Slashdot Mirror
The Genome Project and the Dark Side
The Human Genome Project may be the most inspiring and disturbing technological project ever undertaken. This is the first time we've decided in so organized a way to alter the nature of life itself.
The project is a metaphor for everything that's both right and wrong about technology: well-intentioned people are using it to try to make the world better; at the same time continuously unleashing forces we haven't fully considered or agreed upon, and can't or won't control.
During the past few years, as many Slashdot readers know, scientists all over the world have begun a coordinated, systematic effort to create a complete biochemical description of the human genome - the DNA contained in the chromosomes of human cells - and to develop a genetic map indicating which components of this genetic material determine certain human traits, from depression to disease to susceptibility to addiction to eye color or artistic ability.
The project began in l990, part of a global effort co-ordinated by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health. Though its founders expected the project to last 15 years, advances in computing have accelerated the completion date; now it's only three years away. The goal of the human genome project is nothing less than to read and record the entire string of (at least) three billion letters in human DNA . According to a progress chart on the project's website, the progress towards mapping the genetics of human beings now stands at 36 per cent.
Aided by new supercomputers that analyze, store and distribute data faster that was thought possible even a few years ago, geneticists believe they have already identified the location of genes identified with dozens of disorders, including cystic fibrosis, some forms of mental retardation and Huntingdon's disease.
Supporters of the project hail it as a means of eliminating disease, emotional disorders and other forms of human suffering. But the risks and ethical dilemmas are staggering, especially considered against a backdrop of scant serious discussion anywhere in the world, certainly not in the United States.
Could employers and insurance companies obtain an individual's genetic information? Could government agencies or law enforcement authorities use genome research to invade privacy and predict behavior? Could prospective spouses demand DNA screenings to reject unsuitable mates?
Perhaps, most likely, will parents beginning using the results of genome research to begin the process of seeking out the "Perfect Baby?" To screen sperm and egg for, size, IQ, cloning, emotional and physical health?
There is no scientific consensus as to how far this project can go, or how quickly. Some geneticists have argued that the genome project is a pipedream, that the dream of unraveling the strands of human life are much more complex and mysterious than any scientific project can really grasp. But the history of genetics, supercomputing and technology all suggest that humanity is entering a new, inevitable era in the use of technology to alter human life, a direction that makes Victor Frankenstein's primitive experiments look like a crossword puzzle.
The genome project evokes a world practically bursting with technological hubris, a universe in which all children would be born healthy, and suffering would be greatly reduced. What could be nobler or more inspiring?
And there is a darker side to this radical project, even though few people in our society are considering it much. We have set out on a project whose goal is to alter the nature of human existence, without the interest of a single national political leader or a single Congressional debate (this in a country in which the mere mention of sex on the Internet sends legislative bodies into hyperdrive).
In effect, children may be given genotypes, genetic profiles. Offspring considered grotesque, revolting, impaired, repugnant or offensive could be eliminated.
How many parents will choose ugly kids when they can be assured attractive ones? Why have an idiosyncratic or rebellious offspring when you can choose a cheerful and pliant one?
Biomedical ethicist Leon Kass is one of many scientists who worry about the pace of genetic research as well as its moral consequences.
"When a couple now choose to procreate," he writes in the eighth edition of "Technology and the Future," edited by Albert Teich (Bedford/St. Martin's), "the parents are saying yes to the emergence of new life in its novelty, saying yes not only to having a child but also, tacitly, to having whatever child the child turns out to be."
Our children, he writes, are not "our" children or posessions; they aren't supposed to live anyone's lives but their own. In altering the nature of new life, parents can not only live vicariously through their offspring but completely shape their lives.
Genetic screening is only one of the moral dilemmas our culture will soon face as the result of fast-moving genetic research. Scientists and biologists are nearly unanimous in their belief that within the next decade, someone, somewhere in the world will clone the first human being.
Given the history of technological breakthroughs once this technology has been unleashed, it's a near certainty that cloning will be used to create children. The nature of technology and much of the controversy and complexity that surrounds it is that people disagree about goals. Some parents will find it noxious to bring cloned humans into the world, others will find it irresistible, even noble.
This kind of social technology - conceived with the noblest of intentions - is not containable. It has no real direction beyond the fact that skilled scientists with powerful tools want to do it. In fact, not doing it seems as inconceivable as doing it.
But we're kidding ourselves if we think the only result will be the eradictation of some diseases and human suffering. Too many people will want to use it, too much money can be made off of it. The convergence of capitalism, technology and genetic engineering will be explosive, especially in a society as technologically thoughtless as ours.
Some forms of genetic selection - rarely labeled what they actually are - are already in widespread use, from genetic screening to prenatal diagnosis. They've already raised lingering ethical questions, only infrequently disseminated by journalists, politicians or scientists.
A quarter century ago, biologist Bentley Glass wrote of "The right of every child to be born with a sound physical and mental constitution, based on a sound genotype; the inalienable right to a sound heritage."
Maybe so. But is this a universal right, or one extended only to affluent people in industrial societies with access to advanced medical technology and generous insurance plans? What about developing and Third-World nations, where few will have access to Perfect Baby technologies? What about despots and dictators who might want to use genome maps to create certain kinds of communities and nations?
Have we really thought through the implications of unleashing medical procedures that would reduce the incidence of addiction, depression, retardation and physical disabilities? Are we comfortable living in a world in which whose categories of humanity - the retarded, the blind, the disabled - will disappear from our part of the earth? Do the healthy lose something when it's possible to eradicate the impaired?
Will the rights of children really be protected, or will the ultimate result of such pell-mell, until -recently- unimaginable tinkering be a world in which people are no longer distinct from one another - a humanity that's universally attractive, intelligent, able-bodied and eyeglass-free?
If any technological project embodies the engineer/author Samuel Florman's tragic view of technology, it's the genome project.
Jules Verne and H.G. Wells are most often credited in our culture with predicting the future, but both had spotty records. Increasingly, the writers who seems to have had the clearest bead on the 21st century were Orwell, author of "1984" and Aldous Huxley, who wrote "Brave New World," both foresaw the growing social movement towards conformity and the use of technology to shape and control culture.
But even he wasn't quite far-sighted enough. He thought government would be the force most likely to peep into our bedrooms, gather information on our tastes and behavior and pressure us to dress, talk and think uniformly. In this at least, he was mistaken.
In the 20th century, the most repressive forms of government - Communism, Fascism, Apartheid, Nazism - have collapsed or been defeated. Their efforts to censor culture or employ technology to control behavior have failed.
The most powerful institutions in our time aren't evil governments but powerful corporations with billions of dollars to conduct research, gather information and shape culture and society.
Modern corporations - Microsoft comes to mind - are not intrinsically evil, and have no political or ideological goals beyond money, but they are frighteningly powerful and influential, bigger than most governments on the planet and obvlivious to their own impact on creativity, freedom and individualism.
A generation ago, who could have imagined that one company would have its software in more than 90 per cent of the personal computers in the world?
Whatever the Genome Project ultimately does or doesn't uncover, it won't be Nobel Laureates and non-profit groups that get to control it or decide how this awesome new technology will be sold and used. It will likely be corporations, the only institutions in our society with enough power to acquire and manipulate mass markets.
In a world where people who want to have kids offer attractive men and women tens of thousands of dollars for their sperm and eggs, what might people pay for the Perfect Baby? And who do you think will control and own the patents and peddle the genetic maps?
hopefully i'll be dead by the time all the bad stuff comes about.
In the future, everyone might be attractive, healthy, and sociable. Oh, the horror! Only Jon Katz could complain about that. Get over it, for cryin' out loud.
A little Parasite Eve anyone?
he just plain sucks. His blah, blah, blah treatises actually take longer to read than all of the lead-up /. comments that he echoes in his articles.
find somewhere else to write, Mr. Katz.
How do you control this? Law! Order! Morality! All those things humans have generally been pretty good at maintaining all these years. Yes, there will be abuses, but most people and most civilizations will use the HGP data for net-good purposes.
Just because we have the keys to human genetics doesn't mean we're necessarily going to take it for a joyride.
Why have an idiosyncratic or rebellious offspring when you can choose a cheerful and pliant one?
This, along with the 'beautiful and smart' argument, is the most commonly cited problem we'll face with genegeneering. But ask yourself this: how many people reading Katz' essay would be willing to splice 'compliance' into their sprogs? Not many.
Regardless of the technology, there'll always be a percentage of people who'll misuse it, and there'll always be a group of people who'll assume that this percentage is a majority. But I'd like to ask a few questions.
1. What percentage of the world's population were born into a world where their parents could take advantage of the latest medical technology?
2. Even assuming that universal medicare becomes available, is the entire world going to agree on what constitutes 'beautiful'? 'Smart' is also in the eye of the beholder.
Little strings of atoms.
Everything to make a chicken is inside that
shell. The feathers, legs, tasty breast and
the clucking sound. All from a little string
of atoms.
When I want to be really blown away I think about
genes. Damn it's fun.
Since humans in general have removed themselves from the laws of Natural Selection, why would it be a problem for humans to improve their species themselves? If a child could be born with fewer physical defects, or less of a genetic tendency toward disease, that's all the better, IMHO.
Also, it's true that at first, this will be an option only available to the wealthy (or those who could get their insurance to pay for it) in industrialized countries. But as the technology improves, it should become cheaper and more widespread. That's the hope, anyway. Look at fertility technology...it's gotten to the point where even welfare mothers can have quintuplets (sigh), so I imagine that genetic technology would follow suit.
As with anything else, there is a possibility that a certain technology could be abused. But the potential good far outweighs the fears, IMHO.
-- "God, Root, what is difference?" - Pitr, "User Friendly"
Huxley seems to have the clearest vision when it comes to this area. Brave New World is clearly what Gattaca was based on.
Huxley's world was much different than the world of 1984. The majority of control was done subliminally, as oposed to the in your face, non-stop control tactics used in 1984. Instead of repressing sex, Huxley realized that through encouraging open sex, control was all the more easier. In his world, everyone goes around, happily bedding down with anyone they choose and high on drugs. People live well, are fed and babies are grown to exact conditions... who would complain? The only problem comes when an outsider, used to freedom, comes in.
I believe that world has a much greater chance of occuring than the one in 1984 (though I love the book and the vision). Most simply because I do not really believe in true evil. But also because everyone in Huxley's world trully believe they are doing the right thing and those being controlled are genuinely happy.
So I do see the possibility of that future... I think the transformation would be the most difficult (I would certianly try to stop it), but once the ball really started rolling... it would be very difficult to stop.
I don't know about you guys but this whole genome project scares me to death. Someone, somewhere will use this information to create weapon that is a strain of something that affects every human being and we will not be able to stop its effects. Like Ian said in Jurassic Park "No one ever stopped to ask 'should we do it' instead of 'can we do it'".
I eat sleep and breath technology, but there are just somethings I have to leave up to the almighty.
A freak and lovin' it!
One comment on the HGP that I didn't see was about the potential lack of diversity in the human population as we work toward having the "right" genes. It would seem that having less diversity would make humans less adaptable to whatever changes might be in the future.
Take a look at yourself and your coworker and than you will see who is a real moron
1) No one knows what will happen in the future.
2) There are no good guys or bad guys. There are just guys.
3) Nothing is left alone anymore. Everything is controlled and manipulated.
4) Those who control and manipulate have agendas.
5) No one knows what these agendas are.
My end point being that worrying over the future is silly. Writing your congressman and News Papers about how you feel is not a bad thing. Knowledge is power and knowing more (than even Katz) will mean that you are more able to make a better decision about how you want things to turn out. More knowledge helps you know what to do to help things turn out that way.
So go read up on genetics. Go read up on the Genome project and find out what exactly scientists can and cant do before you go and join some pro (or con) genome project rally and end up busting some K-Mart storefront someday.
Moderate this up or down. It won't make it any less true.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
I have a very rare disease (Choroideremia) and they have just dicovered the gene. This is promising for my grandchildren as they miay not have to worry about going blind as I have been. For me, an equally significant advance is the bionic eye (actually a chip planted in the eye) that is currently being deeveloped. I am all for this kind of stuff so long as it is used for curing diseases and NOT selecting features/traits of future generations on the basis of aesthetics (e.g hair color, eye color, weight, etc.)
Responses like this waste our time. If you don't want to spend a few minutes justifying your statements, don't bother making them.
from who? Jon Katz? Yeah. He does raise some interesting points. Then he just takes a running leap with them. I agree that genetic manipulation is both scary and inspiring. I also believe that it's got to happen sometime. Why not now? It's going to raise a myriad of questions and cause gaps between generations and classes and societies. But I believe that these things HAVE to happen sometime. That's how we learn. By tinkering.
And if multinational corporations rule the world? I can't say that's the best future. But then again, it might not be a bad one. Read almost any book by William Gibson. He predicts a much more chaotic world. That doesn't make it bad.
Here's what I think:
All that knowing a person's genetic makeup tells us is what that person has inherited. A prospective employer or mate can find out what our genetic makeup looks like simply by meeting our parents. Do most employers care if our parents had histories of drug addiction, or laziness, or criminal behavior? Or, to put it another way, when your fiance' wants to meet your parents before getting married, do you think that this is unethical? We as human beings are not completely determined by our chromosomes. The environment, and our own free will also take roles in developing who we are as individuals. People already understand that, and I think they will re-learn this when they discover that knowing the complete human genome is not a crystal ball into determining the character of a person.
Earlier in this century, we dabbled in eugenics, only to learn that a "super-race," or perfect human beings are not possible, no matter how much you tweak and perfect genetics. I do think, however, that knowing the human genome will help us to eliminate many of the problems that arise from faulty genes, such as the ones that cause genetic disorders. Someday, we may even greatly slow down the aging process, by identifying which genes are responsible for certain types of bodily decay.
I guess my point is, this is not technology to be afraid of.
No sig.
This reminds me of David Brin's Uplift War series. Man uses genetic engineering to "uplift" pre-sentient species to full intelligence. Pretty Cool. I'd sure like to see talking dolphins and chimps in my lifetime. Of course if the government decides to take absoloute control over everything, then we'll never get anywhere.
(NASA-we've never been back to the moon since the government took over control and funding)
Hope this whole thing works out the right way.
--Vidboy of no e-mail address
I don't know about the rest of you, but honestly this really frightens me. With the advent of the 'Perfect Baby' everyone will be running around carrying a miniature Leonardo DiCaprio or a tiny Cameron Diaz. And with that, they'll all be exactly identical, no more individuals - sorry. Maybe I'm wrong here (more than likely), but doesn't creativity occur when individuals decide to think out of the box? If we were all happy with our state of mediocrity would we even have Linux? Perhaps Torvalds would've never written anything and just gone on with his lovely life where everyone's beautiful.
This article was laughable. I don't evenhave the time to warrant with a response. Suffice to say that this "Jon Katz" is a true idiot. My co-workers and I all got a good laugh out of this moron trying to sound intelligent.
Funny thing is, Jon Katz succeeded in at least sounding intelligent. You failed. :^)
This is the perfect movie that shows all the implications of this research.
Unfortuneately, I know that we will go forth with this frightfully Akiraesque research.. It's in our nature. One person will never be able to stop this, weather or not it SHOULD be stopped. It would take an army of people, with an almost revolution like quality. But we all have bills to pay, mouths to feed, we don't have the time. And when we do have the time it will be too late.
"How would you like your kid sir?"
"Uh, yah, I'll take a blonde with an awesome jump shot with uhhmm.. Blue eyes, fair skin, a side of charm and hold the temper.."
"That'll be $10482, please drive around to the first insemination room. Thanks"
Such is the nature of innovation. True advances in human knowlege are virtually never made as a matter of consensus, and the more significant the advance, the more difficult it is to predict the consequences. Uncertainty is the price of progress.
in the september issue of commentary magazine.
now i know most people are going to first read this article and think of Brave New WOrld. and sure parts of that book might come true in the future, BUT, i think people are missing the point. i think getting rid of cancer, blindness, and all those other nasty dieses that have been killing our loved ones for so long is important. and i know people will be outraged when they read the line Could prospective spouses demand DNA screenings to reject unsuitable mates? they will go into shock but think about it for a minute. sure its cold and lacks that passion that love is all about, but we as a species has not been involved in the evolution process for a long long long time. we mate with whoever we want. there is no thought to see if they are diesesed or ill in anyway. every other animal on the planet breeds selectivly. thats why animals keep evolving. we on the other hand keep things like cancer going because we mate with people that have these genes. now don't get me wrong, i don't want to see Brave New World happen here either but i would love to see blindness end, cancer go away and all the mirid of other shit ass problems that have dogged us for so long. oh, and for all u who say that this will lead to a huge population increase and where the heck are we going to fit all these people. simple, keep sending those probes to mars and the moon. true, we can't put a billion people up there anytime soon, but its all about baby steps!
Couldn't agree more - this is all fairly old hat as far as I can see. You can be a slave to your genes if you like, me - I like to think I'm a bit more evolved.
Geneticly engineered children. What happens to the "love children" when this comes about. Obviously, they would be repressed as imperfect for even the slightest defect, even one's that aren't visable that we think nothing of today. Corporations would spurn these people in preference of the ones that were "made" to have higher IQ's. This is trouble if it is used wrong. I have no problem with attempting to eleminate major or cripling defects in children concieved of in some natural form. However, geneticly engineering them is wrong.
if (OS==Linux && segfault) {edit_source()} continue;
if (OS==Windows && illegal_operation) {
fdisk();
return Linux;
There are many moral issues to genetic engineering (Katz mentioned several) such as wether only certain people have the benifit and what insurance companies may do with the data. However the on complete non-issue is whether it is a good idea to genetically engineer the species (we still need to be careful we do it well but we should definatly improve ourselves).
What would you do if someone told you not to attend college as you were changing yourself. You would laugh at them no? Why isn't the same issue true with genetic engineering?
Because people are afraid they will be obsoleted! As long as their aren't designer babies I can convince myself I am valuable for who I am. As soon as a man appears who is better looking smarter faster etc.. what do I have left. In addition it also attacks our egotism by PROVING we are not special but just strings of genetic code. Just like the Copernican model of the solar system genetic engineering will not be rejected because it is moral wrong but because accepting it is too much for our ego's and our power structures to bear.
In fact we have a DUTY to genetically engineer our children as soon as it is safe. Standing by and lettting someone be maimed is nearly as bad as maiming them ourselves. Every instant we have the technology but don't use it we are effectively maiming our children. Whether it be in terms of the greater intelligence perfect eyesight or stronger bodies by not granting them these things we are hurthing them
Finally this is an interesting issue but couldn't it have been presented in two paragraphs?
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,
and lock up your daughters!!! It's BIG, BAD SCIENCE come to get us all and STEAL OUR SOULS!!!!
And watch out, cause those EVIL corporations are gonna get us all. We are opening a PANDORA'S BOX we can never close.
Sheesh, what a bunch of reactionary crap based on a confused and frightened outlook. I hate to burst your bubble, but you never actually SAID anything in that whole tirade, John. Sure, you named lots of big concepts and all the "big fears" that every red-blooded American (my apologies to others) is supposed to have at merest mention of genetic (insert verb here)-ing, but is there really any solid basis for these? No! Instead of trying to prey off the fears of your audience, one should enlighten them with fact and allow them to decide for themselves. Heaven forbid that people think for themselves.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
I recommend anyone seriously interested (or even casually interested) in this topic check out Gattaca, an infinitely better exploration of this topic than this media rant. (Plus, it doesn't hurt that Uma Thurman is in it ;-).)
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
For instance, it can be argued that many diseases/afflictions that may have been naturally selected out of the gene pools have been kept in the gene pools by medicine (by allowing people with potentially fatal problems to live long enough to procreate and pass on their genes). On the other side comes the idea in this article that people will select only perfect offspring, thereby getting rid of the diseases/afflictions from the gene pool. Both tracks use technology to advance. I wonder which will win out ?
This is the problem with any new technology - there is an upside and a downside. Without advances in nuclear technology we wouldn't have power stations that are capable of generating huge amounts of electricty, but we also wouldn't have the H-Bomb and regrettable incidents like Hiroshima and Chernobyl.
;-)
This project would conceivably give us the techniques needed to erradicate disease and suffering from illness, but the flip side is - "Is this a good thing or not?". Obviously preventing suffering is a good thing, but with less disease, life expectancy increases and overpopulation becomes a problem.
I think the threat of using this technology to buy 'perfect babies' is probably less of a problem. There would be strict legislation on this kind of use of research, and although like today there are bound to be a few people who abuse the sysetem, overall the pros outweigh the cons.
Overall, I think that this is 'a good thing'. If we can get closer to ending cancer and heriditary illnesses then the world will be a better place. I can't wait to hear the legislative argument though!
Just another step towards making it impossible for normal people to do the right thing....
I'd really like to make sure that my kid if and when it comes into this world, has no avoidable disease or handicap, but where is the line between handicap and ugliness.
Thirty years from now my adult kid comes to me and says "thanks a lot paps, if you'd have had me checked back then my health-insurance plan would have been much cheaper now."
Or he comes to me and says "Way to go dad, I can't have a kid the normal way with anyone on the northern hemisphere cause it'll probably be an imbred"
Healthy people is okay, but i'd like to know just how healthy we are supposed to be.
After all, you only feel healthy as long as you know how it feels to be sick. No happiness without sorrow, no rich without poor, no beautifull without ugly, no "good" genes without "bad" ones.
... why you people bother posting just for the sake of jagging this guy is beyond me... if he truly upset you you'd turn him off with your slashboxes. And if you didn't log in, well you're free to leave anytime.
Aside from that, Katz overlooked the movie based on exactly this notion: Gattica. Everyone is screened, blood and urine tests at every corner, "gene-ism" (as opposed to racism) abounds if you're not 6', thin, blue eyes and blonde with 20/20 vision. I won't ruin the movie ofr those who haven't seen it... go see it; it's pretty good.
