…and this is a 
Humanist or post-humanist?
Category: Reproduction
Posted on: November 9, 2007 5:20 PM, by PZ Myers
The New Humanist has an article on genetic modification of human beings, addressing some of the reservations of critics. John Harris is primarily taking on Jurgen Habermas, who seems to think genetic engineering is yucky.
Habermas has two objections to letting prospective parents tinker with their child's genes:
The child doesn't have the opportunity to give consent — "the power of those living today over those coming after them, who will be the defenceless objects of prior choices made by the planners of today". I don't see the objection, myself. Every parent makes lots of choices in which the child has no say, and even the choice to have a kid is a major one (I suppose teenagers will, at some point, complain that they didn't ask to be born, but that's the kind of choice it was physically impossible for them to make.) This is an utterly useless complaint. I'd much rather have a child come back to me years later and get cranky that I had that genetic error predisposing her to cancer excised without her permission, than to have her wondering why I didn't have that gene corrected after she's diagnosed with cancer.
The second problem seems to be a narrower version of the first: "Eugenic interventions aiming at enhancement reduce ethical freedom in so far as they tie down the person concerned to rejected, but irreversible intentions of third parties, barring him from the spontaneous self perception of being the undivided author of his own life." Having your genes modified before birth deprives one of moral autonomy, somehow. This argument both overrates the importance of genetic variation in ethics and behavior, and again ignores the fact that these differences are normal consequences of reproduction without technological intervention. Does the fact that the role of chance is being replaced with choice somehow change the conscious state of the child?
Anyway, Harris wallops on those two arguments in his short article, and also has a book on the subject: Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), which I may have to pick up. I agree that there is an interesting future ahead of us in which at least the wealthy will be able to be able to sculpt the genetics of their offspring, and I'm not dead-set against it — in fact, I'm probably fairly radical in considering rather extreme consensual (by the parents, obviously) genetic modification to be an important experiment for humanity to carry out — I look forward to our genetically enhanced post-human future, frightening as the possibility of profound biological change may be.
However, pounding on Habermas's arguments isn't very challenging. Going into an embryo to fix genetic errors that will strongly impair post-natal life is a no-brainer to me. Who wouldn't want to be able to excise the possibility of Huntington's disease from their kids, for instance? I hope the book has more to say on the challenging issues, though. What if a modification to reduce the risk of schizophrenia also reduces the risk of creativity? What if paring away a gene that puts them at risk of early heart disease also makes them impotent at an early age? Most phenotypes are the product of multiple genes, and the diversity of possible allelic interactions may make it impossible to predict the outcome of a modification to one with any certainty — genetic manipulation may be very much a gamble, and those in favor of modification may be right back to playing games of chance, just like those of us who reproduced the old-fashioned way.
These are also experiments on our children that will take multiple generations to resolve any unexpected side effects. That's not an argument against doing them, but does emphasize the importance of informed, aware participation in the process. Unfortunately, given human shallowness, I expect the more likely process for testing the wild possibilities will be more like a mad stampede by the over-privileged to give their daughter's Paris's nose in utero, and similar fashionable trifles.
Life Science
Comments
Not that I'm against genetic modification myself, but the long term consequences do merit consideration. Modified genes might not pair up well during meiosis with unmodified, "natural" genes rendering the second generation less fertile. What if there is a limited stock of "custom" genes available so that modified people are too genetically similar, virtual inbreds?
Not to say that we shouldn't attempt such procedures, but we shouldn't be surprised when unintended consequences jump up and bite us in the arse.
Posted by: Cappy | November 9, 2007 5:35 PM
There's always the fascinating possibility of speciation...
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 9, 2007 5:41 PM
Well, I suppose to me the question is what constitutes something that requires modification?
Suppose, for instance, there's a sufficient number of genetic factors that predispose toward homosexuality.
That's not the same thing as, say, being prone to breast cancer or diabetes; but to some people, it most certainly is.
Which is why I guess it's good that we're talking about this before we know how to fuck with our genes on such a level.
I guess what I'm saying is that, until we know what we mean when we say "human", maybe we shouldn't be improving the model.
Posted by: Warren | November 9, 2007 5:44 PM
I wonder how the folks who hammer against genetic engineering in other areas (such as crops) would react to GE humans. Can you ban a GE human that already exists? Restrict their reproduction? Slash and Burn?
I think I agree on the rebuttals of the two arguments given above. The consent argument is impossible to reconcile - As giving consent to take out or leave in disease genes can go either way - couldn't a person complain that they didn't give consent for a disease-risk gene to be left in? (As in, "I didn't give consent to subject myself to the higher level of risk.")
Also - limiting ethical freedom - that has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard on this topic. That's like saying that embryo screening (for compatible blood types for operations, for example) or cloning doesn't allow the resulting human being from being the originator of their own actions? And that also applies to "conventional breeding" of humans. I can just see the argument right now: "Hey, you can't discriminate against me as a potential mate because I have disease-risk genes and a high tendency toward violence. That would prevent your offspring from having ethical freedom."
