically affect the human population is like saying peeing into the ocean will change the salt balance. A visceral fear of messing our genetic code should not outweigh the clear benefits of this technology. All options to relieve human suffering should be on the table."
Comments
So who won?
Posted by: Daniel MacArthur | December 10, 2008 8:37 PM
It was a clear win for the team who opposed the ban. They made some pretty darn good arguments for using germline gene therapy to alleviate human suffering. They convinced most of their classmates. They even almost convinced me
Posted by: pam ronald | December 11, 2008 8:31 AM
My mane worry about messing around with genes is that the potential effect is so unpredictable. The human genome is so complex that really not enough is known about it to know what potential effects would be.
There would not be a significant difference in the overall human genome, but it could lead to something nasty happening to the individual patient...
Posted by: Lab Rat | December 12, 2008 6:51 AM
I have the same concerns. The students did convince me though that sometime in the future, there may be some important contributions that germ line gene therapy can make to alleviate human suffering. Perhaps after the technology is more mature and the regulations are clear.
Posted by: pam ronald | December 12, 2008 8:43 PM
It is such an interesting and controversial subject, I am intending to cover a large number of these issues in my newblog
Posted by: Paul Rasmussen | April 10, 2009 7:28 AM