As a parent, what Jon describes is both prayers answered and nightmares brought to life. What parent doesn't (secretly) desire to know what their child will look like, be like, whether they'll have the heart disease or cancer that runs in the family. What parent doesn't wish they could get a solid guarantee that the child will be born without mental retardation or other genetic disease? Or with six fingers or two heads for that matter?
I know as my daughter was growing inside my wife that I worried about these things. Amniocentesis isn't 100% accurate. What if we had that done and it came back that the child has trisomy-21 or some other genetic disease? I'm firmly against abortion but facing a child who will die early or who has a quality of life seriously rivaling navel lint... I'm not so sure anymore.
Thankfully the cards played out and she's a healthy baby girl. She has a few "defects", if you'll call them that -- she has my strange feet and square hands, but she looks very much alright. Who knows what genetic information we gave her which affects her mind and body that we won't see for years to come?
Will this technology bring about "generic" kids? Will everyone want their child to look like a model and be hyperintelligent? The desire for such a "great" feature-set is enormous, but what becomes of us as a society? It's like natural selection in the hands of man.
Too many viewings of Gattaca, Katz. The actual sequencing of the HG is not, could never ever ever be, bad in and of itself. It can only have positive effects, and more positive effects than we can possibly imagine right now. The danger comes when people with ethical shortcomings start to use this information in.. well, ethically challenged ways.
Why is it that, thought technophobia is considered backwards by most people these days, when it's applied to something relating to DNA, it's considered wise? Why is all cloning research denied federal funds when lmost no one is interested in cloning whole human beings (which is the thorny issue) but instead wants to grow better organ transplants? There are lots of other examples of this strange syndeome, but right now I'm too pissed off to remember them.
The human genome project doesn't change the war between evolution and those who prefer stagnation. It merely changes some of the weapons used.
The result, though, was decided long ago, before life ever evolved on this planet, before this solar system even existed. Stagnation, whether it's in the form of the "perfect" race, or the "perfect" anything, will always lose, in the end.
The question that should be asked is not "do we want to play God with our children?", but "do we want there to be any children, after that?"
Nature has shown, time and again, that it is capable of deadly, sudden change, and that it's oblivious to humanity's ego. A race of "perfect" beings, spawning yet more "perfect" beings, is liable to have a narrow gene pool, making it vulnerable to new plagues, changing environments, and other nasties. Without biodiversity, a small change can have a BIG impact.
As I see it, humanity is likely to fragment over this issue. It usually does, when something major happens. Those who choose a dead-end path will die out, and those who don't, won't. Those who opt for a life of Eugenics choose, IMHO, the same road as the Luddites, which can only lead to oblivion. Change is the only certainty, and the only path with any long-term future. And trying to create super-humans, or "perfect" people can only kill that change.
To put this another way, if we had had the ability to do genetic manipulation at the turn of the 20th century, there would have been no Rock & Roll. No Beatles. No Relativity. No nuclear fission or fusion. Professor Hawking would never have been born, his genes would have marked him as terminally ill. So, no black hole theory, either.
With science and most of the original music this century effectively wiped out, society would have rapidly decayed, and either destroyed by a natural event (eg: meteorite impact, disease), or by man-made disasters (eg: global warming).
If society does fragment, as I expect, I'll stay in the group that prefers to evolve. It has a future, even if the alternative seems to offer some short-term advantages.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Actually, rather than criticizing the genetic engineering of infants, which is bound to happen, he should focus on the ramifications.
If the next generation is engineered to be nearer to perfection, what will happen to those now living? Gene-therapy on adults will only have limited ability to reorder cells, so adults can't modify themselves much. Those children of the next generation and present generations who are not engineered will get all kinds of discrimination, by insurance companies unwilling to pay for their greater health care costs, by schools and corporations who are unwilling to accept lesser candidates when newer, more perfect ones are available.
Personally, I'm brushing up on my janitorial skills for when the next generation of software engineers are gene engineered from Linux Kernel hackers and the inventor of LISP, with the looks of supermodels.
"There's so much left to know/ and I'm on the road to find out." -Cat Stevens
Unfortunately, those are the people who are intimidated by scientific talk, and often feel that the scientific community doesn't want to hear what they think. (Which is too often the case.)
Francis Hwang
Do domain names matter?
is the erradication of folks like Hawking, a personal hero of mine, perhaps one of the most intelligent persons ever, before he hade one contribution, just because he's not "beautiful"? I shudder at how bland and slow our lives may become.
I think there's a simple solution to this spectre of genetic engineering. No reproduction allowed! Homo sapiens has been a bloody useless and destructive species.
:-)
Maybe we should wait until we create AI first, then they'll wipe us out.
Will genetics companies care about side effects of tampering with our genes, or will they care only about their profits. Here in the UK we were deceived about beef by both industry and the government, and now we are seeing the reluctance of the mobile phone industry to even admit the possibility of health risks associated with mobiles. Do you think we can trust them to care for us at the expense of their profit margins???
Let's see:
So this seems to be natures way of saying There's no such things a a free lunch. Genetic engineering will just be the latest progress that will eventually bite us in the ass, with the difference this time around being that we're playing with the funamentals of life. However we have a history of playing with things before we actually understand them; the whole dilemma with genetically altered foods (and the dying butterflies) is just another illustration of what the future will bring. Brace yourself and let's just hope we get a lucky break ...
You see, we'll breed kiddies that will comply willingly with Geek profiling. They won't break taboos about dying children, but they will totally believe in American freedom. They'll only use Open-Source software, and they won't kill other kids.
I read a comment once about a guy who wrote an "X-Files" meter and ran Jon Katz articles through it. I'm getting the feeling that this is just a plot for Jon to score higher on that dude's meter. Does anybody have the source code?
Laughable compared to what? Your commentary? So much for demonstrating through example. I agree, he has not presented any NEW information that has not been available to anyone with a subscription to Nature, or Science.
But he did present the topic, and touched off on the basic issues of contention.
These are routine and almost dogmatic for anyone following these developments.
But I'm curious, coward, what exactly was laughable? Was Katz wrong in estimating a clone within a decade?
Am I writing to one now?
Out of 3X10^9 nth base pairs, what do you have to contribute?
If nothing, then leave it on the bathroom wall.
-Sleen
As far as I recall, the Genome project is about the bringing of the gene map into the public domain.
If this is held to, then, it's about as much a lever to the big corporations as Linux is to the computing world.
Everyone owns the map.
As far as genetic modifications taking something away from the healty, I'd disagree most strenuously. I've worked with handicapped people in the past, and the saddest ones are the ones who appreciate their conditions.
Given a choice of leading a normal life without their disability, and having the disability, nearly all would choose a normal healthy life.
Given that mankind has evolved a fully conscious mind, there is thus nothing unnatural about using that very tool to alter our evolution. Far from it being a "Frankenstein" project, it's an entirely natural extension to the normal path of evolution.
Humanity left the standard model of evolution (survival of the fittest) quite a while ago, along with the advent of societies. This latest development of direct manipulation of the genes is merely a natural offshoot of this direction.
The mere fact that this treatment is optional is in fact a safeguard.
If, for example, there are untold side effects generations down the line in gene modified humans, then the 'naturals' wouldn't be affected by this.
If however, the gene modified humans become stable and far more "fit" by the standards of natural selection, then, their genotype will predominate in the gene pool, shortly predominating in the gene pool at large. Humanity will be more fit.
The most important part of humanity is not what we appear to be in the physical sense, but who we are in the emotional and ethical and mental sense, the essential us. This is trained in a large part by environment and care. As long as this side is not neglected, then, humanity has a bright future, whatever form it chooses to take.
Just my view..
Malk
There will be a period of turbulence as humanity adjusts to this new knowledge.
This has happened before and will happen again.
We'll deal with it and get on with our lives.
I want my matter transmuter!!!
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Katz suggests that people will try to have cheerful pliant children. While they may try it is very possible that even specifying the genetic code you may get VERY differnt personalities (think seperated twin studies). In addition people don't necesserily want pliant children, they want children who are like they were (live vicarously through your children) cloning is a far more likely danger here then the pliant children issue.
(although given the sex biases in the US you might see everyone trying to engineer good looking but otherwise lacking daughters. Slashdotters need to band together for the good of the next generation and produce daughters genetically engineered for coding)
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,
I loved this write up when it was called Gattica, but that's truly beside the point (although the world depicted in that film is exactly the type of world Mr. Katz is describing, there are other considerations to take into consideration. The Human Race itself has trived on it's diversity and the ability to "have" the right person for the right job. If one starts removing the genes for (say) agressive behavior (an ideal situation for a parent in "the perfect baby", but a quality which is responsible for more than some assume in our adult lives) who's going to be there when the "aliens (or rebels or mutants, or whatever you want to call them) decide to stage a forceful take over, and the geneticly pliant population merely shrugs, says "oh, he/she/it's in charge now", and goes back to work. The iradication of genetic disease is one thing (and I think the original intent of many scientists involved in the project), the alteration of essential elements of our genetic make-up is another.
I just envision short sighted parents who want the "perfect child" ordering up thier genetic soup (so to speak) and realize 18 years later that often the "perfect child" is an ineffectual adult.
My father always said to his fellow parents that he wasn't trying to raise good children, he was trying to raise good adults.
I think there's a certain wisdom in those words.
______________________ There is no
Yes, it would be bad for the "theys" of the world to know your genetic failings, and use it against you in a myriad of ways. Yes, it would be nice to know if your baby is going to be disabled or whatever. However, it is what is done with this information that is important. Eschelon reads email and builds profiles of suspected terrorists or criminals (all people are guilty until proven innocent in this situation -- besides it's "for the children's future" we stand ever-vigilant against terrorists) without their knowledge. Certainly any healthily paranoid person/saint/criminal will be on the lookout for such pitfalls, but you can't hide your genes. In the past 30 or so years, homelessness has increased because state hospitals discharged the milder cases. Most homeless are harmless, but some can be murderers in disguise. No amout of psych tests may be able to find this disposition. But comes the new DNA testing that can test for the capacity to murder, and there you have it. Tried and convicted before you commit the crime.
The serious implication of this is committing "crimes of DNA" instead of a crimes of commission.
Lowmag.net
...I suspect it will be the realization of just how little (in humans anyway) in under the complete control of genes.
How many parents will choose ugly kids when they can be assured attractive ones? Why have an idiosyncratic or rebellious offspring when you can choose a cheerful and pliant one?
Few, perhaps. But will it matter? Parents who select the genes for cheerful and compliant offspring will quickly come to realize that these things are not controlled by genes. Look at dogs. Dogs would seem to be far more under the control of their genes than humans are (they don't have a culture, at least not to the extent that humans do). And yet dogs bred for generations to be vicious attack dogs (I'm thinking of Doberman pinschers, pit bull terriers and the like) can, with the proper upbringing, become gentle, loving, even compliant pets. Similarly, dogs bred for gentleness (retrievers and the like) can very quickly become vicious if they are abused as puppies, or trained as attack dogs.
Gene therapy may offer the chance to control those things that are strictly - or even mostly - under the control of genes. When a gene is missing or damaged, and a disease is the result, gene therapy may help. This does not seem (to me) to be a bad thing. But behavior is not under the control of genes. Aspects of it may be (as when brain chemistry is altered as the result of a missing or damaged gene), but most brain chemistry is under the control - in large part anyway - of the environment.
People who want good behavior from their children will not get it from gene therapy. They will get it from raising their children right.
The Human Genome Project's results wouldn't be frightening if it weren't for the fact that this information, previously available only to the best of scientists, is being packaged in a way to be 'understandable' by the common man.
Now really, what happens when the McDonalds employee of 30 years experience decides that they're qualified to request genetic changes to their soon-to-be child? If you know anything about genetics, this is FAR more dangerous than even the most pessimistic peoply have been saying about this. We're begging to exterminate our own race with capabilities such as this. When the sports nuts decide that they want their next son to be a big, brawling hulk of a man, even though his parents are small people, just think of all the little genetic anomalies that will appear from the genetic alteration they want. Let this continue for about ten generations, and humans will no longer be recognizeable.
I'm a technology fanatic, but altering things specifically controlled by nature (that are clearly out of our jurisdiction of thought) will only lead to problems. Big Problems.
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".
dear mr. katz,
i want to use the human genome project for my open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore project. as you may suspect, these projects are highly compatible.
i would look cool as i played with open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore genes in my basement.
"look how cool he is!" the movie-going audience would exclaim, "he looks like frederick march with his wild hair and crazy smile! when he has completed his open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore project, we will all be rewarded! handsomely!"
please, mr. katz, put me in touch with your HGP sources. i am certain they would choose to volunteer their expertise to the open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore project if you explain to them how cool i would look as i walked down the street, carrying my open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore in my laptop.
"yes!! natalie portman and drew barrymore are fine female specimens and anonymous coward would look cool as he walked down the streets with his open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore in his laptop. we gladly volunteer our expertise to the open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore project! the hgp will be rewarded handsomely!"
i will reward them handsomely, mr. katz.
thank you.
JK and the popular press simply assume that such manipulation is possible. In fact the whole science of genetics is much more complex than that. How an organism develops is a rather complex interaction between the genes and the environment, that is and not at all predictable (except in very simplistic ways - i.e. human parents have human babies).
Just think, 50 years ago people were discussing the social consequences of nuclear powered cars, homes and airplanes and look what happened.
Of course, nothing stops people, goverments or corporations from abusing science for its own purposes. It's been done many times before. The interesting question is how to prevent it.
P.S. I wish JK would read more of Samuel Floorman's writing, rather than just referring to a single article (i.e. the tragic technology one).
...richie - It is a good day to code.
that's right, everyone looking attractive. Maybe they should all have blond hair and blue eyes too. Maybe, because we have this great new group of people the other people aren't needed anymore. all those lesser developed countries that can't afford to buy their children only take up our space. Mybe we should kill them all, we know they are inferior. They are different the nus, they must be inferior.
Sounds like grounds for another holocaust to me. Maybe you should think before you say that having no individuality is great.
I think a large part of the population is inherently uncomfortable with the HGP. They don't like the idea of their genes being owned/patented/controlled by somebody else. Perhaps this large scale discomfort could be used politically to focus on intellectual property issues in general and help stamp out all the crazy patent work going on these days. Maybe people could be motivated through their emotional reactions to this topic to actually take a stand on these issues. Granted they will have to have someone to follow, someone to tap into their fears and present them with a political platform to stand behind. (I call not it)
It might be a little devious, but I think the this might be an ends justifies the means scenario.
That would be _fictional_ experiments. I mean, Frankenstein, despite that fact that it is well-known, isn't all that scary anyway.
The genome project evokes a world practically bursting with technological hubris, a universe in which all children would be born healthy, and suffering would be greatly reduced. What could be nobler or more inspiring?
Actually, more and more it evokes a world in which patent law has run amuck, and in which scientists, sensing a land grab with the possibility of nearly-unfathomable riches, try to patent everything in sight. I don't really understand the reasoning by which a gene sequence found in nature is patentable. I can certainly see patenting the method by which the gene is sequenced and patenting methods by which to alter genes, and even the arrangements that "fix" problematic genes, but not the gene itself. The whole process seems to me like patenting the alphabet, then claiming everyone owes you when they speak or write.
Offspring considered grotesque, revolting, impaired, repugnant or offensive could be eliminated.
COULD BE? Please review: China. Also, there are quite a few documeted cases of couples aborting a "flawed" child. If human embryology has already unleashed this problem, maybe we should be keeping an eye on it as well.
Every single technological advancement ahs an ethical dark side, usually one that is not dealt with until years later. The development of gunpowder, for instance, led to the handgun (many years later). Of course, many of these consequences are unknown at the time of discovery, or are too far in the future to be considered on a cost basis by the inventor. Name one technology, strting with fire, that humans have developed that does not have a down side in addition to an (at least at the time of discovery/devleopment) upside. This "boogy-man behind the science" scare story is neither fresh or particularly well done.
Not considered, by the way is the fact that knowing the content of the human genome does not necessarily mean that it is safe to mess with it. The time that it has taken just to sequence the genome should demonstrate that we are a long, long way from being able to "produce" people. After all, when you go after that "mousy-brown-hair" gene to make it a "Platinum-blonde" gene, you might screw up something important, like the ability to grow legs.
Oh well, fire away.
Jon Katz raises all sorts of ethical worries surrounding the Human Genome project, but I feel he misses the point.
The Human Genome Project sets out to *map* the Human Genome - it does not set out to fully understand it. What it does give is a wealth of reference material to help researchers fighting disease and disability try and identify common traits in their subjects.
The Human Genome Project is *not* gene-therapy. It is *not* the new Frankenstein. It is not even being able to choose the appearance of your offspring. Too often the media ends up mistaking information about something as the means to actually do something - a bit like the difference between knowing that sufficient plutonium in the right place can go critical and actually trying to make an effective nuclear weapon. Witness the attempts made by governments all over the world to get a nuclear program going, and the number of successes. The theory is well understood - the practice is more difficult.
Will the Human Genome project change our lives? Possibly. But only as the result of building on the database of information it gives us. The opportunity to allow the development of therapies to improve the quality of life for many people should not be missed. I agree that there are many applications of this information that are ethically-questionable, or morally repugnant, but the Human Genome Project is not the application - it is merely the reference.
Maybe there should be a wider debate on the ethics of genetics, and genetic applications. It would be welcomed to see an informed and intelligent discussion, but with the current media's fixation with hyperbolae and sensation I fear that the important issues will once again get buried beneath an avalanche of "Frankenstein Foods" and similar headlines. Maybe that is an excessively cynical view but I repeatedly see important issues obscured by headline-grabbing stories running on people's fears. In this technological age, the public understanding of science is too often blurred and confused by scare stories in the general press - oh for a day when people are presented with unbiased information with which to make up their own minds.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Humans have this tendency (a "tower of Babel" complex?) to think "Ah, when we've achieved this thing, we will be in full control of the forces of nature" and when we get there, we often discover that even though we may have been "right" in our assumptions (e.g. the effect of each of these genes), there turn out to be an overwhelming number of other factors (e.g. eliminating the gene associated with X does not eliminate X). Sorta like the "butterfly effect" I guess (not that I want to start that argument up here).
-
<SIG>
"I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
My biggest fear with the HGP is that the robotic
snakes will manipulate the research to their own
ends, in order to prove that the preternatural
pink worms are somehow connected with the
undetectable aliens (a simply ludicrous assertion). And yes, the undetectable aliens
have their problems, but I believe that they are
savvy enough to derail this potential PR nightmare before it's too late. As long as the robotic snakes don't succede in crying artificial tears, we will be okay.
The use of antiseptics, often referred to on this site, may be the most inspiring and disturbing use of technology in contemporary science. It embodies the essential tragedy of contemporary technology; well-meaning people trying in the nobles way to improve the world; setting in motion forces few ordinary people understand, agree upon or are prepared for. Inspiring and disturbing - the use of antiseptics in surgery. Well meaning people are approaching what must surely be seen as a tragedy; the willing tragedy of modern science; running headlong into moral questions they are unprepared to deal with. Never before have we decided to alter the nature of life in such an inspiring and disturbing way. The project is a metaphor for everything that is right and inspiring about technology; and at one everything that is wrong and disturbing. Well meaning scientists have not considered the consequences. The project began in 1850, part of a country-wide effort led by inspired and disturbed maverick physician Joseph Lister. Working in obscurity in Scotland, he has uncovered an inspiring and disturbing truth about the essential nature of life; a new tragic revelation for out time. One with immense possiblities but yet tragicly disturbing consequences for the generation to come - that of the 1900s. Aided by microscopes tens and hundreds of times more powerful than those of even a few years ago, surgeons believe they have already identified the bacteria responsible for infecting surgical wounds. The enormous pace of technological development has led us to an inspiring yet tragic moment. We know which bacteria cause some of the dreadful post-surgery diseases of our time. And we know how to combat them. But has our society had sufficient time to decide if it indeed is something that we should be doing? Such is the technological tragedy of our time. There is no scientific consensus as to how far this project can go, or how quickly. Some geneticists have argued that the antiseptic project is a pipedream, that the dream of unraveling the strands of human disease are much more complex than than any scientific project can really grasp. But the history of medicine, optics, and chemistry all suggest that humanity is entering a new, tragic and nevitable era in the use of technology to alter human life. And there is a darker side to this radical, yet inspired, yet disturbing project, even though few people are considering it much. We have set out on a project whose goal is to alter the nature of human existence, without the interest of a single national political leader or a single parliamentry debate. In effect, people may begin to survive surgery in greater numbers. But is this what out postmodern society wants? Are we prepared to deal with a reduction in deaths following minor operations? Is this a GOOD THING, in our tragic yet disturbed society? "There is no such thing," writes Bishop John Milne, "as an entirely accidental co-incidence." And he's right. Which is why we must carefuly consider our response as a society to this inspiring and disturbing medical tragedy. In a world where people want to survive minor surgery, what might they pay for a clean operating theatre? And who will control and own the patents? And who will sell the technology? It is disturbing. It is tragic. It is inspired. But what can we do about it?
Is all this not just the next step in evolution?
With the caveman the darwinistic survival of the fittest stopped for humans, and nowadays everybody stays alive. I'm not saying this is ethically bad, but from a biological standpoint it is.
So without our genetic make-up becoming stronger due to natural selection, why not take the road that will enable us to better ourselves through genetic engineering? It's impossible to stop the knowledge or the technology to do this.
I'm not saying that it won't create any problems, afterall, the more power we humans get, the more trouble we stir up (think of biological weapons) and the the difference between have's and have not's will be huge if we as a society don't try to distribute everything.
But in the end the path will go there, and there is nobody that can stop it. We as the people of this world will just have to try and use our brains every step of the way.
As a sidenote, humankind has allready done a lot of risky things. For example the atombomb was thought to ignite the sky, and burn up the whole earth. Still they detonated it. Humankind has the damnest luck, and I just hope it holds out with this too.
Book recommendation: Woodsman, a book in a world where everything is genetically engineered, and everything is bio-based. Cars are just fast animals. Hamburgers come from plants. Nice to read.