I think there are a great number of questions that need to be addressed that are more important, one of which is the site of insertion. If you insert a gene into a human embryo, is the location of the newly inserted gene going to be the same from person to person? If they're not in identical loci, what happens when two people with the same tailored gene have kids together, and the kids start inheriting two or no copies of the gene? Random insertion sites are just asking for bad things to happen in future generations. Maybe everyone should get a Multiple Cloning Site put in the same location? :)
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | November 9, 2007 5:48 PM
'Post-humanist' sounds so ominous, I'd like to find another term for that. I don't know how anyone could really be against researching a genetic preventative measure for things like Huntingtons. Even when you get into greyer areas like preventing homosexuality, who am I to deny such research to those who might want it? Is it my decision whether a cure for schizophrenia is worth a loss of creativity? Certainly not. I think our moral imperative is to do the research that will give such options to parents in the future, and let them decide whether or not to use it.
Posted by: Jolly Bloger | November 9, 2007 5:50 PM
That was one of the underlying issues in a book by David Brin and Gregory Benford called Heart of the Comet. Two different groups of people - "Orthos" and "Percells", referring to "natural" and "modified" humans. It was like a Red-Blue politcal split, too.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | November 9, 2007 5:51 PM
What's going to be really fascinating/troublesome is when people start intentionally inserting troublesome genes - like wanting to have deaf, blind, or midget genes. At the same time, we risk the crippling of future humans on the whims of their parents - if a parent can't surgically remove the eardrums of their kids (unilaterally), how can they purposefully insert a gene that makes them blind?
Then there's always the possibility of genetic fads - like if they invent a "blue hair" genetic construct. Weirdness.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | November 9, 2007 5:57 PM
err... I mean "how can they purposefully insert a gene that makes them deaf?"
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | November 9, 2007 5:59 PM
The usual expression is "transhumanist" - though Harris disclaims being a transhumanist.
You folks all need to know about IEET, obviously. This stuff is our bread and butter.
http://www.ieet.org/
Posted by: Russell Blackford | November 9, 2007 5:59 PM
It's apparent that many artistic and scientific geniuses have/had severe mental problems in other areas (e.g. depression, schizophrenia, autism disorders). This raises a few questions. 1) If we selectively eradicate mental disorders, are we running the risk of also eradicating the next Van Gogh? 2) Are we running the risk of eliminating political dissidents? 3) If we select for 'genius' are we also going to be seeing a side-effect of increased mental disorders?
To some extant we've already had this debate with Prozac, so I don't know if this is anything new.
Posted by: Christianjb | November 9, 2007 6:05 PM
At last we will have real Intelligent Design, and there will be no controversy about the term. You would think this would make the creationists happy, but noooo. You just can't please some people.
Posted by: Bert Chadick | November 9, 2007 6:13 PM
Nurse: Congratulations! It's a mutant!
Mother: He's beautiful, let me hold him!
Baby: Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!
Posted by: J Myers | November 9, 2007 6:15 PM
That teenager is still going to complain. Why am I a brunette instead of a blond? Why blue eyes, not green?
Posted by: TomDunlap | November 9, 2007 6:17 PM
I believe it's illegal to give your child a name with numbers or a name that could cause harm to him/her in the future. For example, you couldn't name your child "Idiot."
Similarly, it'll probably be illegal to negatively modify your children. So for example, fury fetishists will probably not be able to have cat children or something like that.
Most likely individual modifications will have to be cleared by some FDA-like government organization for legal use in America as well.
Posted by: Che | November 9, 2007 6:21 PM
Tom, you could have stopped with the first sentence. "That teenager is still going to complain." ;-)
Posted by: Russell | November 9, 2007 6:21 PM
Genetic engineering like many other society-shaking inventions is a tool, morally neutral in itself, that can be used for good or evil. And of course it is right to use such a tool for good. The problems have always been first on agreeing what is good and what evil, and second, unintended consequences.
I have no doubt it will be used, and that it will lead to enormous benefits eventually, but I am also sure that as ethical fashions change, as they always do, that some of the consequences will be such as would horrify us. (I can invent possible examples, but the details are not the point.) Many pioneering scientists and thinkers of past centuries would have been horrified to have known that their work would eventually lead to spreading atheism. Now that we are here, we consider it a good thing of course, but that is only a product of our current ethics. Why would things stop here? The ethics of our great grandchildren will be as different from our as ours is from our own great grandparents, as different as ours are from the eugenicists and religious fundamentalists, and I am sure we will not like all of it. That's fine by me, but this is what really scares the anti-science crowd. All the crap about faults in evolution and Biblical literalism is a distraction which I don't think even they really believe - what they believe in, and are so afraid of is our moral evolution.
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 6:26 PM
These are also experiments on our children that will take multiple generations to resolve any unexpected side effects.
That would also be an evolutionary process!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 9, 2007 6:30 PM
PZ, I'm surprized to find you so much in favor of genetic manipulation beyond correction of simple genetic diseases. But I'm very much in agreement. Fetishization of randomness is a curious reactionary tactic that pops up around a number of topics: the issue raises some of the same questions and attitudes as other family planning questions.
