Slashdot Mirror
Editing Genes In Human Embryos Doesn't Mean Designer Babies
TheAlexKnapp writes: Dr. Kathy Niakan, who is leading the scientific team that just got the go-ahead to edit genes in human embryos, explains why their work won't lead to designer babies. The genes that they're looking at, she says, are unique to the human embryo, and the work's sole purpose is to understand early development. "We can use this new method that's extremely precise and efficient to ask questions about early development that has profound importance for stem cell biology, and for our understanding of why some embryos fail to thrive." But really ... how long until it turns into designer babies?
I'm probably going to be lynched by saying this, but in order to fix ourselves and populate the galaxy, we basically have two options:
It's pretty evident that although we have won the top spot here on Earth, we're pretty feeble anywhere else. If we want to expand and spread out across the universe, we need to fix things. Maybe we'll divert into different species designed to live in different environments. Maybe we'll develop a superior brain and switch bodies as needed. Maybe we'll transition into virtual beings. Maybe we'll fuse into a collective mind. Maybe something totally different.
Who knows? One thing is certain, though. If it can be done, someone will do it, and whomever gets it working will probably gain possibilities beyond what we can imagine today, ushering in a new era of colonization and discovery. Personally I see this as natural progession - and it's beautiful!
There will probably be countries that allow tinkering to create smarter and/or more disciplined children. If the USA doesn't allow it, we may fall behind and not be competitive with such countries.
Also, there may not be enough "room at the top". If you cloned Steve Jobs 1,000 times, that doesn't mean there would be 1,000 Apple Co's. It mostly just means more competition for the "elite" jobs. There's plenty of interesting ideas floating around (I have some of my own I think are good) but the market-place can only test and tune so many at a time.
Table-ized A.I.
Ever since we found out what genes are, and what they do, EVERY advancement in the field has contributed to exactly this, designer babies. Nobody wants to admit it but lets be honest, it is actually a major goal. We all want to improve ourselves and our offspring. It is part of the struggle for survival, it is in our competitive nature, it is instinct.
We WILL use any means we can to gain a competitive advantage and those that don't compete will lose by default. Designer babies will happen and in the long run it will likely become the norm.
Usually people are on board with fixing defects (not sure about the religious right... maybe if it means less abortions?), the designer label usually refers to stuff like picking out aesthetic attributes. Think reconstructive surgery versus elective plastic surgery. Generally the authors name stuff like blue eyes or being tall, but that would actually be boring if you were bothering with genetically modifying your offspring for whimsy. I'd expect an oligarch to make children with violet eyes and silver hair and then start trying to figure out how to make some dragons.
I would like to comment on the article, but unfortunately, I can't read it because it's a Forbes article, and I'm running an ad blocker because I don't intend to be infected with malware just to read Forbes articles.
I propose that all of us, the editors included, agree to not post links to Forbes articles until they adjust their pro-malware stance and agree to provide a safe browsing environment.
Proverbs 21:19
if you ignore the slippery slope and pretend there are no gray areas, almost everyone would probably that correcting clear defects is okay.
It's that fuzzy line, the gray area, that's the whole problem. Where to draw the line, who decides where to draw the line, and who enforces the line?
Consider what's happened with plastic surgery. Plastic surgery for the repair of facial injuries dates back about 5,000 years, to ancient Egypt. For thousands of years, these techniques were mostly* (though not entirely) limited to "correcting defects", mostly due to injury. Gradually, people said that slightly uneven breasts were a "defect" that should be corrected, then a nose that's larger than average needs to be "fixed". We know what's happened with that over the last 50 years.
Most people would probably say that would be wrong to subject a child (who cannot give informed consent) to surgical risk, a painful recovery etc, because the parents prefer the kid's nose to be rounder. The same slope exists here - is it okay to subject a person to the risk of severe genetic deformity caused by messing with their genes, based on a parent thinking that the kid's curly hair needs to be "fixed", to be straight rather than curly? it would seem that's not okay, but where to draw the line? Who draws the line?
If this project wont lead to a generation of creepy bioluminescent children then I'm at a loss as to why it should be funded.
(To borrow a title from Lewontin et al)
The whole notion of "designer babies" is built upon the flawed presumption that who we are as individuals is solely dictated by specific genes or groups of genes, and that editing these genes can, GATTACA-style, determine with complete precision how all of the traits that make up our physiology and psychology are eventually expressed. I regard genetic determinism in a manner not unlike the role of Newtonian gravitation in physics: a useful model, but a grossly simplistic one that, from a philosophical perspective, should not be used to attempt to explain all phenomena. The notion that genetics can explain sociological phenomena is not something that I can hang my hat on, personally speaking. It simply doesn't have the mark of scientific reasoning. (Not that the opposing point of view is without its flaws, either!)
Now, can we use gene editing to treat genetic diseases? Probably. Could we use the same approach to make a child grow taller? To give them a more desirable physical appearance? To improve their intelligence? Such a notion may be eventually possible, but in the foreseeable future, it is still firmly in the realm of science fiction. The issue is not whether to draw the line at all, but rather, where to draw the line, because the reality is that gene editing is here, it will not be legislated or moralized away, and it is going to be used to treat disease and advance our understanding of all kinds of health issues. The bottom line is that people are getting hysterical over something that is not even remotely in the realm of possibility at this time, not because they understand the science, but because they have been watching too many movies; when in the present reality, there is a real potential to deliver effective treatments and improvements to the quality of life.
Genetic counseling is already reasonably common, and has most of the ethical concerns of "designer babies" already. Parents use genetic counseling most frequently to avoid heritable genetic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities.
I have a hard time seeing how the trials required to even begin gene editing on human embryos that are brought to term could ever be justified, though. Modifying an embryo who is otherwise expected to become a healthy human just isn't something that I can see any ethics board allowing, as there are very likely to be significant side effects.
Take a moment to think about how much effort goes into mate selection. In terms of evolutionary biology, *everything* is about producing optimal offspring.