The Human Genome Program is, as was stated in the article, the process of mapping the billins of strands in the DNA. Simply put, it is the gathering of information and putting it all out there on paper.
What society as a whole does with that information is another story.
Gathering the information doesn't necessarily indicate its use.
I do have to admit that the article reads much like the entire story line for GATTICA (which is definitely worth seeing, although the title shyed a lot of people away from it when it was in the movies).
Typical hackney journo trick -- create conflict, tension, fear and doubt where there presently is none. Katz, does your Dad own Andover, or what? Maybe Cosmopolitan or GQ is looking for "High Tech" commentators. Give it a try.
If the human genome project succeeds, most of these concerns will rendered moot. The goal of the project isn't just to map the human genetic code, but also to make the sequence totally and freely accessible to all. That would essentially remove the concerns regarding proprietary information and its use for purely financial gain.
Humanity will have a struggle, but with equal access for all, I doubt it will be the horror story some imagine it to be. Our society will not become anything like what is portrayed in the movie "Gattaca" , although some aspects of the technology portrayed in that movie will indeed pop up.
I think I can safely say that we all value our privacy a great deal. I just can't see the day when everyone will be so brain-dead that that isn't so. Some might argue that things are already becoming that way, but I see the opposite. I see privacy becoming a larger issue the more technology advances, not smaller.
LouZiffer
I think Katz has raised a valid point. That is: that the big brother of the future will be the Corporation, not the government. But it's more complicated that that. The world is so integrated and tied together now that smart organizations can have a HUGE impact on what goes on in the world.
Big brother is not a spy camera in the hallway, He is not a microphone under your desk at work, nor is He the group of sluggish good ol' boys in your local government. Now and in the future, Big Brother is the media, mega-corporations, the insidious trails of misinformation crafted in plain sight; causing the subtle mind control that influences everything we do.
Most of the people who work on the human genome project are married women commuting 50 miles and earning minimum wage working with radioactive isotopes all day. It's usually because they grew up thinking they were going to stay home and then their husband tells them they need to win the bread and what can you do. It's not like they spent their entire lives dreaming about changing the world.
As far as computers and genetics are concerned, 5% of biology is storage, alignment, and tree making on the computer and 95% manual labor in the lab so let's not get too excited about using a biology degree to get into IT.
I usually get frustrated by the way Katz is treated by self-important /.'ers, but I think this was an article that could have been dropped in the bit bucket. Not a whole lot of new thoughts on the subject; mostly well-worn re-hashings of nebulous fear. The ethical consequences of technical innovations are worthy topics, but this was nothing new.
Actually, Huxley's world maximized contentment, not happiness. There's a difference. And he made an assumption which may render his prediction invalid.
What does our society tends to maximize? I think our free-wheeling capitalism espouses to maximize production and profit. In such an environment, what are the ramifications of the introduction of genetic engineering? In the short term, production and profit would definitely be maximized by a populace of content workers, as in Brave New World. However, in the long run production and profit are maximized by scientific innovation, which comes out of discontent, creativity, and freedom.
The question we have to ask ourselves about whether to fear genetic engineering or not is whether or not our society is short-sighted.
"There's so much left to know/ and I'm on the road to find out." -Cat Stevens
If you think so, I suspect that you have already undergone some genetic redesign directed by the US government.
We have set out on a project whose goal is to alter the nature of human existence, without the interest of a single national political leader or a single Congressional debate
And Katz speaks of this as if it were a BAD thing! Really, what could the interest of a politician, or of a whole bunch of congresscritters add to the debate except fuck it up?
In effect, children may be given genotypes
Er... genotype is an existing word. Look up its meaning in a dictionary (hint: you are using it incorrectly).
Why have an idiosyncratic or rebellious offspring when you can choose a cheerful and pliant one?
For a whole variety of reasons. I, for example, definitely don't want my kids to be cheerful and pliant consumer-drones. In my book being "strange" is good.
[human cloning] Too many people will want to use it, too much money can be made off of it.
So, what's bad about human cloning? You've spent paragaphs hinting darkly about unspeakable horrors, but what are they? What is all that awful and horrible about human cloning? After all when it happens naturally and twins are born, nobody seems to be all that excited about it...
Are we comfortable living in a world in which whose categories of humanity - the retarded, the blind, the disabled - will disappear from our part of the earth?
Well, I don't know about Katz but I would be perfectly comfortable living in the world where there are no disabled people. I would also like to ask -- is Katz comfortable living in the world where nobody is sick with bubonic plague? How could he stay in the US where it is so hard to find cholera sufferers? And, to think, for example, about the artificialness of prostheses -- why, in the good old days if you lost a leg, you just lived without a leg, not tried to put on these awful metal-and-plastic contraptions -- right, Katz?
What about developing and Third-World nations, where few will have access to Perfect Baby technologies?
You mean if everybody can't have it, nobody should have it? I thought that this was a basic idea of Russian communism in the 20s, but it kinda went out of fashion since then.
A generation ago, who could have imagined that one company would have its software in more than 90 per cent of the personal computers in the world?
A generation ago who could have imagined personal computers? Besides, a generation (maybe 1.5 generations) ago one company had a presence in every American home and controlled the communications of the entire nation. Yes, I'm talking about Ma Bell. And, pray tell, what horrible things came out of this?
All in all, this is another content-free rant.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Your dream is to be a pilot. Your vision is 20/20,
you are in great shape, spent thousands of dollors
on lessons. All you want to do is fly a plane.
Now you want a job. You get called in for an
interview for the perfect position as an airline
pilot.
HR asks for a tissue sample...HUH? "We need it
for genetic screening, just a formality."
Next day... phone call. "We are sorry, but due
to a you being geneticly prone to heart disease
our insurance company will not allow us to hire
you for this position. We do have an opening in
janitorial services, though."
Get it now?
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
I can't understand why people have a problem with "tampering with nature." Until we became farmers and altered our environment we were no better than all other animals. We have changed foods by breeding, and now when we can do it quickly through gene splicing people yell "Blasphemy!" The logical step is to alter ourselves and our offspring. We subconsciously alter our potential offspring anyway by picking a partner who fits our ideal - this puts a huge bias on possible gene patterns in the child.
If we can remove all genetically transmitted diseases then we should, obviously. I don't think all future parents will want "perfect" offspring though. Even if we get that level of control over genes we will still want individuality for them.
Okay, so it is kind of a stand in for evolution, but we've lost a lot of the benefits of Darwinian selection anyway with the high levels of medical skill keeping alive those who in a wilder world would have died.
I say create a million versions of humans so we can survive everywhere - underwater, Mars, Venus, in poisonous atmospheres - or else we get too close to extinction from 1 event.
Anyone want a copy of my genes??
Well, from a certain standpoint, it seems that genetic engineering is the natural evolution of technology. At first evolution introduced a change in an organism in response to the environment. Then, when humans developed technology, we could change the environment to suit our genetics. Now that we are using our tools to change our genetics to better suit the environment (both physical world and social-cultural environment). From an objective view (as objective as a subjective being like me) the technology will happen, and it will work, although 'work' is not going to be defined by us but rather the people who eventually succeed in using it.
Katz seems to be assuming that some genetic tweaking can produce people who behave exactly as you want them to. While I don't disagree that a person's genetic structure will have _some_ effect on how they behave, I'm not totally convinced that it controls all behaviour ( or even most of it ). What about a person's upbringing and the society around them? What do other readers think?
"The obvious is that which is least understood and most difficult to prove." -- A fortune cookie
>A generation ago, who could have imagined that one company would have its software in more than 90 per cent of the personal computers in the world?
A generation ago, PC's (effectively) did not exist for 99.999% of the population. IBM was being pursued by the DoJ for antitrust reasons. Maybe we _can_ imagine 90% control of the computer market by one company.
What you should have said was that a generation ago, who could imagine how integrated and powerful physically small computers have become in our lives, and that near-complete control of this market would be by one company.
I know this is an astoundingly perverse thought, but what happens if everyone agrees with a given notion of what their babies should be like? What happens if, by an unspoken consensus, everyone builds generally pliant, pretty, semi-smart, fully-inside-the-box kids?
What happens when, in a century or so when everyone is the same, a mutated spark of creativity catches fire in the mind of a prospective parent?
"Doc? Uh...I know this is a bit unusual, but since the Parent's Right to Offspring Specification Act of 2024 gives me the right to completely control how you spec out this kid, I have some special requests. Make him bigger, meaner, crueler, more ambitious than anything ever done before. Kill the conscience completely. Average intelligence is ok, but compassion is a complete no-no."
On the tube home, said parent-to-be then uses their implanted commlink to call their spouses: "Robin? Pat? I did it! Our kid is gonna rule the world!"
Brrr. Kinda gives me the chills.
Whilst some /. readers seem bent on flaming Katz's article, I think some may have missed the point.
As a parent (those who read my rant about geek profiling will remember my now 8 week old son), I don't know if I would want to have a choice of how my next child would turn out. I think it's great watching my son grow into his own UNIQUE person.
Unique - that's what I'm getting at. If we start choosing what our babies would be like - would we not then end up with a world where everyone is (more or less) like everyone else?
Nah.. no thanks. Sure right now the world is imperfect, people are different and we make mistakes. But think how boring life would be if we were like everyone else.
GIHM -The light at the end of the tunnel is only the oncoming train.
The real shame is those who see genes as the secret to human achievement. It is our minds, our willpower and our emotions that are the real secret. The insane have built vast empires, a blind men given us the most famouse poems of all history. Possably flawed genes, though we may never know, caused these, but the point is that it was not their genes or anything else physical that made them great it was those intagable things of human nature that drove them to achieve, their soul you could say.
SilverFate
[Y]our wisemen don't know what its like to be thick as a brick - Ian Anderson, "Thick as a Brick"
Secondly, it might be even more scary than JonKatz wrote. In a few years time (I am not sure exactly when), great apes genomes will also be known. And then if you make a `diff` between human and great ape genome what do you get? A few monkey specific genes that are related to the amount of hairs. And
Maybe we'll find that most AC first posters are closer to monkeys than we thought. Or probably not!
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
A Jon Katz article I liked? The world really is ending! My only caveat is his blurb about MS at the end. Not everything revolves around computers. Mike Latiolais (not a coward, just too lazy to log in)
I use GNOME every day - it works fine so what if some people might abuse it that's THEIR responsibility. not the responsibility of GNOME!
Well... I'm pleasantly surprised to see an article by Katz that isn't totally reactionary and jumping on the bandwagon of some horrible incident :) anyways...
This is fascinating stuff but I'm not sure that we really need to worry about the *if it's right or wrong* issue. There is no way to stop technology and it's been on a major roll these days.
I have to wonder about the "soul" of these new genetic beings that we are going to create. I know it's not something that can be scientificly measured, but I believe we all have them. (souls that is..well... most of us have them...:) So what happens to the soul of these *creatures* ?
Perfection.
But most changes have come about by people who overthrow 'conventional' wisdom and try new things. So lets make all kids agressive and independent.
Oh good anarchy.
yes I know I have oversimplified but the danger is there. There are no simple answers - is it better to be bullied as a child and grow strong and believe in yourself, or is it better to be pampered and possibly fail to achieve all you are possible of later in life.
A lot of science has come about due to serendipity - I can't wait until they find the luck gene :)
This article is meaningless, and this is why:
First of all, Katz fails to qualify WHY exactly he is afraid of genetic selection - does he fear that everyone will, amazingly, select for the same thing? I don't agree. First of all, even when the HG is decoded, people won't agree on what's the 'better' standard - everyone doesn't go out and say, "Hey, let me go marry a blonde, so I can have blonde babies, because blonde babies are better!" - so why would they when they can choose it genetically?
And if you're going to debate things like intelligence, it's unclear, even, how much they are genetically determined. Idiosyncracies of personality seem to have reasonably high heritability, but intelligence estimates vary drastically (read the Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray for pro-inherited intelligence, search PubMed for hundreds of journal rebuttals of their dubious conclusions). Science isn't even close to agreeing on the genetic nature of intelligence.
And, assuming in the future that they do find that intelligence is genetically determined, would Katz contend that genetic enhancement of intelligence is evil? That it's more 'human' and 'natural' to have stupider kids? I fail to see the meaning of such sentiments - they're simply vacuuous blubbering and fear of change.
Finally, any sort of eugenics is impossible. First, there's no one to enforce any standard - who will decide, with an open Human Genome, what's good and what's bad? Not the government, certainly. No matter what, people will always have the right to normal children, and so it's impossible for the government to try and restrict genomic choice. GATTACA, fine, maybe. Nice dream. Not going to happen. There's nothing inherently evil in the knowledge of the Human Genome - if the government was going to pursue eugenics in a socially dominating manner, it would have done it already. The Nazis tried, certainly. We can see how well they did.
I agree with those who say that the Human Genome is going to be mostly positive. Genetic profiling may happen, I agree. It's likely that even with legislation against it you'll see genetic discrimination - but against what characteristics? Has anyone ever agreed on what makes a better human being? Why do you assume that, once we know the DNA code for the genome, everyone suddenly will?
Sorry, i'm not buying it.
SA
This article shows a lack of research, indulges in more than the usual amount of presentation of opinions as fact and displays a shallow understanding of ethics, science, history and even literature.
It seems to be written merely to generate negative response, and as such I would moderate it down as "Flamebait" if I could.
Not so much a sig as a lack of one.
from who? Jon Katz? Yeah. He does raise some interesting points. Then he just takes a running leap with them. I agree that genetic manipulation is both scary and inspiring. I also believe that it's got to happen sometime. Why not
now? It's going to raise a myriad of questions and cause gaps between generations and classes and societies. But I believe that these things HAVE to happen sometime. That's how we learn. By tinkering.
Why? Ok let's pose this little question do you want to be inferior? How would you like it if your nice job was taken away by a genetically enhanced individual who could think 20 steps ahead, had an IQ of 230, had at least 10 phds, had a perfect body and could live healthly to 150? I bet you would change your tune if you were forced to sell your house and live like a bum because of these mutants. Most likely any "enhancements" are only useful for children or at the conception stage so you would be out of luck. Don't make your (and my) life worthless just because you want a brave new world.
And if multinational corporations rule the world? I can't say that's the best future. But then again, it might not be a bad one. Read almost any book by William Gibson. He predicts a much more chaotic world. That doesn't make it
bad.
Ok I know that this may be unpopular put that will not happen and has not nor ever will. You see we have something called government that protects us (for the most part) and has something called a constitution with a bill of rights. These things along with checks and balances allow for government to look after needs of the governed. Why do people persist in thinking things that are untrue. The world is not a conspiracy. All the really interesting wars, campaigns, movements, etc were accomplished. Now all we have a little bands of terrorists with handguns to worry about. Even if the US wanted to get despotic and make Protestantism the state religion and repeal the bill of rights they would need 2/3 of the states to ratify the ammendment.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
.. I'm sure reencarnation is true and eventually we'll all have a chance to be screwed, again, and again, and ...
I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be. Genome manipulation won't be perfect because I am sure that diseases will pop up that will only affect those that have been genitically altered. If you remember Dolly the cloned sheep, her DNA started detierating at a much quicker rate. No one knows for sure what will happen, but I do agree that Genome manipulation will be something that the elite, rich, affluent will participate in, the poor and disenfranchised will be left out. I would say its a good thing, when you fuck with nature you will eventually recieve some form of retribution. Check out the environment, ie global warming due to exhaust from induestrialized nations.
Race issues won't be white and black, it will be clone and natural.
Ever watch Gattaca?
This is the first time we've decided in so organized a way to alter the nature of life itself.
Melodramatic but not true at all. Medical science has always been mucking around with the genetic makeup of the species. We cured people who would have normally died, allowing them to pass on defective genes. Society spends quarter of a million dollars to keep babies that are born early, and with defects, alive. It all reduces the potential survivability of the race. Nothing new here.
HGP may give us the tools to improve the genetic stock and provide a balance to the negative influence we've had to date.
Could employers and insurance companies obtain an individual's genetic information?
It's just a matter of defining individual privacy. The issue is no different to if they can see your driving record. Until we decide that privacy is important then there's no reason why they shouldn't have access to the genetic info as well. Who knows the HGP may be the thing that cause society to wake up to it's real rights.
Will the rights of children really be protected
What rights? There is no right to life except in your head. Nature may not have caught up with you yet, but there is no right to life. Life and death are cheap, keeping you alive isn't. A society may choose to provide life, but there have been plenty of societies that practice infanticide. It's a choice we make not a right.
So the only real issue left is whether commercial companies should be able to gain exclusive rights to genome sequences that can be freely and easily discovered. We're already in the process of handing the right to govern us over to business anyway. What's one more thing?
AndrewN
- AndrewN
Katz, you need a happy pill or two. My wife, a nurse practitioner, cares for folks with genetic disorders. I've held her while she wept after watching a little 14 yr old girl with cystic fibrosis she'd known and cared for about 10 years years suffocate, drowning over the course of a few weeks cuz her lungs whre slowing filling with the thick mucus caused by this gentic disease. You'd condem millions like this kid who have genetic disorders to a short and painful life cuz you're worried someone might abuse the tech? You've seen GATTACA too many times and it's killed your reason and your humanitry.
is actually public opinion. Corporations find it very hard to sell things if they piss off (much less kill) their customers (though the tobacco companies has had a good run). Now everyone is entitled to social theorising but I think it is worthwhile injecting some cold hard reality into the talk. Large governments will always lord over corporations because the legal system is a codification of social conduct. I would argue that distortions are more likely to be created by the law of unintended consequences (e.g. the patent system) and that public corporations can only operate within the bounds of legal and thus social acceptability (though the law may lag the technology). Once someone screws up in a major way, then legislation will be passed so quick that you head will spin. Good example is the shooting in Australia a few years ago which galvanised the public (and thus the government) to ban automatic rifles, not to mention the expropriation of the guy's estate to reimburse the victims (a rather dubious precedent no matter how well-meaning). Similiarly with all the gee-whiz biotech advances that pundits are speculating on. It may well be that there is no market for gene-therapy once the risks are assessed. How many other markets have failed to eventuate despite the posturing of the big players (Farenhit, NetPC, etc)?
As for the money aspect, you have to spend money to get it back in the future. People forget that the costs are ultimately passed onto the consumer so all the big sums of money being thrown at private research will eventually end up in your medical bill for products/services at prices that the market will bear (otherwise it will just be droped as unprofitable). This you can thank the good old FDA for controlling the clinical tests and thus creating inelastic markets. On the other hand, the public system might be inefficient at research but at least it is more likely to address real social concerns rather than fee-paying cosmetic augmentation stuff.
People are always concerned about technology, you go back 10, 20, 50, 100 years and you'd find similar stories about cars, movie projectors, electricity, whats-not. In another 100 years it might be nanotech and mini-blackholes. The point about an open society is that any discoveries can be discussed and feedback applied to moderate excesses. Here one must be careful of all the things you read as opinions are not facts (e.g. the misinformation about Serb concentration camps). The voice of reason and some critical thinking will go a long way towards reducing the fears people have about biotech. At this state biocomputing is so early that it's like we haven't invented the equivalent of the transitor yet, much less understand the many different intracellular processes in great detail. However, if and when innovative applications appear, some simple moral questions to ask are would you be able to sell the concept to your mother? If the development background was splashed on the national front page, would people still be interested (one reason why artifical substitutes have been found to replace animal testing)? And most importantly, could you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning if you were the inventor? People are not stupid and trying to force your beliefs or dogma onto others is a sure way to create enemies and annoy friends.
LL
as a society to work towards a genetic cocktail that would produce assembly line style life, maybe it is time the human race gives up.Using this type of technology to do some good, ie curing disease etc. is a great idea, butI think that if/when we start manufacturing life, we have overstayed our welocome as a participant.Scary stuff, look a cloning with the sheep. What was that 2 years ago? Now almost every high end scientific country is doing it and we never hear about it in the trades. And when we do hear, it is about some "BIG" success, we never hear about all the failures.
HTD: Laborer, Gambler, Womanizer, Drunkard.
Don't tell me what to do.
Apparently everyone seems to think that this is a wonderful idea... what's wrong with you? If only the happy, mindless, conformist zombie people are produced, then no one is produced who isn't happy just playing along. We'd have no one who wants to change the government, no one who would fight against problems in society. And, no one to write kick-ass operating systems because they're sick of Microsoft. Linus wasn't much of a conformist, apparently. Would we not have been allowed him because he doesn't play happily with the big corporations and what they tell him to do?
Devilled Eggs - A disturbing little creation of mine.
I wouldn't know where it existed.
The Human Genome Project would be the best canidate of them all for a Nobel Prize. It's just like dynamite: invent it for good purposes, and before you know it, it's being used for anything and everything unimaginable by the inventor.
The question isn't what can you do with the human genome project, it's what can't you do with it! I'm sure the implications will go far beyond my imagination, but here's what I'm seeing right now:
1) Human Genome Project Completed (around 3 years from now).
2) Scientists create library of genetic information on specific genes (around 5-10 years from now).
3) Scientsis coordinate gene types with gene locations to create first genetic mapping of a human being (10-15 years from now).
4) Babies, when born, are given a genetic mapping of their chromosomes, kept with them in their medical file (15-18 years from now).
5) Your whole life revolves around what your "genetic apptitude."
And for those of you who noticed, yes, I did watch the movie Gattaca.
Just imagine who would kill to know you inside and out! Your insurance company, your employer, Big Brother (if you believe in that sort of thing...), the list goes on and on!
In the 20th century, the most repressive forms of government - Communism, Fascism, Apartheid, Nazism - have collapsed or been defeated. Their efforts to censor culture or employ technology to control behavior have failed.
That was then. If we see the rise of another Hitler who has to create his "Select Race" of humans, and this kind of genetic technology would be developed, who would stop him from messing with genetics? Again, genetic power is enormous! He could find out who was the wrong race, change the genetic code of humans so that we're all one "Unified People"...