Why is random recombination better than deliberate trait selection? Brush aside the insubstantial, mystical aspects and the luddite aspects, and the best argument seems to be "we just don't understand the biological ramifications well enough for the risk to be acceptable." Right now that's a fair assessment for some technologies, but our understanding will improve and this objection will weaken.
Also, the question of genetic control is technologically broad. Transforming an embryo with novel synthetic genes is probably riskier than transforming with cross-species genes, which is riskier than transforming with human genes. Embryo selection would be even less risky.
Prof. Lee Silver offers a good take on it in his book "Remaking Eden". Basically, there's an inevitable pattern of parents trying to provide the best for their children, from homes to education to advice to food, etc. Given another means of improving the prospects of their children, many parents will take advantage of it. And yes, some parents will have greater means of providing for their children than others (in turn perpetuating economic advantages and disadvantages for another generation), but that's no change from the status quo.
Posted by: Spaulding | November 9, 2007 6:33 PM
There's a third major problem, not discussed in the article: social problems which result from a large fraction of parents making the *same* choice about their children. India and China today have significant gender imbalances as a result of parental decisions to not give birth to girls.
Posted by: silence | November 9, 2007 6:33 PM
It seems to me that until we understand exactly what each human gene does and how it interacts with all other genes, modifying our children's genes would be exactly the kind of arrogance that has given us thalidomide, asbestos and the ozone hole.
@Che: "Most likely individual modifications will have to be cleared by some FDA-like government organization for legal use in America as well."
Oh, in that case I guess we have nothing to worry about...
Posted by: Frank Oswalt | November 9, 2007 6:50 PM
Anyone seen the movie Gatica?
Posted by: Mike | November 9, 2007 6:59 PM
@Spaulding: "Why is random recombination better than deliberate trait selection?"
Because evolution works. Never touch a running system.
Posted by: Frank Oswalt | November 9, 2007 7:00 PM
"India and China today have significant gender imbalances as a result of parental decisions to not give birth to girls."
How is that a problem?
Posted by: antihumanist | November 9, 2007 7:03 PM
I dunno... If factors like musical ability and intelligence are genetic I imagine some personality types (shyness, emotional quotionent, moodiness) are too. I'm not sure as a parent I'd want to be held to task for wanting and deliberately having a moody, intelligent, poor EQ child because I think such people are simply better.
It's a cliche to say adversity "builds character" but there are aspects of being "damaged" such as gay, autistic, schizophrenic, color blind, deaf, short, or, heck, a minority that can become self-defining and even enlightening, and I'd be loathe to through them all away. Then again, I'd be just plain perverse to want to make a child autistic, schizophrenic, on purpose. But then I'm not crazy about a world where it's assumed intelligence, happy-ness, emotional quotient, etc. etc. or naturally to tinkered for end it'd be perverse for me to want my shy, moody child to be shy and moody.
There's a definate comfort in having such out of one's control.
Posted by: woozy | November 9, 2007 7:04 PM
I've always preferred "Transhuman."
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2007 7:14 PM
How is this a problem?
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2007 7:18 PM
Unintended consequences are certainly a risk. But we don't need to agree on what is good and evil. If we leave decisions about this stuff to prospective parents under consultation with specialists, then a detailed moral consensus is not required. In the U.S.A., parents are given tremendous leeway to screw up their kids - through poor parenting skills, poor educational choices, poor ideologies, etc. Intervention is reserved for very extreme cases of abuse, not for choices that simply deviate from the norm.
But yeah, some of the extreme cases may be still me morally unplumbed areas. I'm oversimplifying. Still, "leave it to the parents" is still less ominous than gov't regulated modificaton guidelines.
On a separate note, be careful to read the fine print before you consider having Monsanto™ brand kids.
Posted by: Spaulding | November 9, 2007 7:19 PM
Reading this thread, I was reminded of the Science Fiction story "Beyond This Horizon", by Robert Heinlein, one of the few "far right" utopias. In that scienc ficton future, most people were healthy, had quick reflexes, were relatively strong and good looking. The society maintained a certain percentage of "naturals" who were subject to bad backs, rotten teeth, etc. The "naturals" were awarded bonus pensions by the future society as compensation for maintaining the genetic reserves of humanity. You never know when a bad gene may have protective side effects- A. McIntire
Posted by: Alan D. McIntire | November 9, 2007 7:30 PM
I can see some serious pitfalls to this one. Mommy and Daddy got-bucks genetically engineer little Tommy and Sally to be stronger, faster, smarter, resistant to disease, and longer lived. Over generations the wealthy are able to do this to the point that they dominate the universities, sports, business, politics (even more than they currently do). Imagine that future, two human races, a genetically perfect uber race and unter Männern drones.
I realize that the technology itself is neutral, and could do some wonderful things helping those parents with the possibility of serious birth defects protect their children, etc., but do we really need to have yet another technology that greedy bastards can use to screw over the rest of the world?