This technology has great potential, but serious risks. First, watch Gattaca. That covers genetics based discrimination well. Also look at what happens when too many animals of any species are in too little space- starcation, sickness, and especially in humans, extreme violence. When the average person can live to be 100, is virtually immune to all known diseases, and is more resistant to injury than todays typical human, what will keep our population in check? I hate to say it but if this gets misused, even with good intentions, we will in time fall to fighting amongst ourselves for what little food and resources are left. And I'm not christian, but I have read Revelations, isn't it possible that the number '666' can be inserted into the genetic code?
Petty dictators like Saddam Hussein will certainly love the military implications. Soldiers who don't fear chemical weapons, heal faster, suffer less from injury, can carry more, faster, and farther, fire weapons more steadily, respond to orders perfectly... Imagine the Trade Federations Droid army, but with real human ingenuity thrown in. Not good.
When are we gonna see that Katz story defending Patrick "Naughty" Naughton?
I am very surprised that there are not very many posts on this article. And it has been pointed out already, that is very strange.
As far as the guy who thinks that the writer of this article is a moron, I have to wonder if that person is capable deep thought.
There are some people who have looked at how technology has advanced so far, and then make predictions about where it will be. Sometimes they are pretty close to accurate, and some are wildly overboard, but most underestimate just how fast technology is moving. An example of something that has been pretty accurate so far would be Moore's Law. But how many people remember (and still make fun of) the statement that is often attributed to Bill Gates about not ever needing more than 640K of memory? Definately an example of underestimating just how fast technology is moving.
I totally agree that the Human Genome project is something that embodies both the good and the bad of a given situation. I can see the good side of the project (helping to avoid certain diseases, etc.), but I can also see where very easily we could turn into something like out of the movie Gattica.
Technology is moving faster and faster. I have often heard that we are going to quickly hit a brick wall and the speed of processors, memory and computers will level out due to restraints in size. The same thing was said about the sound barrier until Chuck Yeager broke it.
Each technology that is introduced (or made better) brings with it certain risks and responsibilities. To ignore the possibilities is both ignorant and wrong. While on the one hand I don't think that the government is necessarily the one that needs to step in and start establishing guidelines for how and where the information from the Human Genome project is used, I do think that some group should step up and start addressing the issues brought up. Can this be used by law enforcement? Can your genetic information be used by employers as terms of whether or not to hire you? Is this information just something that can be used by the rich and famous, or will it be made available somehow to everybody?
I generally like to look on the bright side of things, but I also realize that there is a difference between optimistic and realistic. If the project is allowed to continue and not have some sort of guidelines (that are agreed upon by representatives of all over the world), then we could be in for some very frightening times indeed.
Fascism has been defeated!? When was the last time anyone looked at the way our society is run. Think, research, and respond.....
Remember that Brave New World preceded 1984 by nearly 20 years. Both are products of their time: Huxley's work born from the Roaring 20's and Orwell's born from the dark years of Spain and World War II - 10 years where the world had more or less fallen into fascism. Even Britain and the US tended towards it, especially in their ruling classes.
Both BNW and 1984 represent a state of complete and utter stasis, where no progress is possible. Where one is a utopia and one a dystopia, you can't define BNW by "happiness" and 1984 by "unhappiness". They both end up in essentially the same position, which is a perpetuation of the present into the future. Both are run by true believers, whether Mustapha Mond or O'Brien. While Orwell's proletariat is utterly disregarded and duped, Huxley's is infantilized. This may be "progress", but is it really any different?
The problem with genetic engineering to enhance fitness (whether intellectual or physical) is that it will entrench existing class differences. As such, we will slowly but surely move towards political (class) stasis. Orwell's genius was in realizing that the proletariat did not need to be infantilized, with the attendant effort; it could be merely put to work, fed lies, and left to its own devices.
Genetic engineering of the upper class (and it will be confined to the upper class) re-entrenches that; while there may be political movement, while one member of the upper class or another wins power, there is no actual change. Then again, that might describe the modern world, too. The question is: do you want more of it or less?
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
Earlier in this century, we dabbled in eugenics, only to learn that a "super-race," or perfect human beings are not possible, no matter how much you tweak and perfect genetics.
Some of us learned that. Others didn't. The Bell Curve was a very popular book, and a lot of people took it as gospel. There are unapologetic master race theorists running around loose even as we speak, and of course everyone writes those nuts off as crackpots, but there are a lot of normal people who buy into it just a little bit farther than can be logically justified. It's hard to draw the line. Our genes do have an effect on us. It's easy for some people to start making it out to be more than it's worth.
I don't think it's wise to stop worrying about people who take this stuff too seriously. Still,there are many beneficial uses for this knowledge, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle anyway. We've learned to live with sharp rocks, bows and arrows, nuclear warheads, Ponzi schemes, and Slashdot. We have no choice but to learn to live with this, too.
It's always good to have an antidote for mindless technofetishism. Sometimes a little Luddism is just what the doctor ordered.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Why does it take so much processing power to do this? I can understand the horrible amount of lab work, but supercomputers? Are the supercomputers working with a lot of processing on a little bit of data or a little bit of processing on a lot of data?
The Bell Curve was a very popular book, and a lot of people took it as gospel. There are unapologetic master race theorists running around loose
That sounds like I'm describing Murray and Herrnstein as "unapologetic master race theorists", which is not accurate and was not my intent. Their work is popular among unapologetic master race theorists, and their views do tend towards that end of the scale, but they're not a couple of full-blown Nazis or anything like that. Read the book, if you're really bored. Their thesis (though IMHO not a reasonable one) is somewhat more nuanced than either their fans or their detractors would have one believe.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm not a geneticist, but it's my understanding that genes don't actually code for traits per se but for much, much lower level phenomena: for the production of certain proteins or enzymes, for example. This means that many genetic disorders can be said to have their origin in "a gene", in the same way that a program may have a bug in a function. A = creeps in where you meant ==, or a sequence is omitted or duplicated, and there you go -- Huntingdon's chorea or whatever.
On the other hand, I do not believe that there is a single gene, or even a gene complex, that is responsible for phenomena such as musical talent or even complaisance or physical beauty. To extend the computer metaphor, these traits are like the behaviour of a very complex suite of programs running on poorly-understood hardware and most importantly, operating on incomprehensible amounts of data. The program is the genetic code, the hardware is the physical body and the data is life experience: percepts, if you like. (yes, I know that programs don't create hardware, but things can happen to the body that are not coded for in the DNA: injuries, for example.) How would you program so as to ensure or avoid a given output behaviour, when you have no control over the data?
It seems pretty obvious to me that output is not solely determined by algorithm but also by the input data. Acculturation seems to me to be a much better predictor of human behaviour than genetics: in small, less genetically diverse communities, I think there is more variation in temperament than can be accounted for by genetics alone. Look at thoroughbred racehorses!
Furthermore, even if it were possible to find a part (or parts) of the genome that is responsible for, say, intelligence, such a discovery lies a long way beyond determining which parts of the DNA sequence code for which protein. It's like the difference between a neuron and a thought.
It is a woman's prerogative to change other people's minds.
There are no genes that encode for aging or death. It is just a natural consequence of thermodynamics. Medical intervention will probably be more important than genetic intervention in determining our lifespans.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Im terribly sorry, but this method of criticizing Mr. Katz is something less than tactful, and makes people wonder who really is the unintelligent one.
As for Mr. Katz article, I fully feel that hes using the oh-so-familiar FUD tactic to imply that the HGP will have catastrophic effects upon civilization. Maintaining ethical use of medical treatments is of primary concern in most/all countries. Also, there is no guarantee that when we are finished mapping human DNA that we will have restriction enzymes (Those that cut DNA at a certain sequence) specific enough to nail one specific sequence. Human DNA is about 3,000,000,000 base pairs long. This means, on average, a restriction enzyme would need to recognize a sequence 16 base pairs long. (AFAIK, we have nothing this accurate thus far. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Also, there are 2^32 ( (4 base pairs) ^ (16 pairs long) ) different restriction enzymes for making cuts at all these base pairs. Use a smaller sequence for recognition, you say? We can't do that because random cuts in DNA are normally an extremely ungood thing.
The horrid future of manufacturing babies that is painted is totally ridiculous. Regardless of how fast our technology advances, the numerous enzymes, the processing power, and the perfect accuracy neccessary to custom build a life form will be far too expensive for many years. And don't forget all the licensing fees for patented genes you'll be paying through the nose :). Single gene treatments for diseases are realistic future applications, and by the time coding fullblown human DNA from scratch becomes feasible, most countries will be prepared to use it responsibly.
-BPrice
Assuming that we define what is "good" as strength, resistance to disease, good eyesight, and certain physical attributes such as no hair loss etc, won't the similarities between two people's genetic codes end up being larger than normal, given that these attributes will be inserted into each individual's DNA, or sperm and ova selected in order to ensure that the DNA within them conform to these criteria? Perhaps these similarities will be large enough to create the same effect as in-breeding were two "genetically enhanced" individuals to have children naturally?
Of course you could fix the genetic code in the new offspring to remove the traits that are caused by the inbreeding, but what that means is that you've lost the ability to have normal kids naturally!
Have I completely lost the plot or is this a legitimate risk?
Salocin.com
So, will we identify the genes that control one's strength in the Force?
"Luke, I am your father."
"NO, it's not true! I was a genetically engineered embryo! My strength in the Force comes from a lab!"
"There was no father. I carried him, I gave birth to him, I raised him. Must've been those crazy experiments the Hutts performed."
"No. There is another. The charts I have seen. Stronger in the force the second one is."
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
An interesting article indeed, well thought out. However you need to consider that the definition of beauty is extremely culture-specific. There are cultures where being overweight is considered beautiful and even here in the west beauty is very relative. My idea of beauty certainly isn't blue-eyed, blonde hair etc. I doubt that it would ever come to the Aryan vision.
In effect, children may be given genotypes, genetic profiles
Even with the project completed, being able to determine how the phenotype (the physical manifestation of the genes) comes about is incredibly difficult, being the combination of hundreds of different genes which also most likely interact with other genes in new and amazing ways. It won't be a matter of selecting a genotype for a long time.
Are we comfortable living in a world in which whose categories of humanity - the retarded, the blind, the disabled - will disappear from our part of the earth?
Well, I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, but I don't think it's a bad thing to remove these things from our gene pool. I'm certainly not trying to advocate eugenics in any form, but how does it have a negative effect if parents who would normally have a baby with difficulties of some kind are instead able to have a healthy baby that has at least the same opportunities as the rest of us?
Given the history of technological breakthroughs once this technology has been unleashed, it's a near certainty that cloning will be used to create children.
Unfortunately, I'm sure this will be all too true. I think that cloning is wrong in the whole human situation and will most likely give rise to side-effects we can't see now. Too many parents today seem to want their kids to be as much like them as possible - if they could have a kid who was them in this manner then what happens then? The whole point of sexual reproduction is to create variation in the genes of the offspring.
ok,
i agree with the hordes of people who say "john katz doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to science." and the fact is most of these posters here don't, either.
so may i suggest you folks shut the fsck up, go take a few courses in chemistry and biology and learn what the hell these fabled fears are all about? seriously, katz's piece screams for a better science education for the average person. he's got a monsterload of irrational fears based on ideas that are pure fantasy. and he'd know this, and you would, too, if more of you would quit wussing out in high school and college and take a course or two in real biology, complete with biochemistry and genetics.
a lot of you cry and moan that the general public doesn't understand computers of basic technology, and laugh when someone says, "they can steal your personality with a computer! it's true, i saw it in a movie!" well, folks, that's how many of the scientists feel when we see horsepucky like this thrown into the mix. a bunch of fears based on a lack of knowledge. it's not that hard to get educated, so go do it.
thanks,
jose nazario jose@biocserver.cwru.edu
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In other words, I'm sure the RIAA is thinking something like:
So, I think that there should be a requirement for those filing a suit to put up a bond equal to the total of their (the plaintiff's) legal expenses. In the case of a contingency cases, the lawyers should have to put a bond equal to their expected fee -- i.e. generally 1/3 of the total verdict. This would be to cover the defendants legal expenses in the event the case was lost.It would also have the nice side effect of keeping requested judgements in contingency fee cases down to a reasonable amount: which would tend to reduce the half million dollars given to every fool who falls off a ladder.
Of course, when you have a government run by lawyers, such a thing will never be passed.
-- Slashdot sucks.
OK, I quit, I want to be a horse now. . .
Even if you disagree with Mr. Postman's thesis (especially if you disagree), read his book. It's well-reasoned and very thought-provoking. Mr. Postman is by no means a Luddite, but he is a warning voice to remind us that Utopia does not exist, and that our technological solutions always carry unwanted side-effects (the Law of Unintended Consequences). A good read to balance Jon Katz's apparent technophilia.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
The sexual partners choose today affects what the human species will look like in the next generation and no politician or congressional hearing has been held on people's selection. When are we going to explore the dark side of that? How can we allow people to just willy nilly decide on their own who to have sex with without taking into account the deep philosphical issues involved? Or do we really want to risk spinning out of control?
Human society is itself an ongoing, unpredictable experiment in technology that started with the first farmer thousands of years ago. Katz is one of its most annoyingly banal products.
(If somebody wrote this article substituting computers and geeks for genetics and biologist, Katz would write a column accusing them of being responsible for Columbine.)
Well guys, its not a question of whether or not we should do it. Its going to be done. Us humans are always curious, and can't resist the challenge to know more.
But this doesn't mean we should sit back and watch. We need to be very active in these new advances and find ways to deal with any problems that may occur with them.
I, for one, am waiting for the Doggy Genome Project to be completed. Gone will be the days when you don't know if you will end up with a biter, a scratcher, a leg-humper... I look forward to being able to open up GNU/CADD (computer aided doggy design) on my Linux box and designing the perfect pooch.
/.?
I want a great dane sized dog with huge floppy ears, the brains of Lassie, the speed of Santa's Little Helper, and stripes like a zebra. Or maybe polka dots.
Oh, and he needs to be potty trained. Who wants to walk a dog when you could be reloading
Folks, the technology itself doesn't scare me. It's all the people who laugh at those of us who are concerned. The frightening ones are those who say that there is no such thing as "evil" and that ignorance of slavery means you are not enslaved. Reading the reactions to Katz I see plenty of folks who dismiss him entirely and are ready to have those of us with concerns legally certified as insane or mentally incompetant.
Alone these same lines Katz cites that companies with billions of dollars to shape culture and control or influence markets are not inherently evil. That is false. The dereliction of responsibility in favour of the goals of the self is absolute evil. When the Coca-Cola company opens a new market in a new country their goal is to change the way of life of that country's culture so "beverage" is automatically associate with "Coke." They are doing it with China right now. Imagine a China without tea. Think of all the art, culture, song, creativity and history that Coka-Cola Corp is attempting to wipe away so 1.2 billion Chinese will associate drinking with the Coke product. If the destruction (yes, it's only a change, but what a change) of a culture is not evil, even if noone really intended the destruction of it, even if it's only a side effect, then I don't know what is. They've done it in other nations. Nations less modern but they've done it. And it's evil.
Now think for a moment, what happens if someone says "baby" in twenty years. Noone pictures a cooing little bundle of joy or even a smelly, crying critter that wakes you several times a night and gobbles your paycheque. No, you think GeneCorp and you're jealous of the neighbours for being able to afford to build their progeny better than you can afford to build yours. And that's what it will be. Think of all the kids in private schools. It will be no different. The lower classes, the third world, will not be able to afford to engineer their escape from poverty. They will be priced into the realm that their literal BETTERS want them to stay. Just smart enough, just strong enough. If jobs are in manual labour in your region and you can't afford a college education then why not spend $25,000 to give your kid a strong back and lots of endurance instead of a more efficient brain, or artistic talent or the ability to resist addiction. For the sake of your race, culture and freedom, think!
If what I said is nonsense,
I'm making a point with it.
If what I said makes perfect sense,
you obviously missed the point.
Capital L
What about that age old question ..... I believe that it is completely obvious already that a person's behaviour, intelligence, and even physical attributes are as much a result of the sum of their experiences as they are a result of their breeding (or genetic makeup).
Remember who lost the bet in Trading Places.
Well, one more thing for the control freaks. People insist on living in the strange world where they like to be in control of everything.
Have we learned nothing? we SUCK at controlling. So many time, humans try to control the chaos with serious unintended consequences.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
the huge factor here is so much of this is about money, fantastic amounts of cold hard cash--and people are willing to take chances to reap eventual rewards. nothing is going to stop them. not the government, not protests from whiny individuals, nor ethical objections.
go ahead, say this is a defeatist attitute...but i think if we accept that it will happen and push the good things that may come out of genetic engineering as much as possible we may be able to keep the objectionable end products (once we can agree on what those are...if indeed there are any) of genetic engineering low.
and finally, mother nature seems to always have a way to fight back. perfect babies might not be so 'perfect' after all...
COMING SOON TO A THEATRE NEAR YOU! "Look Who's Engineered"
Bruce Willis stars as the voice of Baby Mickey in this true-life tale of America's first perfect genetically engineered baby. His mommy Mollie (Kirstie Alley) gives birth to Mickey after being fertilized (hilarious scene features cameo appearances!) with a jumbo genetically tweaked sperm load featuring Leonardo DeCaprio, James Van Der Beek, and male cast members of WB's long-running "Roswell" series.
Everything is hunky-dory (emphasis on the HUNKY--all the other babies can't keep their little imperfect fingers away from the unflawed physique of little Mickey) until a gang of global terrorists tracks the tiny miracle of science to his hospital. Intending to kidnap Mickey and turn him into a killing machine, the terrorists take hostages and begin ransacking the maternity ward. Meanwhile, outside, the FBI puts the hospital under siege with heavy artillery. Led by agent Foxy Moldier (David Duchovny), they demand surrender and the special-effects fireworks commence!
Head terrorist/bioresearcher Sans Lover (Jeff Goldblum) takes out a few FBI agents, while his cohorts track down baby Mickey, ripping him from the arms of an enraged Mollie in an especially poignant scene. The mom is dispatched in truly gruesome fashion (we won't give it away here!) and the terrorists prepare to depart via helicopter.
You might think the movie ends here, or with an incredible air-chase scene, but it's better than that! Baby Mickey's pretty blue eyes start to go all weird and scary-white, and his baby-voice takes on a self-flagellating ironic tone as genetic heritage kicks in.
It's a long flick (3 hrs, 14 min), but you'll be too busy watching the tons of hot women and UFOs in the final hour of action to notice the clock ticking away. The final touching lesson is that no one is really perfect, and there's plenty of biogenetic questions left to be answered in the already announced "Look Who's Engineered, Too." I can't wait!
Also, addressing the "everyone will be beautiful" comment... Please. Do you see everyone getting plastic surgery now? It's available! Why isn't everyone the perfect looking person? The answer: Not everyone is so shallow. Most people are happy with who they are and don't put so much empahsis on the way they look. Of the people who do, many can't afford it. What is beauty after all? There have been studies showing that most find a person with symmetric characteristics (2 even eyes spaced the appropriate distance apart, etc..) to be more beautiful. But if you look at many 'popular' attrative people, you'll find that most have some kind of 'defect'. Look at Julia Robert's big mouth, Cindy Crawford's mole. etc. etc..
ponder...
I wonder what OS is the most suitable for primates. Possibly PalmOS. They could use it with their feet
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
It has been developing for days now. He just realized that posting in the main thread puts it down to -1 and oblivion almost instantly , so he started posting it as an answer to the main posts. Cute.
It is also getting better along the way.
Ironically he fails to see the self-correcting "Open Thinking" approach to ethics as a solution. When technology is in the early stages, elites control the ethic, for better or worse. As the technology reaches commercialization to broader groups of people, more people think about what is appropriate and the proper ethics and laws can be constructed at that time based on a broader consensus not affected by "founder syndrome" or scare tactics.
I suspect that, as with Linux, good elites facilitate early ethical development (principles = ethics architecture?), and minor holes or re-engineering will fix problems. As Open Source enables improved software stability over time, Open Thinking improves ethical/legal fairness over time.
Cheers,
--LP
P.S. "Open Thinking" has been previously known as "democracy"; that term, like the term "free software" is hereby co-opted. ;-)
I have seen the vessels, pumps, valves, motors and etc being created with nano technology. I recently heard that it will soon be possible to micro encapsulate componunds using nano technology. These thing and a little micro circuitry would allow you to drop a few billion lethal doses of some genetic mutant gas out of your pocket in any city fly home and watch the face melt on TV as your time staggered bits of glass havoc go off one by one.
Would you rather, Mr. Katz, that we waited for corporate America to map out the Human Genome and patent it?
It is the nature of man to explore everything in his environment. To poke, prod, analyze, tear apart and put it back together. It is not a question of whether we will study something, but when.
I, for one, would rather see this research in the public domain than locked away under some bizarre Non-Disclosure-Act, which is exactly what will happen if the private sector gets its way.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
More importantly, though, most of these concerns don't have simple yes-or-no answers; they depend on context. For instance, we might agree that it is not appropriate for government agencies to use genetic analysis to determine which individuals, out of a large pool of law-abiding citizens, might in the future commit a crime. But on the other hand, how about using genetic analysis as one tool in profiling a serial killer currently at large? Similarly, we might not want people analyzing a prospective spouse's DNA for just any old purpose (though I can't think of any problems with this offhand), but how about doing it specifically to determine whether these two people would have a high probability of producing children with certain genetic disorders? (I suppose it depends what you call a "disorder". Down's Syndrome, sure, but what about a tendency toward middle-age balding? That's inherited, and therefore genetic, isn't it? And perhaps undesirable? But I tend to think that society will work out, in the first decade or two of this technology's availability, where the boundaries are between filterable and unfilterable traits.)