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 9, 2007 7:53 PM
Interesting topic.
I don't think there's much doubt that the science and technology allowing for deliberate human genetic modification will mature within a couple of decades, so it's timely that the ethical issues arising from that are being discussed now.
Posted by: John Morales | November 9, 2007 8:08 PM
Moses: Would you want to live your life knowing that you didn't have a chance of finding a spouse?
Posted by: silence | November 9, 2007 8:09 PM
Sounds like Francis Crick's position. That seems to be an unpopular position to take these days. IIRC he got smeared with the Eugenics brush in his later days, references to Nazi's included.
Anyway, it's too late for me to get superpowers, so I'm against the whole thing.
Posted by: Kyle Huff | November 9, 2007 8:13 PM
Anyway, I think the really difficult problem is who decides what's a "defect" and what isn't? Homosexuality, mental differentness and non-standard appearance have already been raised on this thread at 3, 10 and 14, but there are other cans of worms too. If one couple can have their kid modified to remove genes for homosexuality, another could have theirs modified to insert them... Well, of course I actually mean "replace with a different allele", but you get the point.
Sooner or later those problems will arrive whether we want them to or not, though.
P.S. A really horrifying thought: how many parents would have their kid modified to be more likely to obey their parents, if they could? (It's in their best interests, after all, since the parents know better.) What if this turns out to make them more obedient to authority in general? A recipe for dystopia... at least I think so. Some people would *like* that kind of society.
Posted by: Chris | November 9, 2007 8:14 PM
Frank Oswalt:
Yeah, but selection is what makes it work, not randomness. Randomness is a noise generator, but we could also get some that noise via deliberate tinkering. Throwing in some lateral gene transfer and introducing artificial selection on the level of individual genes does not sidestep evolution at all, it just complicates the equation by involving human intelligence.
And yeah, we'll make mistakes, just as mutation makes mistakes. But we'll also reap benefits of eons of evolution in other species. And some day we'll introduce novelties that might never have appeared in the context of incremental evolution. As the original post suggests, a few generations ought to suffice to eliminate each generation's error. (Yes, back to evolution!)
On a separate note, financial iniquity leading to genetic iniquity is a popular objection to human genetic engineering. But the cost of these technologies has been (and likely will continue) dropping at a somewhat rapid pace. I suspect that when the knowledge is in place to start confidently messing around with this stuff, affordable biotech will already exist.
Today, I'd estimate that a person with $20,000 - $30,000 and the relevant skills could insert a small number of genes into some embryos. Don't have any idea of the cost of getting the embryos in vitro in the first place. Anyone able to correct me or add to the estimate?
Posted by: Spaulding | November 9, 2007 8:15 PM
#23, #26: It's a problem because if nobody gives birth to girls, you have millions of single men with not enough women. To quote Dan Dennett: 'What are all those young men going to do with themselves? We have a few years to figure out benign channels into which their hormone-soaked energies can be directed.' (Breaking the Spell p.333)
This sort of imbalance tends (among other things, of course) to lead to huge armies, which in my opinion are never a good idea, whatever country they're in.
Oh and #10: Come on. It's hardly as if you can say every genius (just what is a genius, anyway?) has been affected by mental disorders. Look at Bach, for example. Totally normal guy by all accounts, just happened to create the best music imaginable (and loads of it, too!). Eradicating mental illness, while making sure we don't turn everyone into zombies, should be a priority. We shouldn't worry about wiping out geniuses - they have a habit of popping up regardless of mental health, social status, nationality, etc etc.
Posted by: Stuart Ritchie | November 9, 2007 8:20 PM
silence:
"Moses: Would you want to live your life knowing that you didn't have a chance of finding a spouse?"
So there will be pressure to move from monogamy to polygyny, and/or prospective parents will see that sons suffer because of the problem of finding a wife, while daughters have many suitors, and so having only sons won't seem like such a good idea. (Memetic evolution in action.)
Posted by: Sam | November 9, 2007 8:33 PM
Oops, I mean polyandry.
Posted by: Sam | November 9, 2007 8:39 PM
What would my personal tragedy have to do with it? Nothing. So those kind of appeals just ring emotional and intellectually hollow.
And, BTW, there's a lot of misleading information to the extent of the problem. The sex ratio distribution in the adult range the is 1.06 men to 1.00 women (compared to the US that's 1.00 to 1.00 in the adult range). This should work out to, off the top of my head, roughly 21 men for every 20 women. Considering many people don't get married and men die faster than women in China (by 65 the ratio is 0.91 men to 1.00 women) I can't see any real problem at all.
What I see as a problem in China is the annual 13.45/1000 births compared to the 7.00/1000 deaths. Which isn't, actually, as skewed as our growth which is 17+ (14+ births and 3+ immigrants) and a death ratio of 8.3/1000.