Oh, good heavens, Jon. Go read the book of Ecclesiastes. "All is vanity." It's the one thing humans are consistently good at. This has to be the funniest line in your whole stupid article. Congressional debate? You think that would do any good? You think anyone on Capitol Hill would have anything of substance to say on the subject? (Huff... puff... Immoral... the Bible says... blah, blah, blah...) Let's keep the politicians out of this. They can worry about legislation once there's something real to legislate about. Let's not risk having the whole project aborted because Jesse Helms decides it's immoral. Funny, my wife and I have always said we'd rather have a hellion than a passive, "Yes, Mother" little idiot. (Well, we got our wishes!) Go look at the beauty pageant pictures of Jon-Benet Ramsey and then try to tell me that there aren't already lots of parents who live vicariously through their children. That's nothing new.But more fundamentally, there is a major error implicit in your statement. You seem to think that parental "shaping" of a child's genes deprives the child of freedom. This is incorrect; children do not choose their genes. The difference here is between random chance and parental determination. The child has no say in the matter in any case.
Furthermore, I disagree completely with the notion that genetic makeup "completely shapes" anyone's life.
This is the most intelligent and perceptive statement in your article -- quite possibly, in your entire journalistic career.Ok, so what you are saying is that since the government wants to change people to be passive without "easily detectible means" that they'll stoop to genetic engineering...
uh...exactly how are they going to do this? Somehow I suspect people would notice if the government started implanting genetically engineered eggs in every woman in America...
The trouble is that people act like genetic engineering is some sort of magic wand that can be waved that will cause anything to happen. It is not. For a government to have enough control to genetically engineer a significant part of the population, it would have to have far more control than any government in history has ever had.
The cake is a pie
Gattaca was a good movie but... Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is everything Gattaca hoped to be and more.
Take genetic engineering, a cup of assembly line production, add a heaping spoonful of social engineering, and you have a (scary) view of our future.
Perhaps the most interesting passage in that book to me was about the island that was set up with just Alphas on it. Within 6 years they were had a civil war which killed off almost 90% of the population. Nobody wanted to do the mundane jobs and and everyone was trying to get the interesting jobs. Laws weren't obeyed, anarchy reigned, etc, etc...
Is the future as portrayed in that book what we have in store for us? Think about it, if we can make our offspring smart or dumb regarding to our wishes, it's just one small little step to mandating castes.
Scary stuff...
(I was only an egg, but then I cracked)
Y'all should know better! Our mental capability is NOT heriditary. It depends on neural stimulation as we grow up. If you had Einstien's genes but never read a book.... The only think that you CAN determine are the risks of inherited disease like hemofilia. If I were NOT to get a job because I have hemofilia, too bad for me. If I were to get it cos' my employer did'nt know (or was not allowed to know), I'd be as bad as Intel trying to make people buy the lates P!!!CU to 'surf the web' - it comes down to IGNORANCE. Less is better.
Seriously, if you were a rich guy with a predisposition for cancer, would you fork over a ton of cash just so your kid wouldn't have cancer? Or would you rather fork over that ton of cash so that YOU wouldn't have cancer? I think that once the genome is complete, we'll probably spend more time treating existing conditions than doing cosmetic genetic engineering and designing the "perfect" human, because that's where the funding is going to be.
This is a great piece, very funny. Unfortunately, the widespread use of antibiotics today has led to the evolution of bacteria who are now resistant to a large number of the antibiotics in use today. There's a place in the US (I can't remember where) where there is currently an epidemic amongst the children caused by these resistant bacteria and it's become extremely hard to fight them.
The cause of all this is the over-prescription of antibiotics for, well, everything. People (parents especially) want their doctors to give antibiotics for every minor ailment they or their kids suffer from, and when the course is stopped too quickly i.e. before all of the bacteria are killed, resistant bacteria develop and begin to spread. The only way to combat these is with new antibiotics, but these are now becoming extremely scarce. Once no more new antibiotics are available and bacteria develop that are resistant to all of those, then we could see ourselves back at the point before we had them at all!.
Insurance companies base much of their rates on statistics. That's why even though you may be a perfect driver, if you're 25 years old and male, you're going to pay a lot for insurance. You personal record means diddly to them.
If the insurance company knows that your genes give you a predisposition to heart attacks or cancer, then they will adjust their rates accordingly.
However, I agree with you that knowing the genome can lead to improved quality of life for many.
Many of you people must be living in the dark ages.. what the hell is all this talk about "it scares the hell out of me". That is like saing computers scare the hell out of me for whatever reason.
Understanding/Knowledge is inherently a good thing.. shure it can be used in harmful ways (like a computer virus).. but that is just part of the deal. These are very worth while risks because we have so much to gain.
If you don't want to evolve go live in montana or something.. the rest of us will continue about our buisness of becomming gods. I am just so sick of this fear of technology, science, and the unknown bullshit.. wether it is computers, genetics, etc.
I normally like Katz articles about hell-mouth or whatever.. I just don't read much of them because they are way too long winded.. but this one is just stupid. I suppose I should take on a few of Katz points directly:
a) What if they make a maistake and a whole generation of people is born with an undetected genetic problem? This is unlikely since people will test for a long time before making anything really widespread and even then it will not be everyone, but just a small piece of one generation, i.e. a small part of the total population. Hell, even if we do fuck ourselves up we have plenty of healthy genetic stock in countries which are too poor to afford genetic engenering.
b) What genetic engenering creates a cast system? Implicit in the statment is the idea that people will place too much importence on genetics and to litle on personality. This is highly unlikely given our current cultural climate. Psychologiest do seems to understand how importent non-genetic criteria is in determining a persons abilities. Now, if the upper casts dominance is really based on actually being able to achive more and think better then more power to them.. it is wonderful compaired to our current seperation of the classes. What would you rather a system where people's intelegence was crippled because it would be unfair to others?
c) What if Gov. controls it and uses it to make doscile people? This is unlikely for a variety of reasons. It is more likely that increased intelegence and the discrimination against members of the genetically engenered minority will create a group of people which know which way to rebel and how to do so effectivly.
Now, there are a few things to be worried about.. like the patenting of genes.
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Lots of additional information on the technology and the socio-political debates on the issue from the folks at Resurgence.
HTD: Laborer, Gambler, Womanizer, Drunkard.
Don't tell me what to do.
'nuff said
One distinction lost in the above is the fact that only congenital defects or susceptibilities can be eliminated by gene selection. We can eliminate accidents of nature, but we can't eliminate accidents, period. We'll still have the ill, the retarded and the maimed with us, we just won't have so many of the heartbreaking cases who were born that way and never had a chance.
There's also a big difference between knowing what a person's genes are and being able to control what they think, feel and do. This is an ENORMOUS leap of logic, but it often gets glossed over as demonstrated by this quote from Katz:
There's a little saying from the life science that rebuts this: "Under perfectly controlled conditions of temperature, pressure, humidity, nutrient concentration and lighting, the organism will do whatever the hell it pleases." Being assured of your kid not having Down's Syndrome is a rather simple thing. Being assured that your interaction as parents, as playmates, as teachers, and as book, television, radio and cyber-media influences - hell, even your interaction as a pregnant woman - with their genes and innate and developed abilities is going to yield any predictable outcome is simply impossible. The influences are nonlinear, combinatorial and beyond any ability to compute.Besides, there will be a lot of people who will select for the idiosyncratic and other traits because they will desire children who aren't the same as everyone else's. It's not very likely that many people will select for low intelligence or crooked teeth or Prince Charles ears, but when they are selecting for something else it's bound to fall out in some by the luck of the draw. I'm afraid that the future is Human-Genome-Project-proof as far as the eye can see.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
reading his articles, and why are you posting
here? Do you honestly think you will cause
every single
right!" and never read his articles again??
If you have something substantive to contribute,
please do. If you are just here to bitch, don't
bother.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
Thats what I am most worried about
What if some Idiot like Saddam Hussein decides
that this is the Genome for a perfect Muslim
and creatse a virus to destroy all non-conformimg
Hosts?
Or maybe deciding that This genome defines an american
If so we are all buggerd!
RUN!!!
RUN to the HILLS!!!!
In effect, the evolution of man has ended. And to quote a great movie: "If Man has stopped evolving, then what a pitiful species man has ultimately become." What do I mean? As little as ten thousand years ago (by scientific standards) man stopped physically evolving, and instead turned to mental development.
The pinnacle of human thought came when we were able to comprehend the existence of something we could not see yet was all around us, and then unleash its ultimate power. And then we stopped.
"Wait!!!" You cry out, "We have computers! Spacecraft! Mathemathics!" And I tell you that none of these are innovation, merely refinement built upon innovation. Computers are merely a refinement of our ability to compute; should we create true AI, that would be innovation. Spacecraft is simply explosive power regulated by mathematics, which (beyond the discovery of the fractal) stagnated a century ago.
What is the solution? There are two: 1) Continue naturally and theoritically bring all humanity to the same point of development then step forward as one, or 2) Altar ourselves without the interference of natural selection.
But the crucial point of humanity's power to innovate is the differences we have developed. I don't intend this spiritually or in a hippified manner. Because the cultures of humanity are so different each one of us can see something the others can not.
Should we choose to altar ourselves into a conformist world society, what would we seek as a species other than physical and mental perfection?
But what good does having a mind capable of calculating at the speed of a computer or a body capable of lifting a dozen nubile young women do when the core of humanity has lost its ability to create new ideas?
Look around you today, where is new art? New architecture? Perhaps the only new thing is new music...
The human genome project proposes that your child could be more intelligent, but at what cost? You have to take space from one attribute to give to another... Would you sacrifice your child's sight? Mental stability? "She is gorgeous, and she'll live very long. But she's as dumb as a brick."
"Enjoy the world, we'll consume it soon enough."
Interestingly enough, there is a solid point in this satire...
We do not understand the effect that the massive use of antiseptics is having. There is some evidence that they are partly responsable for the current rise in immune system disorders - things like Asthma, Eczema, Chrones disease and similar.
Whilst no-one doubts the benefit that the use of antiseptics have in surgery, the current mania for overuse in the home may cause as many problems as it solves.
And that's 100 years after they were first used, that questions are being asked.
The time for discussion is when nothing can be done, rather than having the law makers rush through inefficent and patchy legislation.
Although I don't think that Katz's article helped much beyond FUD.
(A Lifelong sufferer of Eczema)
Read my plan to save the Bengals
This brings the term "Mail-order bride" into a whole new perspective. Now the only question is which model to choose from. *grin*
I've never thought of things that way, but it does make sense...
A Utopia is inherently stable, nothing changes, there is no progress made to some goal, since everyone is "happy". I'm not sure happy is the right word here, maybe content. Happiness implies that there is sadness (that whole black-white, ying-yang thing), thus there must be sadness somewhere. Maybe sadness is portrayed by the "savage"?
Humans thrive on emotion, artists gain inspiration from their own personal happiness and sadness. It seems to me that being content (not changing either way) would effectively put an end to good art.
(I was only an egg, but then I cracked)
The "perfect baby" issue really doesn't bug me much. I think there is a taboo that will take some time to disappear, though, and I pity the stigma early clones will have to endure. I imagine the first perfect babies will be called "clonies" or something by their classmates....
Come on, how many parents have kids and say, "Gee I wonder what little Jonny will be one day?" Parents have been shaping their kids lives (good and bad) for generations, and certainly in this generation, where every toddler already has a financial portfolio to pay for their college tuition.
The opportunities that the HGP provides will certainly add to the arsenal of things parents can do to shape their kids. And you can bet it will be misused. But even if parents didn't use any cloning tools, or do anything to help their child compete in the world, they still pass on their values just by virtue of being a parent. And I am not talking about just good values either; the abusive spouse will pass that "value" down to their kid whether they want to or not.
However, if there is anything to fear from the HGP, it's in the ability to shape the personality tendencies of your tot. If we all start creating kiddies with similar personality traits, the world will become a really boring place. I can deal with a world where all the women are beautiful, but I'd lament the lack of mental diversity if everyone started thinking/acting the same.
P.S. Still a little wordy Katz, but better...
There seems to be a tendency by some in our society to want "the perfect child" - totally handsome (or totally beautiful) and totally blemish free. It may very well become possible to engineer these traits - and some parents will undoubtedly pay whatever price for their very own perfect child. I wonder though if wisdom can also be engineered? The old saw about being careful what you wish for may apply here. There are exceptions, of course, but in our success-and-beauty-obsessed culture; breaks, good fortune, (and economic value) often accrue to the extremely beautiful and/or the very handsome - even if such good fortune may not have been earned or deserved. In this brave new "perfect world", competition is sure to get fiercer. After all, if I can't pick you over an equally qualified job candidate, (because, in today's world, "everything else IS NOT equal); then I'll no longer be able to "discriminate" (in favor of your beauty or good looks) when everyone looks the same! (A thought: What's going to happen to the "Miss America" Pageant?) I don't mean to sound monotheistic, but the wisest course may be to leave determination of genetic diversity to God.
There is the potential for much good coming out of this. I have known a couple of people who had fairly ghastly genetic problems they inherited (one had Hutchison's corea--imagine knowing that you have a condition which has lead all males in your family to go progressively spastic and nuts starting in your 40's, for the last 5 generations of all males in your family!) You would certainly want to aboliish problems like this.
The problem is the machinery merely existing means it would be used for broader purposes, including the merely cosmetic. And when it is used, it will diminish the genetic diversity of our species. Major outbreaks of _new_ diseases tend to kill about 60% of those who suffer the initial outbreak--it doesn't matter if it is the equivalent of the flu in geese or the 1918 flu epidemic in people, the Black Plague in Europe in the middle ages, etc. Ditto, the Native Americans. So now you can raise that to 90+% because you have reduced the genetic diversity of the population being attacked. You cannot breed immunity to these things.
There are also other issues--creative people tend to be rebelious and non-conformist, presenting a disharmonious element to society. For a more harmonious society, the price would probably be intellectual stagnation with a scholastic rather than creative outlook. There is also at least a suggestion that creativity and pure mental horsepower are different in origin--Einstein supposedly only had a 128 IQ (no better than a B+ student, which is why he couldn"t get into grad school). Yet, he had one of the most startlingly creative intellects of all time, even if he never was able to grasp the difference between an active and a passive rotation (which he couldn't).
There are important reasons for genetic engineering to exist, but inpractice it will most likely be used in accordance with some social platitude of the day or for purely trivial reasons (like nose shape).
You made a valid point when you said that many of these bioethics issues have not been dealt with adequately. However, your article did little to further the exploration of these issues, appearing as little more than a blatant attempt to rally a hardcore anti-gentic research response.
Did anyone complain when we prevented all humanity from ever succumbing to smallpox again? Likewise, if we can eliminate purely genetic diseases, like Tay Sach's, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, and cerebral palsey, would anybody complain?
Furthermore, we would not be committing genocide against living individuals with those diseases, but preventing their future recurrence.
As for the "who has access?" issue, I would guess that it would be rather simple - just like every other medical service, anybody that can afford it. Open heart surgery saves many lives every year, but most of them are in the first world because it is an expensive procedure. Likewise with HIV treatments. Nobody wants to deny third world access, but these procedures take a lot of training and a lot of research, which translates to a lot of money, to develop and implement. That money has to be recouped from the patients.
And finally, if a couple really wants to customize their offspring, why not? Is there anything inherently morally wrong with that? Beauty is highly subjective, not all people like the blond hair, blue eyes image. And the environment of the child still plays an immensely important role in determing the physical, mental, and emotional health of the individual. I for one am more than happy to do anything in my power to reduce the chance of my child succumbing to disease and disability (be it genetic, accidental, or infectious). I would also find my child beautiful regardless of their height, weight, complexion, hair or eye color, etc.
Finally, we already are rather monoculture, genetically speaking. On the whole, we're more than 99% genetically identical. And we've already faced several impossible diseases (plague, HIV) and survived.
As I understand it, this article dwells on the moral implications of allowing people to screen their offspring for bad traits.
To my way of thinking, the fact that the HGP stuff is being done primarily so that companies can patent sections of DNA is the big whammy, since it prevents legitimate, perhaps non-profit, perhaps not, organizations from developing medical technologies without paying through the nose for the information. Its not just that genome labs will charge for the info, it's also that no genome lab will be able to sell sections of genome data patented by another - labs which map useful bits of DNA will essentially have a monopoly.
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that genes only contribute to a fraction of a person. Social influences also contribute greatly to the makeup of a person. You can use genes to create beautiful, calm, "good" children, but there's a darn good chance that they won't matter once you throw society into the mix. Just a thought, B
I'm starting to get suspicious that JonKatz is ACTUALLY the guy who writes the voice over lines for NBC made for TV disaster movies. With classic JonKatz lines like: tragic drama of contemporary technology: well-meaning people trying in the noblest way to improve the world; setting in motion forces few ordinary people understand, agree upon or are prepared for. Can I just say... "ARGH!!!" Why must he write every frigging article as though it's a "life and death" situation in which "geeks vs. the world" must overcome the "[insert something evil here]". Is it possible for JonKatz to write anything other then OPINION articles? Or perhaps he could find something a little less "nobody else gets it" to write about.
Maybe these IQ 165 people will develop semiautonomous robots to dig ditches for them...
As far as war goes, I personally don't forsee war happening. With the UN and all, it's pointless to attack someone, because you're sanctioned into depression. Not to mention the US likes to wave its big, angry, Teddy-Roosevelt-on-crack stick at people. Cruise missiles provide a politically "safe" (no pilot to kill/capture) way of blowing stuff up. *Terrorism*, maybe. But not formally declared wars.
Incidentally, I believe the USMC has a program to develop some kind of very-small-very-smart mobile artillery platform. But consider that unreliable at best, I can't even remember where I heard it.
This all will still not solve society's largest problem: Katz will still complain about the robots.
"All I do is eat and poop!" -- Bean
>>What about developing and Third-World nations, where few will have access to Perfect Baby technologies?
>You mean if everybody can't have it, nobody should have it? I thought that this was a basic idea of Russian communism in the 20s, but it kinda went out of fashion since then.
=======================
I think you are missing the point here. Access to genetic engineering (wrt humans) is not a simple commodity like a television set. If parts of the species begin genetically engineering themselves then evolution will be occurring at different rates for different peoples.
Case in point: the U.S. is dominated by rich white people. Rich people can afford to engineer their offspring. In a few generations, rich white people are now stronger, faster, and smarter then 99% of the populations of poorer nations. Not only would this accelerate the geographically inequal distribution of money (power) but it would create more of a distinction between peoples. Think about how white supremicists could go crazy: now their "people" really are, on average, better than those they oppress.
Racial bias is hard enough to overcome even when everyone is basically on a level playing field. As soon as you start creating distinctions between kinds of humans (normal v. enhanced) the problems will explode. Will enhanced people want to mate with dumber, less impressive "normals?" Will racial groups that, statistically, are less able to "improve" themselves suffer discrimination in the workplace?
Finally, what about the many people that, even in developed countries, who will be unable to afford the engineering or oppose it on ethical or moral grounds? They will be subsumed by the rising tide of superior humans. Within a generation their protest will be buried by the legions of more employable, healthier, engineered people. The unengineered might even be seen as a burden on society, consuming more resources (illnesses) and producing less (less intelligent, etc).
There are enormous problems with genetic engineering on this scale...and they will probably never be seriously considered. Oh, we will debate them on Slashdot, and as the time when they are possible comes closer we will see more media coverage. Individuals will not consider the impact on the species, though; they will think of giving their children the best chance in life. No government in the world will be able to prevent engineering from occurring past a certain point, and most corporations will see no reason to limit the aptitude of future employees.
It's scary to think about.
~Tiroth
What I think you fail to grasp is that society as a whole is subject to manipulation by the few. It doesn't matter that 2/3rds of the states would have to ratify an amendment. They'd ratify it if they thought it was "popular" with the people. Who controls the people? Though there may in fact be some *truly* individual thinkers, the masses, by definition, do not think. They do not think about the rules which society gives them. They do not think that maybe life is worth more than the TV tells them about. They do not think about the implications of their actions beyond their own lifetime and usually not beyond the next year (if that). These people are the people who manifest what is popular. However, it is the relative few, the marketing people in capitalism, or the propoganda people in totalitarianism, who actually tell people what is popular. So before you have so much faith in democracy, understand that with technology it becomes easier for individuals or small groups to influence larger numbers of people and thus dictate what is popular with in turn dictates how politicians will vote.
The way that evolution works is diversity, if we become basic images of the same blueprint 'ideal' DNA then we lose the diversity and everything unravels - we're taking responsibility for our future and our ability to solve the obstacles that confront us, whether we know they are there or not - it means we'll begin to RELY on such help in the future when our make-up accidentally LOSES the ability to evolve. Pop, goodbye mankind!
Let's take a different look without going quite so far in to the sci-fi future - ironically by looking at a Sci Fi movie i'm sure everyone has thought of. Gattaca.
If you haven't seen it, watch it. NOW.
There's a special on the DVD that tries to urge viewers NOT to dabble with DNA in this way, imagine the people in our past that would have been 'fixed' or 'terminated' due to their illnesses, some of our greatest minds, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking to name but two.
What good is life going to be if it's just a pre-programmed existence? Part of being here means that we face unknown challenges and find solutions. I'm not talking about us as individuals but as the group known as 'humanity'. We don't know what kind of mind will come up with the idea for the next major leap in our intelligence - it could quite easily be someone that is deaf and can't walk, and because of this they spent all their time reading books and an idea suddenly hit them while they were sitting there.
Genetics is as much of a weapon as any other technology and can and no doubt (cynical view coming) will be misused. The thought that we can rid ourselves of deadly and crippling diseases is great but we lose something then from the futures that these individuals lead and the contribution they can make to society - Stephen Hawking is as much proof as we need that physical disabilities don't mean you can't be one of our greatest minds.
A great article JonKatz - maybe if enough people start to wake up then we can put the brakes on this train before we hit the wall :) (maybe i'm just the eternal optimist :) ).
Read my diary for more thoughts!
http://www.neutronic.deardiary.net
==== Dear Diary ==========
==== Dear Diary ==========
http://www.deardiary.net - Put your thoughts online, Visit my diary, http://neutronic.d
Now, there's a really wonderful value system!