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2007 8:39 PM
As someone with a neurotic Catholic mother, I think I can safely say I'm extremely fucking glad parents do not have the ability to tinker with their kids' psyches genetically. Apart from the fact that I'd probably fall under the schizophrenia risk/creativity blanket gene category and I'd deeply miss being me, I feel fairly confident I'd be modified to be a sweet, trite, soulless little pious Catholic bastard if it had been possible.
So, consider this one, PZ: Catholic parents, fucking loco, would like to make their children into religious automatons. This is the possibility that has always terrified me about childhood gene-tweaks, because it's something my mother would very likely have done. Instead of posting on Pharyngula, I'd be arguing Catholic theology in a seminary and trying to net a nice, white, non-Jewish Catholic girl of similar disposition. My mother would be happy, happy, happy.
Ugh, ugh, ugh, ugh, ugh. The way people define "good traits" in children is by definition going to become Orwellian, psychotic, and fucked up to them- possibly a massive majority of them, given that piety continues to be a virtue and there is (hypothetically) most likely some fairly reliable ways to bring it about. Transmetropolitan, that is the comic, had a few pages once dedicated to the kid whose parents took a "fashionable" naivete gene-tweak that made him imagine and see God and the Devil arguing over his every decision, including whether and when to cross the street.
This is terrifying. I take the position that parents in general are too utterly stupid to be allowed to directly shape the brains of their children, or the future gene pool for the brains of the human race.
Posted by: Dan | November 9, 2007 8:44 PM
Nobody? The difference in China is 1.06 to 1.00. In India it's 1.061 to 1.00. Those differences are pretty small.
And, FWIW, humans don't necessarily pair-bond for life. I know too many straight men that have never married. Same with straight women. They're just not able to commit for whatever reason, including perfectionism, delusional beliefs about themselves, grandiose expectations, revulsion of sex, etc.
And, worse comes to worse, there are Russian brides... :)
http://www.elenasmodels.com/press/08082006release.htm
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2007 8:55 PM
I'd tinker with the genes of my own kids like fixing some genes that are broken in most "normal" humans, like the blue photoreceptor and the gene that codes for the enzyme L-gulonolactone oxidase (to cure scurvy), etc. I would caution against going nuts though because there could be unintended consequences.
Posted by: Ryan | November 9, 2007 8:55 PM
We don't need to use genetic manipulation to do that crap. We just need William Donohue's parents... They did a fine job of making a malodorous Catholic creep out of him without genetic manipulation.
Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2007 9:00 PM
Has anybody else read Egan's 'Distress'? I think he nailed it in one when he said the Big Issues of the 21st century will be health (and perhaps humanity.) I have this rather unimaginative suspicion that being a policitcal/cultural conservative has a lot to do with heritable brain architecture and behaviour. What if future clinicians find out this is actually the case? What if we find out that these people have built-in hostility, lack of empathy, and fear of the new? An unreasonable respect for authority? Do we call this a health issue? Do we screen for it, advise the prospective parents of the risk? Do we legalize gene theorapy that can 'cure' this condition?
I suspect that there are a lot of other behaviours and preferences, perhaps not so dramatic, that have a lot less to do with 'free will' and environment, and a lot more to do with phenotypical expression of a particular genotype, everything from what type of food one likes to degree of introversion, to use an old-fashioned term. While a lot of them seem culturaly neutral right, it might be the case that later on, certain traits will be seen as 'unhealthy'. And that word will be used with the same quotes around it that people use when they talk of having 'issues'.
Posted by: ScentOfViolets | November 9, 2007 9:02 PM
You don't NEED genetic modification to do religious conditioning, its' true, but it's not like it wouldn't help.
Also, I'm annoyed that I mangled the grammar in one sentence in my last post.
Violets: They wouldn't call it a disease. They'd call it virtue. There'd be entire clinics full of doctors selling these sets of traits to parents, so their kids would be "right-minded Christian Americans" instead of godless pinkos.
And that is what, not to be redundant, scares the shit out of me.
Posted by: Dan | November 9, 2007 9:05 PM
Moses, I'm not making this up or anything... this is (or will be) a major issue, no matter how much hand-waving you do. http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1997109,00.html
Anyway. Off-topic alert.
Dan, that does sound extremely scary. You'd have to have strict government controls on exactly WHAT parents can tinker with - like only allowing them to adjust genes related to future medical complaints/conditions. But, as PZ pointed out originally, it's a wee bit more complicated than that.
The ethics of this situation are just too wild for me at the moment; I'm going to take more convincing. I'm open to it though!
Posted by: Stuart Ritchie | November 9, 2007 9:11 PM
You misunderstand me, believe. I think it is a _bad_ idea to frame these sorts of differences as health issues. Particularly if they're 'mental health' issues. Even if it's true that a prototypical conservative has just these sorts of differences, saying that they're 'unhealthy' is an attempt to cloak a normative judgement as a dispassionate scientific observation.
Posted by: ScentOfViolets, Columbia, MO | November 9, 2007 9:13 PM
I sort of agree, Dan. I find it entirely plausible that those who currently oppose such modification on moral grounds would easily switch to requiring it on moral grounds as soon as it would seem to benefit them.
Note however that I find the Gattaca scenario most implausible.
Posted by: John Morales | November 9, 2007 9:21 PM
Well, it's the same issue from a different angle. I'm afraid of what will be marketed and then tampered with, you're thinking about it taken from a "health" perspective. The value judgments involved are basically the same.
Posted by: Dan | November 9, 2007 9:24 PM
Habermas seems to be saying that because future enhanced individuals have not chosen their enhanced nature they cannot conduct their lives autonomously. But we are all in the position of having had "the way we are" determined by a combination of the acts and omissions of our parents and others with whom we have interacted since conception. If this is inimical to equality or autonomy then neither equality nor autonomy exist, nor have they ever existed.
He's wrong here, this isn't what Habermas is saying. He is saying that it is wrong because it is impossible to separate the value of the trait we want to impose from the social aspect of that value in terms of success in the world. It relates more to what we see as good. Like when people in China choose to abort female fetuses. They are imposing their conception of the good upon the next generation. Moreover, that sort of selection, aborting females, causes other problems, like perpetuating a patriarchal system given that there are less females to challenge it.
Another example is when people earlier in the thread said that it should obviously be illegal to genetically engineer your kids to be deaf, but that imposes value judgments with which the next generation might not agree.
I thought his point that:"Our freedom is no more threatened by the possibility of human enhancement than by the myriad of other prior decisions that have determined the nature of the world we have inherited and the bodies and minds we possess." is exceptionally wrong. I think that our freedom most certainly has been threatened by the actions of previous generations, for example the reliance on fossil fuels and cars. I don't think that necessarily makes those previous generations morally culpable, mainly because they often didn't know what effects their actions would have, but that doesn't mean that our freedom hasn't been restricted.
All in all I think it completely justifiable to alter someones genome if you know that there will be significant physiological problems if you don't, but it is questionable further.
Posted by: coathangrrr | November 9, 2007 9:25 PM
The most insidious weapon the West could deploy would be a cheap pill that effectively selects for male children. Cultural imperatives would depopulate vast tracts of the earth in a generation.
Now I feel all evil and stuff...
Posted by: Bert Chadick | November 9, 2007 9:42 PM
PZ, #2:
Lee Silver described that in almost comical detail. Not only does he expect the engineered to become reproductively distinct from the "gen-poor," but he even predicts that different brand names in the reproductive genetics market will become separate species.
Inoculated Mind, #7:
Already happening.
Che, #14:
Again, something similar is already happening, and regulators are silent. There are a lot of cowboys out there doing genetic screens without bothering to provide professional medical interpretation of the results to customers who might not understand the difference between an increased risk of preventable disease and a death sentence.
Spaulding, #18:
I'm tempted to say it's because they want to make sure God can still intervene in the process, but somehow I think that's not even it. Some people take extreme actions to avoid having to think about difficult ethical issues.
Frank Oswalt, #20:
The same "arrogance" that gave us those things has given us everything else like penicillin and computers; "creativity" is a better word. This is the "we shouldn't invent the internet until we know how we're going to deal with online identity theft" argument. We can't sit on new technology and wait for science that doesn't exist yet to contradict the things we already know that say it will improve our lives. That's just stalling.
Frank Oswalt, #22:
So give us back your medicine and rely solely on your genetics to stave off disease. If you lack alleles for resistance to chickenpox or the flu or HIV, surely you're planning to remove yourself from the gene pool for the good of the species. Right?
John Morales, #30:
Decades in the future? Try a decade ago, when PGD became available.
Moses, #40:
Sixty million is a lot of wifeless young men, and it's only going to get worse.
Posted by: Epistaxis | November 9, 2007 9:51 PM
PZ Myers: "Most phenotypes are the product of multiple genes, and the diversity of possible allelic interactions may make it impossible to predict the outcome of a modification to one with any certainty"
Right - which is why human germline engineering is a bad idea except for debilitating genetic diseases. And as you point out, even then it is risky.
"genetic manipulation may be very much a gamble, and those in favor of modification may be right back to playing games of chance"
Not only that it will be chance effects beyond natural "random" variation since these will be novel alleles (either in context or in structure), with wholly novel and possibly unpredictable downstream effects and interactions.
There are severe restrictions on human medical experimentation for good reason. There must be informed consent and medical necessity. And such experimentation will affect not just the first generation, but all future ones.
There is much we have yet to know about the function of genome, much less the function of the epigenome, of the larger cellular and organismic information network that determines expression, of cellular communities. Epigenomic programming - in cancer, intergenerational transmission - is largely a mystery.
Future human generations are not GMO crops. Let's not conflate these issues.
Certain corners of the scientific community, both progressives and libertarians, have favorable views of reproductive cloning, non-therapeutic germline manipulation of humans, human male pregnancy, even, in some cases, human-chimp hybridization (no, not embryonic chimeras, I mean viable adult hybrids). Wouldn't it be fun to scandalize the faith-head rubes. Perhaps the joke will be on us as well.