Maybe we should worry instead about all the obnoxious or non-beautiful people the world will miss. Newton and Einstein come to mind. Newton was an ill-tempered sob, and Einstein was thought to be rather stupid in childhood. Genetic selection for beauty and "well adjustedness" would likely have eliminated both of them.
Information is not Knowledge
No, it's like saying that hammers are dangerous because if you hit too many nails with them, you'll start encountering lots more nails that can't be hammered. This can be a big problem if you need to hammer nails.
Handy rule of thumb: Never underestimate the power of evolution.
--Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
The Human Genome Project is only to map out the general sequence of genes in the human chromosomes. It's a map that lets you know where a gene might be. It tells you nothing by itself about what that gene may do. That information is put together from biochemical and genetic data.
Genes in Eukaryotes (everything as complex or more than yeast) are individually organized and separated. They have a known 'start of transcription' site that is pretty much universal with slight variations and universal 'stop' sequences. Everything between these two must be a gene. This is called an 'open reading frame' or ORF.
The genes that have been found so far, such as Huntington's etc., have been because someone knew from genetic crosses already that gene A is closely related to B which is on the other side of C. If you know that A is _here_ and C is _there_ and there is only one open reading frame between them, then _that_ must be the location of gene B.
Or, if you've isolated the protein for gene Z, but don't know where the gene is or what nucleic acids code for it, but you know what amino acids compose the protein, then you can do a computer search for possible matches (multiple nucleic acid triplets will code for the same amino acid, CAG and CAA both code for Glutamine etc.)
The human genome project doesn't mean we'll suddenly be able to do new things, it just means they can be done faster and with more surety, less redundancy. It allows two groups to find out they have both been working on the same gene, or that two seperate proteins that people have been working on are actually the same gene spliced in a different way.
Also, the sequencing techniques being used are inherently error prone. The sequencing people aren't shooting for a perfect map, just a percentage of accuracy. After the genome project is 'completed' there will follow _years_ of submissions of corrections and omissions.
If you have concerns (up to you) about various ethical issues surrounding the discovery of this or that gene for this or that condition, the genome project isn't what you need to look at.
Honestly Mr Katz, not as a flame or an insult but to make you think, this article is analogous to: Porn is bad! There is porn on the internet. If we shut down/restrict the internet, no one will get/look at porn anymore.
I was just wondering how this whole thing is going to affect the Church of Scientology. I dont know very much about the church but I have taken one of their quizzes and I could see them using this gene stuff to some sort of end. Or would the Genome project destroy their whole hypothesis that a human can improve himself???
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
Aaaah, no. How do we fix every gene in the body?
Oh, you must mean, use a matter transformer and
reconstuct our entire body minus the bad gene.
Why didn't I think of that? Hey Scotty, make me
thinner while your at it. Hmmm, now for a genetic
sex change. Give me another arm, too!
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
What I think you fail to grasp is that society as a whole is subject to manipulation by the few. It doesn't matter that 2/3rds of the states would have to ratify an amendment. They'd ratify it if they thought it was "popular" with the
people. Who controls the people? Though there may in fact be some *truly* individual thinkers, the masses, by definition, do not think. They do not think about the rules which society gives them. They do not think that maybe life
is worth more than the TV tells them about. They do not think about the implications of their actions beyond their own lifetime and usually not beyond the next year (if that). These people are the people who manifest what is
popular. However, it is the relative few, the marketing people in capitalism, or the propoganda people in totalitarianism, who actually tell people what is popular. So before you have so much faith in democracy, understand that with
technology it becomes easier for individuals or small groups to influence larger numbers of people and thus dictate what is popular with in turn dictates how politicians will vote.
That's very interesting because I learned in my HS AP American Government class that the media and various other institutions are not under the control of a secret cabal. That much was made crystal clear by the author of the textbook and the teacher. While I can believe that through some forms of marketing people may be able to create a demand for products there is little correlation about what is wanted and what actually transpires. Take an issue that was not ratified because it may have been popular but was blocked by democracy in action: The ERA. You see a great many people wanted to be politically correct back in the early days and decided to get an ammendment to support their philosophy. A great number of the social elite that you claim can run the country wanted it. It was a popular thing but; and here's the tricky part, it failed! It failed to be ratified by the necessary 2/3 of the states and never passed. Let's get another example: The Pentagon Papers. The government had this little thing called Vietnam that (because of incompetent people) they bungled and tried to cover up. Someone leaked the info and discredited the government. Nixon tried to use all of his formitable power to stop the NY Times to remove the material but he failed because of democracy.
These are just two examples of why democracy still works. I must admit that as far as foreign policy I really am not that interested. Many of the once powerful European countries have seemingly (for some rather baffling reasons) given up their former power and want to live in some kind of little coincious nirvana. This is similar to who a great deal of Americans think today. If we do anything that hurts say some small barely self sufficient country we are commiting evil crimes and we are beant on instituting a repressive regime? Well where's the exact proof that secret plots and people in smoke filled rooms are planning our future? The x-files is a fantasy and almost impossible to keep some mole or insider from comming forward. Our "men in black" as we would like to think compared to other countries are actually not very good at what they do. Look at all the attempts to kill Castro, rescue hostages held in the middle east. These events failed because our thought police are incompetent donut eating slobs who have little training or skill at all.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Perhaps this is just the next step in Natural Selection. The humans who accept this will be stronger, smarter, healthier and live longer. THey will, of course, become the dominate sect of the human race.
Instead of looking at this as bad, blah, blah, blah, Microsoft is behind this, blah, blah, blah, business sucks, blah, blah, blah... Maybe we need to take a step bck and see the bigger picture, human evolution. This is natural selection at it's finest, where we are doing the mutation ourselves.
--Justin Mitchell
"2nd Place is a fancy word for losing" --Bender (Futurama)
There are a couple major flaws in Mr. Katz's thinking on this issue, and they are flaws which are woven into practically every discussion of this topic.
First and foremost is the implication that you can genetically select things like intelligence and success. Reality check, people. There are a lot of very intelligence people who never utilize their potential and many folks without the benefit of raw natural intelligence who learn through effort and willpower. Genes aren't everything. We are as much molded by our environment as we are by our genetic code. Circumstance and opportunity make for success more than raw potential. If you are a shitty parent, then no amount of genetic tinkering is going to ensure you a happy, successful child instead of a miserable, neurotic one.
Second is the notion that there is one set of desired traits that all people want for their children, leading to uniformity if we all got what we want. With the exception of good health (see below), this is woefully unrealistic. Sociological studies on 'objective beauty' aside, the fact of the matter is that standards vary from person to person. Let's look at temperment, for example. Kiersey gives us four basic temperments (with 16 more detailed types), none of which are particularly better than any other. Intelligence, in itself, is a very misleading and hopelessly generic term. People don't tend to be good at everything, they tend to be good at a particular type of thing, depending on their temperment. Or physical traits. Does everyone prefer blondes? Not really. Physical types? Most of the people I know find what is considered the standard of beauty today disgusting. None of them would damn their children by genegineering them to look like a model.
Third there is the idea that something is gained by the 'diversity of disability'. This I find the most reprehensible. Katz tries to suggest that the world is a better place because people suffer. The last place I heard this line of bullshit was church. I didn't buy it from a priest, and I sure as hell am not going to buy it from a doomsaying technophobe. Because, in essence, that is all that this article is. Kneejerk fear of the changes of technology. We saw, as somebody already pointed out, the same thing with antibiotics, anesthetics, industrialization, mechanization, and every other advancement in human technology. Not that these things did not cause problems. Nor was their integration into our life perfectly smooth, in many cases. However, I don't believe there is anyone who wishes to argue that we were better off in the disease-ridden, famine-prone Middle Ages.
Lastly, we have the economic whining about how it is unfair to give an advantage to richer people (or nations), suggesting that we in the West should instead choose to live at the level of the least common denominator, out of some twisted socialist feeling of racial loyalty. Sorry, Katz, but I find your bigotry against the well-off to be as offensive as bigotry against the poor. Besides, as I pointed out before, there is no way to genegineer success, regardless of how much money you have. Rich or poor, your kids will still be fucked up if you raise them wrong. Also, it is the patronage of the rich which allows innovative technology to reach the level of use that it becomes cheap and accessible. Capital drives the economy. Without it, there would be few new drugs, medical techniques, agricultural advances, or new manufacturing processes, all of which make life better for more than the much-maligned elite.
Just to sum up, this article is based on a number of faulty assumptions and questionable leaps of logic, and is indicative of the sort of half-baked thinking which generally accompanies doomsaying of any sort. Environmentalists are particularly well known for this sort of claptrap. What would have been more useful than a reiteration of all the alarmist garbage that's already seen print on this issue would have been an article debunking the non-issues in favor of bringing attention to the actual reality of what genetic mapping means.
Western society has long held that white skin makes a better human being, and that a drop of black blood makes a negro. This perception has changed little in hundreds of years.
-- Adam
I have stolen the code! Soon you will all be my gene-servants. I will rule you through subtle genetic mapping, and turn your children into toads! P.S. None of you understand what I am capable of. A.C.: One You: Zero!
It seems to me all the fears you have about radical changes in society and resultant ethical dilemmas also applies to /. ers bread and butter: advances in computing technology. Sure, the exact issues are different, but CT is having, and will have, gigantic effects on society and the nature of human relations. My point? Any breakthrough technology changes things. Don't assume the worst-- we'll deal with it.
Yes, the first person to get a modified set of genes will have to pay a lot. But thereafter (unless a horrible mistake is made), access to the genes will be no more expensive than what your parents went through to create you.
Antibiotics have unquestionably improved the human condition; we would be worse off across the board without them. The problems that are being encountered are the result of mis-use. However, even with mis-use we are certainly better off having the science of antibiotics [even with the development of so called "superbugs"],than not having it at all.
Can anyone explain exactly what point Katz is making here? The essay is definitely not a 'documentation of facts'. It is way too one sided for that. It appears to be an argumentative essay (an essay that attempts to change the readers belief point of view of the author).
If that is the case, what is he arguing for? The closest thing I found to a thesis statement was "The Human Genome Project may be the most inspiring and disturbing technological project ever undertaken."
His argument appears to be "the project is disturbing". If that is the case, then the question "So??" comes to mind. Mosquitos are disturbing too, but you don't see any articles out there discussing why mosquitos are disturbing. Why, because saying they are disturbing is pointless.
Mr Katz, I have read several of your articles now. In general, the content of your articles is fine. My true concern with your writing is the fact that you almost never state the purpose of the article. It always seems to be a rambling of loosely organized arguments without a common theme. You may want to go back through your English books and take a look at the 'keyhole structure'. This is not meant as a flame, but as constructive criticism. I believe I could really enjoy your articles if I could only find a thesis in them.
"Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough." - Larry Wall
As usual, I'm late to the Big discussion, but here goes.Scientists are usually wrapped up in the how to of a problem rather than the implications of the solution. Famous statement:"We always concern ourselves more with the question of whether we can do a thing than if we should." No, I don't remember who said that, I just remember it and it is a large statement for Ethics in science. Yes, we should learn to describe our existence (i.e. DNA). This leads to understanding and learning, always Good Things (TM). Yes, some horses asses will abuse it (companies trying to make a buck), but we should see a quality of life increase in the long term.Yes, Gattaca and Brave New World were perfect examples of the extreme abuse of this technology, but also consider Anthem, by Ayn Rand. In the perfectly engineered society, ego and the lust for variety (spice of life?) win out. This could be equated to the community of all females in Jurassic Park, where some end up reverting to male due to use of frog DNA. Our sense of control in the long run, could turn on us.What is my point in all this rant? I'm not sure. Maybe that if we lull ourselves into a false sense of control over the human genome, CHAOS can come back and bite us in the ass, big time. We may accidentally create a virus strain that will wipe out everybody or create a bunch of psychopaths or sociopaths. We must be careful what we do with the info once we have it.
P.S. Katz, get a fsking Dictionary, a Thesaurus, a spell checker and take a damn English class. Your abuse of the language is hideous. At least try to do a better job.
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
Nuff said. New world new rules. Strong, fast and smart survive. All adjectives of above are to be redefined.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Dear Anonymous coward.
Before making assinine statements of that caliber, you should, perhaps, consider looking carefully at yourself and your co-workers. If your "co-workers" are as intelligent as you, they should have fired the lot of you a long time ago, and given your function over to house plants - I assure you, they would be far more effective than you at whatever job it is you do for a living.
Also, posting curses anonymously does not serve as a further mark of intellect. If you want to call someone a moron, have the guts to sign your name to it.
Now, as to the nature of your comment. Jon really didn't introduce anything new. But he did present things in a logical manner. And I will venture to say he didn't go far enough. Either you truly are a moron with a 15 IQ, or you are one of the people who would be likely to use this technology for the fascist ends that it will very likely be used for. And I am fairly certain that in that case, your co-workers will be helping you.
Nothing in human history has pointed to the idea of humans learning from their mistakes. As an overused, but effective example: What was the first thing that nuclear science was used for? Medicine? Research? Cheap energy? No. It was used to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians. What was the Internet developed for? So you could prove to everyone how laughable and pitiable your own lack of intelligence is? No, though unfortunately that's what wound up happenening. Original use was for the military. Historically, no scientific advance was actually used to benefit humanity - it was first used by the various governments and empires to kill and control others.
Given that, do you really believe this stuff won't be used to create the "Perfect Society"? By evoking the memories of Huxley and Orwell, Jon very poignantly reminds us that others, long ago, have already seen it. And they probably didn't see all of it. Reality is always more horrible than you can imagine it. Give it a few more years, with a few more advances in computer techonology, and you will find a future outlook that would scare even the most pessimistic analysts today.
In short, I don't know from what happy little ignorant bland middle-class suburban hoe favor swife world you crawled from, but please do everyone the favor of going back there and not bothering the /. readers with any more of your crap. Or at least get the guts to sign your name or something. Or start posting somewhere more suited to your intelligence...say alt.rec.dumb.schmuck.at.home.
John Bailey
--
I prefer the wicked to the foolish - the wicked sometimes rest.
Alexander Dumas, fils
Only the most primitive of unicellular organism clone themselves nowadays...
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
John, you forgot one very compelling argument against widespread cloning:
SEX IS FUN.
Rafe
V^^^^V
Rafe
Opinions expressed by the author may not actually exist in the wild.
I disagree, there is indeed lots of questions about our treatment of micro-organisms. The human body is designed to deal with micro-organisms and we have successfully dealt with them as well as the other races of this planet for hundreds of millions of years. Recently when we developed the ability to augment our senses and then detect that these micro-organisms were in fact responsible for some deaths a choice was presented:
1 - Do Nothing. Not a typical human response and quickly rejected.
2 - Work with the body to improve its ability to handle a larger array of micro-organisms.
3 - Erradicate the bastards! (Ahh here's the one Man was looking for!)
So now we have antiseptics and anti-bacterial soap and antibiotics. But there is a problem here. In the case of antibiotics - if you only manage to kill off 99% of whatever it is that ails you you leave that Super-Strong Genetically chosen 1% to come back and make your previous bout seem minor. With anti-bacterial soap you get the same type of response only now the little supper buggers are on surfaces others may come into contact with.
So, there are questions as to whether our current tact of trying to get rid of something we have survived with for EPOCHS of time is "A Good Thing"(tm).
I think the key point of this discussion is that few people disagree that *understanding* the human genome is a bad thing. The problem stems when we try to do something to it. And since chaning your genes really only has an effect before you're born (*grin*), the only real thing we can do with this knowledge is to genetically engineer children.
:)
There are a couple of topics which Mr. Katz brought up in this discussion. One point of was whether genetic engineering is a good thing or not. I'll deal with that in a second.
What I'd like to talk about first is this: if we assume that genetic engineering is good, who will have the right to use this technology? Will it just be the rich? This is a question many Americans ask - not just Katz, but also the likes of Kim Stanley Robinson (the Mars trilogy) and to some extent the writers of Gattica.
I think the reason that only Americans are asking this question is that most of the developed world has socialized medicine. Genetically engineering children is a perfect example of the reason universal health care is a good idea... a free market will undersupply health services to the poorest portion of the population, or those most likely to not have healt insurance coverage. In addition to the philosophical problems associated with this, there are also economic externalities in this market - you and I have get *economic* benefits from the increased productivity of a healthy and fit population. Same goes with genetic engineering: in addition to the moral dilemma solved by government providing this, there is also the economic benefit which justifies the tax expenditure on it. I know all this in itself is quite contentious amoung Americans, so I won't try to build the argument any furthur, but I hope this makes some sense.
Now onto a more difficult topic - whether genetic engineering of our children is a good idea or not.
In the article, Katz quotes someone who states that "children are not 'our' possessions, etc." True. We're not talking about _running_ someone's life. But we are talking about changing the very nature of who someone is, which will no doubt change, in some way, every single thing which will happen or could happen in their life.
This doesn't trouble me. Let me explain why.
First, we already *are* genetically engineering our children. By deciding who we want to have children with. We're paiting when we have children, and we only have half the picture. In some sense, I see genetic engineering as touching up a painiting rather than doing one from sratch.
Katz brings up another point: what if everyone "touches up" their paintings in the same way? This is maybe a deep philosohpical disagreement between the two of us: I *don't* beleive that people are sheep.
Society, no matter how sheep-like it looks in the totality, is made of individuals. These individuals value different things in themselves, and different things in children. Because of this, I beleive that we'll continue to have a great variety of differnt people in the future, genetically modified or not.
Katz also discusses third-world nations: what if they can't afford this technology. This is a good and relevant point. But my beleif is that third-world nations have a lot of other problems, and they *all* need to be dealt with. These problems stem from one very basic cause: their governments are often corrupt and inept. I think many formerly poor countries have made great strides in getting over this (consider South Korea, or Indonesia as recent examples). While most have a long way to go, I'm an optimist, and I feel great progress is being made in this respect.
And if 3rd world countries manage to get the basic problems of government, they will get to where we are today. And if they get to where we are today, surely if genetic engineering is a viable option to us, it will be to them.
One last thing concerning the setting for debate about the subject: why does the debate need to be by politicians, or scientists, or human-rights orginazations, or lawyers, or accountants, or ANYBODY other than the people it will actaully affect?
I think governments should discuss whether they will subsidize it or not... but after this, the discussion ends. I beleive in personal freedom here: the debate should be between the parents and not some heavy handed government decision saying yes you can do this, or no you can't. The beleif that individuals can make the best decisions about their lives is the fundamental idea behind a consitutional democracy and a free-market economy: two things I beleive strongly in. (I should add, so you don't get confused: as an amateur student of economics, I beleive that there are times when markets fail, and governments must intervene... health care being one of these markets).
Yes, any decision can and probably will be influenced by corporations. But I beleive in people. I beleive that NO company can make a decision for you (except - occationally - for a monopoly providing an essential good or service, but even then only for a period of time. Nothing lasts forever.)
I do not beleive that people will let comapanies decide for them such fundamental question such as will they modify their childrens' genes or not.
The end of Katz's article breaks away from the discussion about genetic engineering to one about corporatism in general. Once again, there is maybe a philosophical difference between Mr. Katz and myself.
I once used to fear corporations, but now my fear is more muted. You know why? I think it's because I started reading business magazines. I started understanding the thoughts going on in most of these business leaders. And I started to understand that most of them *try*so*hard* to control their customers, but can't.
Sometimes, it works for a period of time, but these magazines pages are filled with the stories of sucky businesses or businesses that were sucky **until they started listening to their customers**. Not even Microsoft is above this - their success is in part due to them listening to, and delivering solutions for their *business* customers while other firms focused on what *technical* customers wanted. (for example, MS killing 1-2-3 and Wordperfect has more to do with things like MS being the first PC software company to support a mice in the DOS version of their software, or WYSIWYG displays, rather than hidden APIs or pulling the plug on OS/2).
Breifly skimming over what I've written, I think my arguments aren't as tight as they could be. Yes you could attack what I've written, but I don't think what I've written does complete justice to what I'm thinking. I think I'd need much more space and time than I actually have to acheive this justice... but I hope what I've written makes some kind of sense.
Example: Albert Einstien. There's a rumor around that he failed a high school physics class. Even if that's not true, his young schooling was very strict and disciplined. Later, he came to the US where he had more freedom to exercise the strongest parts of his intellect. The events in his life--which were uncontrollable, particularly at his conception/birth--moreso than his (probably slightly autistic) genetics, allowed him to vastly contribute to our understanding of the universe today.
Example: Stephen Hawking. He may not be the most brilliant scientist ever, or even alive today, but no one can fault him for his perseverence, his character. As above, would he have developed into a person who not only contributes to science, but is a great inspiration for those who have less-than-"perfect" genes?
Example: Mohandas Gandhi. Formally educated in the "civilized" west. Would he have challenged the British in India had he not have been born of "imperfect" skin tone?
If there are genes which alone make prominant figures who they are, and we can locate them and designate our leaders before they are born. But if we know that this one infant is destined to be a leader, will that knowledge of the future change the future? Most likely. What if everyone has those traits--what then will cause an individual to stand out?
As mentioned, the HGP has the potential to produce knowledge which, when acted upon, may make the human species homogenous. It has the potential to make every child physically "perfect" by today's standards--but we cannot tell the future. However we choose to utilize the knowledge--or lack thereof--which the HGP will inevitably produce, variety within the species will prove appealing, and nurture will ultimately decide who our children become.
pock(at)i(dot)am
Ok, so the arguements seem to be
1. How will the fortunate feel superior if everybody's perfect?
2. What about people who can't afford to get this treatment, such as residents of third world countries?
Right off, the questions answer each other. Futhermore, it doesn't matter whan Jon "Moron" Katz thinks because we have no choice. Natural selection has been eliminated from human evolution. No matter how stupid or inept a person is, they can have 10 kids and every one of those kids will survive to adulthood and breed, most likely. That fact that their parent is too limited to support them will NOT mean they starve. We, as a society, take care of them. Furthermore, if you look close, you'll notice that the smarter people are having fewer kids. We're rapidly evolving into a society of morons. SOMEBODY is going to decide to use genetic engineering to correct this for themselves and some friends- maybe a few friends, may a lot of friends, but either way they'll have an advantage over idiots like Jon Katz, nex thing you know natural selection is back in play. People can adapt, go with the future, or they can be hedged out of the world by those who have. Either way, evolution continues. Sorry if you don't like it Katz, but you can't stop it. Your opinion about it being a good or bad idea is like having an opinion about the sun coming up in the morning. It's a law of nature, and we don't get to vote on it.