Bio-techno-philia is the opposite impulse of Kass-Rifkin bio-Ludditism. It is an understandable but erroneous impulse. I have read the flights of fancy of the transhumanists and extropians since the 90s. Unlike the eugenicists of the early 20th C, we now have the tools to realize some of those fantasies, even though we are nowhere close to fully understanding the full consequences. I used to laugh at bio-Luddites - and I still think they go too far - but now I understand what they are concerned about.
Posted by: Colugo | November 9, 2007 10:09 PM
...
...
Anything that can increase human intelligence is, in my mind, absolutely necessary if we're going to survive.
As far as physical traits are concerned, anyone else think it's funny that all the other primates are so strong compared to humans? I'd be in favor of splicing genes in to return some of that strength we seem to have lost.
Longevity? Better vision? More endurance? Immunity to heart attacks? Enhanced creativity? I'm there.
Perkier breasts? Bigger dick? Umm, well ... mayyyyybe.
I think one answer to any objections is that rich people are going to give THEIR kids certain advantages anyway. On the other end of the spectrum, certain religious people would willingly engineer their children for greater "faith" and obedience, if such a thing turns out to be possible.
The thing I'd like to see kept in mind during the deciding of whether some of these things were allowable or not is this:
Parents do not own their children. Not ever. At best, we have custody and mentorship of them during their early lives, but they BELONG to themselves, to the independent adults they will someday be.
I'd be in favor of a limited menu of positive traits which that later adult could himself/herself see as advantageous enhancements, and a roster of other possible traits which would be marked as "dehancements," and disallowed.
Any government leader who tried to meddle with the brains of the citizenry, I'd favor death by hungry rats ... after an extended period of torture. And any parent who thought some trait or other was "cute" - in the same way some people think twisted little dogs like Lhasa Apsos are "cute" - would be hit in the head repeatedly with a shovel.
In the same way that sex change procedures today require extensive psychological evaluation, I'd agree with some type of evaluation for those thinking of tinkering with their future kids. Just to be sure the tinkering was sincerely aimed at the kids' advantage, you understand, and not the quirky pleasure of the parents.
To those with objections: OF COURSE it's going to be misused. Everything is. But overall, I predict some very good things happening.
To those who imagine genetic Haves and Have-nots, well, hell, short as I am, I think we have those now.
My advice is: Go for it. Consciously aim for the best. Expect social turbulence, including automatic objection from screaming bobbleheads.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 9, 2007 10:12 PM
I wonder if the New Humanist is paying for freelance articles? I published a feature piece without payment a few years back just for the chance to have something in print. The editors are somewhat helpful and I recommend it as a good venue for scientists to easily get their opinions out there in the marketplace.
Posted by: caynazzo | November 9, 2007 10:15 PM
How many commenters on these threads would allow psychosurgery of newborns - maybe something sophisticated like injection of additional stem cells - to give them enhanced abilities. Or to induce Asperger's to make them like Mom and Dad, or to make them docile, or to make sure that they are heterosexual. Or maybe giving them hormones to make sure that they are homosexual. Probably very few.
Why not tissue engineering performed on preteens for larger muscles or denser bones, using biomatrix scaffolds, somatic stem cells, and cytokine injections? Sound like a good idea? Surely none of you endorse routine lobotomization. Would you allow the gene manipulation version?
Have a problem with that? Then think twice about manipulation of the human germline based on parental wishes for the traits of their children.
What would you like to have done to you during your own developmental trajectory?
Posted by: Colugo | November 9, 2007 10:21 PM
...
...
Just a little side note: Let's not get too excited by all the science-gone-bad movie-type scenarios. Plenty of unexpected GOOD things could happen too.
To me, the greatest potential dangers are those that will come from authority:
I wonder how many of us realize that all those neat little articles we read about Non-Lethal Crowd Control Devices of the Future -- sonic weapons, lasers, gases, things that will make you unconscious or vomit uncontrollably or run screaming in pain, but cause no "permanent damage" -- are going to be used against us at some point. The mere deployment of a non-lethal device inevitably lowers the bar on violence against citizens by authority.
In the statistical universe of cops, there will ALWAYS be those brainless few convinced that a 7-year-old having a tantrum needs a tasing, or that an adult simply raising his voice constitutes a danger to the public, and needs to be blasted with the Pain Cannon.
And, well, if there were such a thing as a Testicle Exploding Lobotomy Ray, Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez would have had them out on American streets five years ago.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 9, 2007 10:33 PM
Plenty of the nonlethal measures are nifty for torture, too, on a side note. I remember reading about one that uses ... I think it was microwaves to directly stimulate pain nerves. Doesn't that sound lovely?
Posted by: Dan | November 9, 2007 10:42 PM
The solution to the gender-selection problem is easy: Engineer people to do what the Gethenians did in The Left Hand of Darkness.
I'm pretty sure there are some fish genes out there we could insert for this purpose.
Posted by: HP | November 9, 2007 10:42 PM
It doesn't matter anyways since the machines will take over before genetic engineering gets out of hand.
Posted by: Che | November 9, 2007 11:02 PM
Aside from all the other obvious issues... just Google "extreme body modification" and imagine parents who want some of those ideas -- split penis, horns, unusual pigment patterns etc. -- built into their new little bundle of joy as an artistic statement. Not everyone is going to shoot for the perfectly sculpted, generic Hollywood model.
I don't know how you regulate against that kind of abuse of the unborn, and still allow things we might all wish to avoid or "shape" with a pregnancy. Who are we going to allow to draw those lines?
Posted by: foldedpath | November 9, 2007 11:14 PM
James Watson
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3451-stupidity-should-be-cured-says-dna-discoverer.html
"If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease. The lower 10 per cent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what's the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, 'Well, poverty, things like that.' It probably isn't. So I'd like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 per cent. ... People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."
Shalini Sehkar
http://scientianatura.blogspot.com/2007/08/rethinking-eugenics.html
"If there is indeed a way to breed humans for certain abilities, what's stopping the next eugenics revolution (this time based on modern science) from happening? Should we or should we not attempt to stop it? What are the arguments that might lead us to conclude that it is or is not a good idea?"
David Barash
http://thephora.net/forum/archive/index.php?t-10547.html
"I ... look forward to the possibility that, thanks to advances in reproductive technology, there will be hybrids, or some other mixed human-animal genetic composite, in our future. ...(I)n these dark days of know-nothing anti-evolutionism ... a powerful dose of biological reality would be healthy indeed. And this is precisely the message that chimeras, hybrids or mixed-species clones would drive home."
Posted by: Colugo | November 9, 2007 11:18 PM
HP@56: The Left Hand of Darkness is the best book ever. Everyone who can read one of the languages into which it has been translated should read it.
Posted by: octopod | November 9, 2007 11:32 PM
You all realize that these conjectures apply only to the short term, right? By the end of the century, humans will all be living in the matrix!
Posted by: RamblinDude | November 10, 2007 12:06 AM
First thing to fix would be our broken Vitamin C gene. It's there (or at least its remnants are) and if appropriate, the fix could be tested on other primates first.
No more scurvy!
Posted by: Dale | November 10, 2007 12:06 AM
To Inoculated Mind (Comment #4), I know Gregory Stock has suggested (although I doubt he was the first to do so) that all genetic enhancements are put on an additional, artificial chromosome. That way they can be easily edited later in life.
Which brings me to my next point. PZ, you mention allelic interactions after reproduction. However, I can't even give my iPod to my brother because it's too old. Why would you give a child your genetics if they are at least 20 years old?
Surely, we'd start from scratch. Remove the artificial chromosome from your gametes and replace them with the newer model. Only the best for your children.
Posted by: Doddy | November 10, 2007 12:20 AM
heh...'risk of creativity.'
Posted by: Doug | November 10, 2007 12:28 AM
There are some problems that have simple genetic causes that we will probably be able to fix in the embryo soon. I can't see any reason not to do this: If we do it wrong, the resulting child will likely be no worse off than without the genetic intervention. As the unintended consequences of this kind of work are ironed out we will be able to do more. However, for more general "improvements" the current random process has advantages:
The big advantage of randomness in some contexts is that a random choice can not be biased. In a drug trial, if you knew which drug was the best treatment for a patient you choose that drug. Since you don't know (or why hold a trial?) a random choice at least gives you unbiased results.
And people have remarkably bad preferences over genetic matters. Go to any fancy animal show to see just how bad: Look round and ask yourself how many animals are better in any real sense than a random mongrel. You will see longer or smoother coats and exaggerated features, but nothing of lasting value. Some animals are distorted beyond useful function. My least favourite is the ragdoll cat, which has a neurological problem bred in so that it is limp and floppy. I was told that this is "cute" - I nearly puked. Does anyone want to open the door to the breeding of cute humans? A random process at least eliminates stupid biases.
And can someone explain to me why favouring random processes for some jobs is reactionary rather than liberal/pinko/commie.
Posted by: Alan Williams | November 10, 2007 1:00 AM
Couple of things I just can't help:
(1) Re. Male:Female imbalance because of parental choice. So you have large numbers of horny young men with no hope of ever finding a mate. Do you really think that's not going to cause problems? Do you really think that means that females will then be worth more as people because of the number of suitors? Women are already classed as chattles in large parts of the world. What's going to happen to an increasingly rare commodity in that kind of situation? It's not going to change the cultural practices, we see every day how hard that is. I think you're missing the very real threat of violence and more violence with women caught in the middle. Basically black market human trafficking.
(2) Interesting to note the degree of approval to tinkering with one's offspring's genome, especially in contrast to the howls of rage over circumcision of infants on here a little while ago (male circumcision that is; not talking about the broken bottle clitorectomy). So it's OK to screw with a kid's genome just don't touch the willy?
This is an issue like GM crops. It's not the technology itself that's the problem, it's who is going to have control over it, how much money there is to be made from it, and the motivations for doing it.
Posted by: AlanWCan | November 10, 2007 1:13 AM