Shatner won't be around to protect us from him and his evol genetically altered kind. I say we stock up on Shatner clones as soon as possible. Just in case.
"Oh, I'm a janitor. I used to be a computer geek, but I got wacked in the head". --Dave um... "Smith"
Good = We'll be able to eliminate the need for transplant doners and the risk of rejection. Bad = We'll be able to clone and open a can of worms on the moral issue there. Good = We will find a way to treat/eliminate certain genetic disorders Bad = We'll be able to eliminate genetic mutation which is needed for evolution Good = We can cure mental disorders Bad = We can eliminate 'bad' traits There is no dark side to the Genome Project. It is simply Information. The good or evil will come from it's use/misuse. Yes, it may give us the ability to treat genetic disorders such as heridatary alcoholism, but on the other hand it can also be used to 'cure' traits considered 'bad'. Rebelion for example. Is it truely a bad thing? Rebelion could be as simple as deciding that the current ways of thinking are wrong and doing one's darndest to prove it (Eintein for example) to the more profound like those who decide that the government is screwed and needs to be replaced (us 200+ years ago)
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
very good,very good,
best point I have read so far...
you got it man
Please refrain from writing articles on topics which you have zero knowlegde.
Thank you,
P.s. If I want to read this type of drivel I will buy a book by Jeremy Rifkin.
I wonder how many slashdotters reading responses like this cringe? I do. Despite my enamoration with new technology, I have great respect for the spirits of man. Whether you believe in God or not, few would argue that our personalities, or spirits, are shaped by our lives, not just by our shapes.
If we are to rid ourselves of all the physical "defects" in our humanity, what will we have left to shape our spirits? Is a Heisman Trophy candidate stronger in spirit than a young boy in a wheel chair?
We believe in technology because we believe that it will improve our lives. The technologies that we admire most before they are ready for general use are not usually the ones we admire throughout the years after they are available for all. And I submit that the ones that take us furthest are the ones that give us the means to make our personalities even more unique.
Besides, who wants to be just like Bill Gates?
Where have you been getting your information from??? (Probably from Katz.) The whole point of HGP is that it's exactly not what you describe. There are competing programs being run by corporations which would do what you describe, which is why we should support the HGP, which is making the information freely available.
Wasn't it just last week (or maybe even earlier this week) that the HGP announced they had completed the map of human chromosome 22? Well, that map was published in Nature. Now explain to me just how much genome labs intend to charge for the information which has already been published in Nature.
The HGP is Open-Source. The competing corporate programs are Closed-Source. Which do you want?
2 hundred and foty dollars, worth of puddin. awwww yeahh Is that from In Living Color? It sounds really familiar.
AC, eh? Of course it would be... I think that he brought up several good points that should make everyone think about the implications. If you don't agree that there's even the slightest bit of need for discretion, perhaps you should read it again...
The genie is out of the bottle and like all techs, can be used for good or evil. I don't expect to see this over-hyped revolution in medicine produce perfect beings soon - because knowing the sequence does not equal knowing the biology. There will be opportunity to protect your rights to privacy - but the consentual release of genotypic info to prospective spouses sounds like a great idea! This should dramatically improve my evolutionary success! When my offspring come to dominate the gene pool they will have Katz to thank.
Katz sez:
"Do the healthy lose something when it's possible to eradicate the impaired?"
I sez:
Absolutely. In biological systems, diversity and variation are desireable (and they also drive evolution). Today's sickle cell anemia gene may be tomorrow's malarial resistance gene.
Katz sez:
"Though its founders expected the project to last 15 years, advances in computing have accelerated the completion date; now it's only three years away."
I sez:
Nope. The acceleration is due to improvements in the molecular biological methodology, in the chemistry of the sequencing reactions, and in the engineering of the DNA sequencers. Computing has not been a bottleneck.
People like that AC will be the first to say "oops. Didn't Jon Katz and others say this was coming?"
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I did just that, bought a small ranch in Texas to have some privacy and freedom, but truth is that what I can do with and on my land is still excessively regulated by govt turds. Hell, I might as well be living in Germany :-(.
"Agenda" is already a plural, like "data", "bacteria", and "media"... Oh, I know I should bite my tongue; I know I should be calloused to it from the grammatical farce that is our evening news, but reading "have agendas" is like having to listen to rusty nails on a slate.
10% raising important issues
Yes, there are important ethical issues to be considered with genetic engineering and genetic screening. (Although Katz, as well as about 90% of the posters here, seems to confuse the HGP, which is just a fraction of the information necessary to conduct such engineering, with the engineering itself.) They probably need to be discussed more than they currently are. Kudos to Katz for that 10% of the article.
60% alarmism, pessimism, paranoia, and FUD.
Not to be commended, but certainly not unique to Katz.
30% just plain misinformation
I won't go into the examples which several other posters have already pointed out. But it is this, more than anything else, which clued me in that this was a Katz article. What's the matter, Katz, did you miss the lecture on fact-checking in your journalism courses?
Amazingly, this seems to be the same Jon Katz who trashes as "Luddite" anyone who questions the Amazing March of the Internet as 100% positive.
While I know there are a lot of HGP fans on Slashdot, Jon is absolutely right to question such a massive undertaking. We are unleash ing forces that we do not understand. We should not expect the boosteristic view to reflect anything at this point as anything but the passion of the scientists for their own work and of the corporate interests who expect to make gigabucks off of the results.
And in an ideal world, this would have been publicly debated before the resarch was well underway.
The goal of the human genome project is nothing less than to read and record the entire string of (at least) three billion letters in human DNA .
Letters! Thats it! If only I'd been able to figure out that DNA was made up of letters - I could have gotten the Nobel prize instead of those fools Watson & Crick and their silly base pairs.
One thing I always find missing in discussions/rants about genetic engineering is the 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' sentiment. There are no global definitions of what 'pretty' means or 'smart' or anything else that makes people different from each other. Just because people have the choice to make their kid look a certain way doesn't mean all kids are going to look the same. People don't give their kids all the same haircuts, why would everybody give their kid the same nose/eye color/hair color?
Katz says that no parent would choose an ugly child when they could make a pretty one. I have never met a parent who didn't think their kid was the most beautiful example of childhood that has ever existed. Genetic engineering will give shallow people the chance to make a genetically good looking child (to their eyes) but that parent would have dressed their kid a certain way or cut their hair a certain way or made them get plastic surgery to mold the kid anyway, this is just another way for people to show the same stupid tendencies.
Genetic engineering will allow people to create what they think of as a beautiful/smart/athletic kid but since everybody has different ideas of what that means, it will still mean that humans will be as different as we have ever been in the past. I for one welcome the chance to not pass my genetic tendency to be overweight on to my kid, not out of vanity but out of love and the wish not to have to make my child live through the same things I have. That's the power of genetic engineering, not the ability to give my child blue eyes instead of my brown ones.
Wow, genetics/genomics is getting a lot of press this week :-)
First off any statement as to the 'completeness' of the human genome project is something of a misnomer-- to put it in programming terms, the statement "36% of the human genome has been sequenced/mapped" is roughly akin to saying we've decompiled 36% of the world's largest piece of spaghetti code. Into an assembly language we only just learned. Running on a RISC machine with only 23 instructions. And we don't know where the entrypoint is. Did we mention that wasn't written using traditional logic? In short, the genetic engineers have their work cut out for them before they can even THINK about controlling the human genome on the level suggested by the article (you don't get to reboot people and the debug cycle is hellish).
Next, on the topic of Perfect Babies and clones. What is a "Perfect Baby"? Blonde Hair and Blue Eyes? Red Hair and Green Eyes? Free from congential disease? Most of us are already free from that, and those that aren't rarely wish it on their children. All basketball player sized? Ultra-dense muscle for supreme athletic performance? Except of course in sports that favor a lighter muscle (ever notice that swimmers aren't especially large muscled?) IQ? Unfortunate that IQ tests are essentially meaningless. What I'm trying to get at here is that the mere concept of a "Perfect Baby" is laughable at best. However, I don't deny that some parents will do their best to screw up their kids up from the day their conceived-- it is NOT the responsibility of scientists to police these people, they'll never learn if someone is always holding their hand and telling them what to do. It'll suck for awhile, but it will eventually even out. Next, cloning. Cloning has been around for awhile and the cloning of a human is (for some unfathomable reason) a holy grail of sorts. Now, I think if we can figure out how to clone bits of humans then by all means do so-- if I need an organ transplant I'd much rather have a cloned version of my original organ than the one they pulled out of some poor schmuck who got whacked by a semi. At the very least it could eliminate the need for immunosuppressant anti-rejection drugs (unless you want your life to suck). As for cloning entire people from scratch, we've already got a perfectly good way of making people. It's called SEX. And you know what? It is INFINITELY more fun than cloning (Unless you get off on pipetting small amounts of various clear fluids), so why bother? Also, cloning would tend towards a genome convergence and this is a BAD THING. (It makes it easier for me to tailor some virus to skill specifically YOU and ALL your clones without harming anyone else-- neat trick huh?)
In closing, yes, there will be some social/ethical implications when we get all this sort of stuff worked out and if people are monumentally stupid we will possess the power to extinct ourselves in short order, but we've already got the ability to do that and we haven't done it yet (and it would take considerably less time to just raze the planet and make it unlivable for humans). However, the impacts of knowing how humans work will, a) come gradually giving society(ies) time to adjust to these new abilities and b) be much less problematic than 'visionaries,' etc. think (much like the Y2K bug). So Mom and Dad create perfect clones for themselves and raise them and this goes on for a few generations... Some virus comes along thats good at killing 'em and WHAM, whole line dies, the world continues largely unaffected. *shrug* the nice part about nature is that it is a robust self-correcting system.
Is it just me, or wouldn't that be the best of all possible worlds? Nothing but a bunch of techie geeks and supermodel babes... Mmmmm...
Excuse me, I have to go now...
--
--
It's not the rambling I object to, so much as the mumbled incoherancies...
I'm glad that your so willing to accept the authority of your teacher and textbook. I'm sure they're implicitly always right.
/OT
The ERA. You see a great many people wanted to be politically correct back in the early days and decided to get an ammendment to support their philosophy. A great number of the social elite that you claim can run the country wanted it. It was a popular thing but; and here's the tricky part, it failed! It failed to be ratified by the necessary 2/3 of the states and never passed.
The "social elite" are not the people you see on TV, they're not the government, they are the people who actually think about what's going on and decide what they want. They have the "will to power." Would you care to elaborate on the exact reason why the amendment failed to be ratified by the necessary states and by how much it failed?
Let's get another example: The Pentagon Papers. The government had this little thing called Vietnam that (because of incompetent people) they bungled and tried to cover up. Someone leaked the info and discredited the government. Nixon tried to use all of his formitable power to stop the NY Times to remove the material but he failed because of democracy.
OT: Vietnam was a war that could not be won. People just didn't "bungle it."
Nixon may have had "formitable power" but he failed because some people didn't like him and they had control of the presses. I think that that proves my point more than yours. Freedom of the press is free for those who have the presses.
I think it would be wise to at least consider different ways of thinking about something rather than saying "this class taught me this, so it must be true." That kind of mentality is one of the reasons which I question democracy. Also beware of history teachers, as is said in 1984, "He who control the past controls the future." I found out that my HS history teacher lied on several occasions about things, consider verifing your sources. In regards to your textbook, just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's true. Furthermore, just because it's in several books doesn't mean it's true either, but it's a bit more likely.
Or do you just have nothing better to do with your spare time? Bah, go back in front of your television and let the remainder of your brain cells rot away.
>And there is a darker side to this radical
>project, even though few people in our society
>are considering it much. We have set out on a
>project whose goal is to alter the nature of
>human existence, without the interest of a
>single national political leader or a single
>Congressional debate (this in a country in which
>the mere mention of sex on the Internet sends
>legislative bodies into hyperdrive).
Politicians are the last people whose opinions on all this I want to hear (and journalists are second-to-last). I expect Clinton's and half of congress' reaction to be "Oooooh, Sex!" and a prolonged period fo frothing, rolling around, seizures, and other asinine behavior. And the media can be expected to lament that the unwashed masses are going and fumbling around with genetic technology without 'guidance' from media or politics. Business will rush around trying to make a buck (including insurance company blacklisting of unwanted genes, you betcha).
But before you go out and buy a designer baby, ask yourself this: do we really want to breed everyone with identical super genes, only to be wiped out by the first disease that takes advantage of all that genetic uniformity? Diseases love monocultures. Just ask a wheat farmer.
--
My other computer is your IIS server.
As a programmer with a biochem degree, this kind of paranoia makes me cringe. Common sense and any geneticist will tell you that there is no gene for "smart" or "perfect" or "nice", that genetics has exceedingly little impact on intangibles like personality or intelligence. It's nature versus nurture and I would have though /.ers would know that both have an impact. Genetics could screen out obvious genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia or dwarvish, but they won't have any effect on how fast you can run or how successful you will be in life. Movies like Gattaca or books like Brave New World are fabulous incitements to the public to create rules and prohibitions against what the scientific community about wat they can and cannot do, but they bear very little resemblance to reality. I seriously doubt that genetic bigotry would occur (past the point that it already does). How long after the cloning of Dolly did it take for the government to pass a law banning human cloning (like there's any scientific value in cloning a human)? My point is that worrying about being discriminated against because, for example, you have a gene associated with alcoholism, is right up there with worrying about the coming tide killer bees.
People have always tried to incorporate good
genes into their offspring. When you choose a mate,
whether you choose for beauty, brains, muscles,
etc., you are choosing to incorporate those
characteristics in the genetic makeup of your
children.
What is new is being able to choose good genes
in a more controlled fashion than a random
50/50 mix of your and your mate's genes.
For example, if you have a single copy of a
disease-causing gene, you could choose the
other copy of the chromosome to contribute
to your offspring, and thus weed out that
disease from your children. Where's the moral
problem with that?
But anyway, before we have time to perfect
the genetic screening/selection techniques
and raise a generation of "perfect" children,
the computer intelligences will have taken
over anyway, so it will be a moot point.
Daniel
I disagree. Unless a corporation has some compassion, or an agenda outside of simple profit (and the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive), it *is*, in fact, a form of evil. Not outright, but apathy is an evil in itself. Dante put the 'indifferent' in the first level of hell, and most 'thinkers' agree to some extent.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Katz is artless and thoughtless. He doesn't dare to think or drive a point home; that would require commitment. Instead, he finds what the latest geek itch (e.g., anti-MS, technophobism, percieved anti-geek movements, etc) is, and vaguely scratches at it. It allows him to ride the geek wave. Now a certain percentage of slashdot geeks [I presume mostly the younger or longhair types], find Katz inspiring, because he "dares to speak contrary to the popular media". In a way, I suppose he does, but it's not his own sentiment [it's merely nominally different than the mainstream]; it is not independant thinking. His words are not full bodied thoughts, they are vague echos of previously voiced concerns.
I'd equate Katz with Rush Limbaugh (sic.?), different sides of the same coin. Both address the fears of their constituency [liberal and conservative extremes, respectively]. Sometimes they may "hit the nail right on the head", but normally they don't. They perform no function in this world, other than legitimizing irrational fears of the readership by lending their name to it. They never even attempt to analyze the situation. They never even really question. They utter incoherant feelings under the guise of rhetoric and post-modernism. In short, they're both hacks.
In this particular article, there may indeed be legitimate concerns regarding DNA manipulation [even though Katz misinterprets most of it] and the like. For example, even though it may tend to be in the best interest of parents to manipulate DNA, is it in society's best interest [and thus in the parents in the long run]? Both evolutionarily speaking, and in the short run. Will society be better off if every child is cut to desired specifications [particularly if they're all essentially the same]? It seems that most of the "geniuses" [much overused term] who've contributed greatly to this world, hardly fit with society's popular conception of genius (e.g., straight As in HS, top of class at "best" colleges, "perfect" job right out of school). I believe this conception hinders in many ways. For example, at the Ivy leagues [a popular societal target], I've seen a singular unimpressiveness with the majority of the graduates. Yes, they tend to be better spoken, better read, more numerate, etc [not to say that these things don't have their value]. They also tend to land better jobs than their counterparts [out of school], but it's mostly inertial. They're the kids who know the system, and who know what it takes to get an "A". This, I believe, creates a certain myopia. Within their own little track of life they may make nominal "gains", but it's rare. For the most part, these kids end up in a much tighter "grouping", if you will. These kinds of kids have never impressed me [not to mention many employeers I know]. Whereas, with the so called "lesser" schools, you see a much broader distribution. Granted, most at the "lesser" schools end up somewhere below the median of the "better" schools [though not as much as most would think, especially later in life]. However, you also tend to see more from "outside" the track at the top of their professions [those who really make a dent].
My point, is that even though it may seem insane for the individual reject the "better track", it may be unwise for society [That is on a strictly quantifiable basis. A spread of personalities, shapes, sizes and others have a certain value as well]. For, without these mavericks, society would still be in the dark ages. Some thing's are better off left without "engineering"--there is a certain interplay that science will never account for [This is not to say that I blame parents for wanting their children to be free from afflication. Nor would I want them to just "accept" it.]
Mr. Katz laments that it is no longer a Newtonian
world, perfectly predictable to the end of the universe.
God, the Angst he must suffer.
So sorry, but it never has been. The system evolves. Always has.
I can't get excited about this new wrinkle, except to be excited about being alive in the midst of a very interesting era.
Maybe I will get to live forever !!
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
I think a serious point being missed here in relation to John Katz's well-written dissetation on the issue is that the public Genome Project is currently being pursued in parallel by large private genetic research firms such as Genentech, and currently they are way ahead of the public entities involved, at least timeline-wise..
Currently Genentech is patenting EVERYTHING they can related to genome mapping as it relates to their own economic self-interest, which poses more immediate concerns: Will they then OWN the patents on anything related to the Human Genome? Will economic self-interest relegate products and cures derived from such research to whatever they may have slid past the US Patent Office?
THERE's your immediate concern.
NY Times had a WONDERFUL article on just that, earlier in the fall.
Eric Lecht
"I do what I can, I work in the Dark"
1. Antiseptics and Antibiotics are used to counter bacteria.
2. Bacteria becomes resistant to all or most forms of antibiotics.
3. General cleanliness, like soap hand washing becomes the norm in society.
4. Many people's immune systems, now made unready by the lack of bacterial diseases, become weaker. Immune disorders in the population thrive.
5. The only solution to this state of events is to genetically modify humans with weak or unready immune systems to have more powerful immune systems.
Prediction:
In a tit for tat state, this will lead to diseases we cannot now fathom. They will again be dealt with through massive scientific effort, which may in fact lead to the erradication of all harmful bacteria and microbes we now know of. After that happens, who knows?
-Ben
I for one, would love to see an increase in the life expectancy of dogs.
God, it's sad when they pass away.
Unfortunately, I'm in a public lab, so I don't have the book with me (and thus can't remember it's friggin' name!), but there is an excellent book out about progress vs stasis (dynanism, I think, is what the author called progress/change). I'll post the title when I get home.
What is really scary is not when politicians pine away for the nuclear family of the 50's (AFA, for example), but when the unwashed masses agree. [shudder] That is the first step towards a stagnant society.
HGP is fascinating, but Katz is right :: as with any new technologies, this one has the ability to be abused.
Cheers,
Brian
Those that can achieve in our societies have less children than those that don't.
I think it's a lot more likely that cause and effect are reversed here (if indeed there is any cause-and-effect relationship at all). Those that have more children in our society achieve less. Because the resources that they could have devoted to creativity and achievement are instead used to care for their (many) children.
How much code could you write if there were six or seven children running around your house or apartment? If you couldn't buy the tools you needed for work because you had to pay for diapers and formula and babysitting and college tuition for all the young 'uns?
Gaia's hands have been (to some minimal extent) tied ever since humans learned to control fire. Would you have it otherwise?
Creativity, not procreativity!
I'm not impressed.
This article goes over a lot of fairly well known concerns with genetic engineering. These issues are being thought about by a lot of people. Meanwhile, the Human Genome Project continues along with a lot of other research into genetic engineering. At this point, we see lots of possibilities for this technology, some good, some bad. While it's important to look ahead and think about how to use this technology, there isn't any way to really predict what genetic engineering will really be used for and how well it will work. A couple of times in this article, Katz mentions that there isn't any political debate about what's going on. I don't see how that matters. The last thing I'd want would be to have a bunch of politicians or the "public" trying to run research labs. Society as a whole will figure out what to do with any new technology. There will be mistakes and bad things will happen. But it will get figured out and there isn't really any way to figure it out and avoid all the pitfalls without diving in and working on it. I'm sure that we can all construct all kinds of horrible scenarios and horrible abuses for any kind of technology. Big deal... what's important is how the technology will help. Believe it or not, most people aren't evil and a lot of politicians really are sincerely trying to help. That goes for CEOs, too. Again, you can find examples of politicians and large companies doing bad things but they also do good things.
So, it's good to debate the uses of new technology, but instead of writing a long article with no real content, Katz could have accomplished the same thing by just saying, "Let's debate genetic engineering..." and saved everyone a lot of time.
Bolie IV
Well, the way I see it, potential Stephen Hawkings will continue to show up, but without the genetic disorders. His mind makes who he is, not his outer shell.
Gattaca brought up a very relevent argument that ambitious parents will be the driving force behind creating genetically engineered children. It also pointed out that the real problem is not that the "natural" kids won't be able to compete, but that they won't be given a chance. The danger to individual freedom was that the "natural" kid wouldn't be admitted to the best school, because the insurance wouldn't cover him. That when applying for jobs the employers wouldn't bother to test or measure his knowledge or skills when it's easier to just do a DNA test.
The best science fiction not only questions possible futures, but also the present. Even without the technology we have some versions of the same problems today. It will take a lot of change for the bureaucracies spawned by the 20th century to be replaced with a more human-centered system.
by Neil Postman.
He argues quite forcefully that television has in fact already brought about a Huxleyan nightmare, and I am fairly convinced he is on the mark.
read it now!
or just go here if you're too lazy
support gun control: take guns from cops
the US has supported facist regimes all over the world, overthrowing scores of democratically elected governments everywhere.
The US gov LOVES facists, especially in the 3rd world. Roosevelt's administration was very fond of both Hitler and Mussolini until they declared war on the US.
haven't you ever wondered WHY there are so many third world dictators???? Your tax dollars at work.
support gun control: take guns from cops
So, what's bad about human cloning? You've spent paragaphs hinting darkly about unspeakable horrors, but what are they? What is all that awful and horrible about human cloning? After all when it happens naturally and twins are born, nobody seems to be all that excited about it...
An excellent point, which has been made not enough times before. Nature clones all the time, there's nothing horrible about it. Even genetic mutation and refinement in the same individual happens all the time... 1000-year old redwoods have different genes today than when they started out, they just evolve all the time. I wouldn't mind this happening to me!
A generation ago, who could have imagined that one company would have its software in more than 90 per cent of the personal computers in the world?
A generation ago, this was exactly the case. The company was IBM. We seem to have survived this...
In less than a generation, this article will seem as quaint and bigoted as last century's rants about "the white man's burden".
I understand you completely. You are so right. Those men in black are out to control us. They stick flourides in the water to make us more docile, and fly around in unmarked black helicopters to cover up alien incidents. ;)
As to genetic engineering, oh, its just another big conspiracy.
Wait... how can I be sure you're not one of THEM?
You obviously know nothing about logical argument. Lets take a few examples (ok, noone jump on me for just taking a just few examples, I don't feel like spending my whole day replying to this paranoid civie).
"What was the first thing that nuclear science was used for". Oh, beautiful example. We'll take an example where our first knowledge of how to use it was to make a huge explosion. Now, lets think, "Gee, what could we use this for?" Build buildings with the huge, skyward explosion? Cure cancer with it? How about feeding the hungry? Be serious! The only immediate use for a huge explosion was to blow things up : P Control of fission energy came when we learned how, and then we got nuclear power. And various medical technologies. Most technologies throughout history haven't been explosions, and guess what their first applications were? Blatant commercialism. Magnetism helped commercial ships navigate to foreign ports long before warships. Iron was used in farming tools long before spears. Even gunpowder, one of our chief inventions of war throughout history, was first used for fireworks. As to the internet, take a look, as a whole, at the technology of networking. It was almost exclusively, up till the early internet (which quickly became adapted for education as well), for civilians and commercial use, mainly in universities and large corporations. A single stage in its development was advanced by the military first. Your point was not only foolish, but attempting to distort reality.
Then your point about how Jon brought up 2 authors that have been brought up in almost every article on genetic engineering proves what? Guess what it proves? The person you're flaming's original point, that he brought up nothing new, just the same old paranoia.
As to all of your insults, you insult him for adding nothing to the discussion, by adding nothing to the discussion for most of your post was adding nothing but insults to him, wherin his post simply stated what some of us agree with, that Katz's article was foolish paranoia and not worth our time. Very little of your article was new information, and it was poorly thought through. I leave now to write my main post and ignore those who can't think their reasoning through and are hooked on conspiracy theories, "humans are doomed" notions, or "technology is evil" (go amish if you believe that)
- Rei
Well, I rather think that there are different reasons for the 50's era virtues. If you've looked at American demography, more than half of Americans live in a suburban or "edge" city rather than within a core city.
:).
Most people move out into the suburbs for two main reasons: firstly, cheap land and larger houses. Secondly, to "escape the inescapable", to control the influences to which they or their children are exposed. These suburbs promote independence rather than teamwork and isolation rather than community; it's no surprise that american libertarianism was born in the suburbs. In essence, suburbanites seek to control and pay for their personal environment; it's only natural that they should pay for only the government they want or use.
Bringing this back to the possibility of genetic manipulation, this is a further act of control, not just of the social element but of the human element. Ironically, just as urbanites pay for suburban sprawl (while surburban taxes are marginally higher, the cost of building new services for low density suburbs more than overtakes this), the benefit of genetic engineering will be confined to the rich but the research which made it possible has been paid for by all.
If you're interested in the political ramification of urban issues (as it seems you may be), you might want to read Stephen Dale's Lost in the Suburbs (Stoddart, 1999), from which I plagiarize freely
Looking forward to your book reference.
Regards,
Marco
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
You never *would* see it, because Hawking would never have been born. Impossible to lament the loss of an unknown variable.
Another book one might want to peruse is called "Aristos" (author forgotten; Jon Williams something, IIRC). Takes place in the future where man has developed gene tech and nanotech and cybernetic implants (basically all the really provocative rant topics on /.) . Good read, and raises some interesting questions on subject.
--
--
It's not the rambling I object to, so much as the mumbled incoherancies...
A child has a right to its own life? Surely. But we shape our childrens lives all the time. We buy them 'good' toys, send them to the 'right' schools, encourage them to read this or not read that, to take dance lessons or join Little League. How is going back to before the womb any different? (A parent who made no effort to shape the moral and physical character of his child would, and should, be jailed for child abuse.)
We might eliminate the retarded, the crippled, the congenitally insane? This is a problem? Remember, we are not talking about death camps -- we are talking about them never being conceived, much less born. Do we become lesser for not having them to pity? I do not know, but I do know that only a very sick man (Hello, Mr. Katz!) would demand that people be born to miserable, wretched lives so that the majority can be morally uplifted by watching them suffer.
Further, there is no need to eliminate the person -- just the defect. The next Stephen Hawking will still be born, he'll just be born with the genes for his disease decativated by gene therapy in the womb. The embryo which shows a high probability of being born blind will be altered so that it is born sighted. (You can always take some cells from that fetus, abort it, edit the cells, then reimplant. Presto! Same baby -- but with perfect vision. This is bad? This is wrong? Only to a very, very, mean-spirited person. Please don't say "It won't be the same person!". It isn't a person at all until it's actually got out into the world and had a life.)
Dictators might form communities of only the 'right' people? Again, so what? We are not discussing exterminations, death camps, or famines as a political tool -- we're discussing the choice of conception. There is no inherent right to be born -- even the most fanatical of doctor-murdering 'right to lifers' does not mandate we all have sex at every opportunity, lest a possible chance at conception be missed. We make the choice to not conceive a child dozens of times a year, more if we're lucky. If this choice is informed by genetics as well as economics and personal preference, is that so bad?
The most frightening thing is that Katz is pleading for mandated ignorance. If knowledge is 'dangerous', he argues, it must be suppressed for 'the greater good'. The people do not have 'input' into these decisions? This is a GOOD thing -- 'the people' are not intellectually or morally qualified to make these decisions. If we put scientific advancement up to the popular vote, we would be huddling frozen in caves -- fire having been banned as soon as Little Timmy burned his hands for the first time.
Actually, no: you've missed some central things about GAs. In fact, given a sufficiently diverse 'gene pool', genetic algorithms work even _without_ mutation. Mutation is a sideshow: recombination ('crossover') is where the real action is. If 'organisms' wind up with roughly comparable ways of doing things, crossover has a much greater chance of producing a useful optimization than mutation does. Mutation is only significant if you're starting from a monoculture in which, at first, crossover would do nothing.
At high level, of chromosomes, you can make obvious comparisons. But what levels are there in between? What am I missing?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Who ok'd this drivel for Slashdot? Knowledge can be used for good or evil or both but the knowledge itself is essential to our continued growth and well-being. Many of the scenarios put forward are extremely unlikely. Understanding a specific coding for a particular genetic condition is often quite difficult. Decoding entire personality structures is another matter entirely. Decoding the genome does not mean we will understand everything about building, designing or redesigning human beings any time soon. I wish it were otherwise. The race could use a much improved ability to think rationally and well and to act on its thinking. I often doubt we have enough mental capacity to acheive any improvement of our mental capacities. And without that we truly are in a world we are incapable of living in wisely.
There is a difference between bringing up points requiring discusion and being a good journalist. I could list off legalization of drugs, abortion, and the dangers of computers becoming sentient as topics which require discussion. This, however, does not make me a good journalist.
The role of a journalist is to either A) present new information to his audience (most members of slashdot are already aware of the HPG (two days ago article) and the fact that eventually there is the possibility of genetic tailored babies. B) present a new spin/argument on existing data. or C) neatly summarize a topic for the audience.
Katz clearly did not do C and at least for me, and probably for most others, the arguments katz presented were old hat or at least obvious.
I think it was an interesting issue to post on slashdot but Katz did everything in his power to obfusciate the issue and stir up emotional reaction to an issue rather than rational debate. Why couldn't we just had an Ask:Slashdot Designer babies?
I am curious now as well how did Katz get his job
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,
Oh, don't be so picayune and specific, Jon: try to cover some more ground! ;)
Has anyone considered the reverse discrimination that could ensue for the first few waves of the genetically engineered? What about the ones that receive relatively primitive GE patches that look technologically or socially embarassing or faddish a few years later?
"Check it out, Jack has that dopey blonde-haired, blue-eyed look popular in 2022. What a putz!"
Night
People don't seem to generally object to the removal of cancer-causing genes, down-syndrome-causing genes and the like. Another such gene which will probably be removed from many children is the autism gene, autism being a complex and poorly-understood form of mental retardation.
I have been called "gifted and talented" by various adults throughout my childhood, and I have an autistic brother. I am not alone -- many such people have autism in their families, and many people who are extremely proficient at mathematics or programming are considered to be mildly autistic. I think that was an old Slashdot article, actually...
Do we really want to start screwing around with this? No thanks Mister Genetic Engineer, I'll pass on the test tube kid.
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
The idea that a gene-selected child would be less human is absurd. Humanity isn't something you can filter out in solution, it permeates our gatherings and our selves. Making a kid from the best DNA you've got to offer is not going to make them one whit less - or more - human than the luck of the draw.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Gattica. Great movie. Touches on many of these concerns.
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
Enough with these short blurbs from Mr. Katz. I long to read something longer from this sharp wit.
Sure it's great to try and predict all the consequences but it's also wise to remember that all new technology has this same characteristic - the ability to be used for good and evil. I don't think that any possible bad consequence is enough to justify not going forward with the research. We will deal with the consequences as they occur, just as we have always done. In the long term the consequences of all the things which we do to ourselves tend to be positive, because that's what we collectively want. Natural selection continues to work in spite of our greater intelligence and greater ability to shoot ourselves in the collective foot. You cannot stop evolution, and that's what this is, more than any of our other technologies.
Our most dangerous invention so far, the bomb, had positive consequences too, even though the US gov't chooses to thwart them. The French figured it out. (nuclear power generation that is)
It's not because you know the chemical composition of the ink, that you understand what is written in that ink.
As I read it, these scientists have located the areas in which a defective spot of *ink* causes a particular disease. That doesn't mean that they understand what the sequences mean, or even better, that they have a means to actually change it.
Without any further evidence of these capabilities, most of the alarming implications you see are therefore unsubstantiated and more of the resort of science fiction than reality.
Although i won't conclude he's a moron, i can only conclude Katz is a bit lazy. I've seen a fair number of posts at /. by people who obviously have a background in biology, some of whom claim to work on the Human Genome Project. The writings contained here indicate that Katz never bothered to track them down and ask them to clarify and/or correct anything in this article.
A small sampling of the misconceptions and errors here:
The increasing speed of the project has been made possible by advances in the automated machinery that performs the sequencing, not by computing advances. Getting the sequence is the hard part; analyzing it's (relatively) easy.
Mapping of disease locuses has not been limited by computing power either. Most of these efforts are done by smaller labs not associated with the HGP. Nobody's looking at anything like artistic ability, as far as i know.
Supporters of this project hail it for a variety of reasons. Only the most foolishly optimistic view it as a way of eliminating disease. We've been cloning disease genes for a while now, and that information has not lead to a whole lot in the way of disease elimination.
The agencies funding the HGP in this country are the NIH and DOE - both have budgets subjected to congressional approval and the heads of each are appointed by the president. To say that we started this project without governmental oversight is a gross distortion.
Some of the ethical issues burried in the text are certainly worthy of public debate (they're definitely being debated in private), and i'd love to see them debated. Unfortunately, the text as a whole is so loaded with hyperbole and misinformation, that it doesn't seem capable of stimulating rational debate. If anybody reading this wants to be the person triggering that debate, please, make the time and effort necessary to get the facts straight first.
JT______ This mind intentionally left blank.
Ok. So I've read a lot of posts. I've been concerned about this topic for a while. What really concerns me is that so many SlashDot readers think this is all a non issue. Ok, my thoughts are that there are SO many ways and reasons for people to mis-use the technology. Not only that but if it was used right, there are a TON of social consequences that are non-too-pleasant. But consider this: What if some of data that is collected is wrong. How many generations will it take to find a non-domininant gene that CAUSES disease or other problems? Will it be too late by then? Even with EVERYONE having good intentions (which is absurd) we can still to fairly permenant damage to the human race if this gets on a very wide scale. How do you DEBUG the genetic code? A release-cycle on the order of even 5-10 years could be devistating if something comes along to wipe us out.
You get about as much radiation from a nuclear powerplant in your back yard as you would if you lived near Stone Mountin (granite contains radiactive substances). You get more radiation flying in an airplane once than if you lived in a flat sandy area all your life. Radiation sucks. But it's also ubiquitous, and the effect depends greatly on the dosage and random chance.
I guess on a purely scientific basis I would have to ask, who can determine which genes are 'better' or 'worse'. The interaction of different genes with one another is much more complex then even a knowedge of simple Mendlian genetics would indictate and picking so called 'ideal' genes is much more problematic then one might first think. Add to this the fact that the interaction between genetics (nature) and environment (nuture) is always complex.
Removing apparently deliterious genes from the genome is very short sighted from a purely molecular and evolutionary standpoint because these offen recessive (not functional) genes that can produce 'defects' often in homozygostic conditions are storehouses of genes that one day may become functional and provide selective advantages that one could not forsee. And that goes for _any_ gene, even serious disease genes. Anyone who's taken biology knows the scycle-cell anemnia example.. Which is simplified but illustrative.
And then there's another perspective the whole question of a 'defect'. Defect defined by who? Some would argue that dislexia is a 'syndrome' or is dileterious even considering that such indivduals may possess talents that others do not. People that could be considered in some context to have a mild case often show even more remarkable talents.
So basically the designation of 'good' or 'bad' comes down to a arbitrary social labelling of ever present variation in a population. Different places and times and society consider different traits to be 'good' or 'bad'.
So from a pure scientific perspective, I would say that the application of genomics is wrong because is comprimizes our diversity in a evoutionary sense and makes judgements based on wishy-washy social 'labelling'. I think the general giddyness of molecular biologists when considering the usefulness of genomics is a demonstration of bad science. Many researchers dismiss the pitfalls of genetic engineering and are just chasing science fiction dreams, oblivious to the possible negative impacts.
Taking another tact on the subject, think about these examples. Geniuses of various sorts throughtout history often have severe emotional or social difficulties... examples of this are endless... If you need an example that's close to home think about Bill Gates. I think the guy is a just a dorkwad but he's the richest guy in the world. So 'success' or what one person feels is the sort of genetics that thet would like to pass on to progeny is really relative. Maybe some people are solely concerned about having beautiful children or socially well adjusted children or smart children but everyone is different.
In my opinion there are good and bad consequences of any trait, regardless of how 'advantageous' someone thinks it is. Artistic geniuses often trend a fine line between genius and madness, mathimatical geniuses are often emotionally stunnted, A beautiful person may used their looks to get everything in their life and never challenge themselves mentally.
Another good example I like is Wayne Gretsky. Were is parents good hockey players? No. Here's the greatest hockey player by far in history and even his (genetically similar) brother never even made it out of the minors. So there's obviously a degree of random chance to the success of an individual, and I don't think that knowledge of the genetic code is going to let us anticipate which combinations of genes will create a 'better' person.
(sigh)
Now, I've kind of been playing devil's advocate here because the primary purpose of the Human Genome Project is not the immediate and wholesale alteration and 'genetic engineering' of humans. This will probably not happen to any wide extent. Even if we have the technology in the very near future (which is doubtfull) to 'pick and choose' genes in humans this technology would be so prohibitivly expensive that the number of individuals that would be able to use this technology would be trivial.
Gene splicing and removal for the time being is very crude. One could, for instance, introduce a muatation in the control gene in humans that causes you to grow arms, or insert a gene coding for a protein that would make you glow in the dark, but most genetic experiments are simple detetion or transgenic experiments. Choosing and replacing alleles at will and modifing regulator non-coding sequences are techinques that are still on the horizon.
Another important point is that molecular biology and genomic falls often into the catagory of a 'pure science' and that the quest for this knowedge is does purely increase our understanding of ourselves. Which isn't a bad thing. _Making it_ a bad thing makes a good news story for people who don't understand all the facts. There is also much opportunity for industreous young capitalists to exploit the knowedge for greedy purposes, but who's fault is that?
Besides, I don't think that people are going to stop having sex any time soon.
What will we lose by giving up some of our diversity?
??? Huh? Have you ever seen anyone reasonably suggest millions of identical clones like some bioengineered wheatfield? no. In a worst case scenario diveristy would probably increase. 99.9% of characteristics would never be selected for or against and would remain essentially random. Diversity would probably increase from people splicing in a bit from here and a bit from there as well as faddish things like a zebra stiped skull that would turn out coincidentally to protect against some new plague.
Sure, you can reasonably expect a market for clones of Sarah Michelle Geller (hmmm....) but there wouldn't be more than a few thousand knockoffs before that fad faded and everyone wanted a Torvalds. Not enough of a problem to cause your doomsday scenario.
It doesn't really matter if any of us think this is a good or bad idea. It's going to be too cheap and too easy (it already is really). If 10% of the populace wants it the other 90% will not be able to stop them.
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Although I do believe that there are very real ethical dilemmas surrounding what will happen once HGP is done, it seems to me that JK and most of /. has missed the point, the limitations, and the main dangers of the HGP.
Once the HGP is 100% complete does that mean that the oppression and genetic engineering of humans can start right away? NO! Remember that the HGP is simply the sequencing of the human genome (and only for a subset of humans, obviously). Once we have the sequence and have determined the location of all of the genes, we still have the very difficult task of understanding (1) how the genes form into proteins and (2) the role of these proteins in a developing organism.
In other words, we have yet to solve the protein folding problem and the problem of fully analyzing what proteins do anyway. Although we know a fair bit about what proteins do, we certainly do not fully understand all of their interactions. As for the protein folding problem, anyone who believes we are close to this goal is dreaming. We've only got the 3D structures for about 1000 proteins, and much of the data in that database has flaws and disagreements between researchers. Despite recent large grants for supercomputers for the protein folding problem, being able to accurately simulate the folding of a protein is a long way off.
Without a full understanding of the structure and function of the proteins generated from the genome, we are left with only poor correlational data. In other words -- a gene Y of this type tends to correlate highly with disease or condition Z. But, as we've seen in the breast cancer gene research, the correlations are relatively low, and tend to be of 'enabling' type. Thus, as expected, ones genetic predisposition for something is only part of the story.
It makes some sense to worry about the ethical problems surrounding knowing some correlational information about how gene X affects a persons behavior. If we found a super high correlation between the presence of a gene and violent anti-social behavior, it would be an ethical minefield, for sure. This is the topic that we should be discussing and worrying about, not whether genetic engineering of the perfect child is appropriate or ethical.
In any case, I highly doubt that the population will stand for any significant abuses of this sort of information. We don't allow country of origin (probably the highest correlative factor for tracking down credit card fraud, for example) to be used by the credit card companies, so I doubt that genetic discrimination will be allowed in any but the most clear of cases.
Furthermore, the scariest kinds of discrimination (job discrimination, etc) are the least likely to be highly correlated. The most likely things to be highly correlated are dangerous medical problems (such as sickle cell anemia, for example, for which the correlation is perfect -- with a malformed hemoglobin gene, you get sickle cell anemia b/c the structure of the blood cells is compromised by the malformity -- although it does impart a higher resistance to malaria, fwiw), which can be used by the medical community as indicators to help deal with treatment.
Cheers,
David Andre
*yawn* Huh? Oh, just another Katz article about the "dark side" of technology again? I think this guy's got ambitions to be a Hollywood movie writer so he can make futuristic disaster films. Wake me up when something's new.
The writings about "repression" and that "repressive" governments beeing defeated is more than just a bit out of bounds. It's unfortunate how many people seem to take their views from fairy tales. History is full of prewarnings of doing, what scientists dream of doing. But as is with your distorted views on politics, their views will never change until after they've made their mistake. An example, a known computer scientst stated that "Evil is going against what God wants". All we know what God wants, is what man says Gods wants. In "effect", his statement is equivalent with: "All men who go against my stated goal, are evil". Where "my" should be replaced with the effective body of society. As long as mans "morals" are thus defined, there is less than little hope that "deseases" will be eradicated. It is more likely, that the "rich" will use whatever procedure is created to make themselves immune to deseases the public get. The public will be as it always was... low life dirty animals to the rich and mighty. Who spend every penny they have to screen against their paranoid nightmare of "jesus" being reborn and throwing them to hell.
That's very interesting because I learned in my HS AP American Government class that the media and various other institutions are not under the control of a secret cabal.
No, not secret
Anyway, will all regard to your Highschool Government teacher, and text book. If it was secret, how would they know?
Let's get another example: The Pentagon Papers. The government had this little thing called Vietnam that (because of incompetent people) they bungled and tried to cover up. Someone leaked the info and discredited the government. Nixon tried to use all of his formidable power to stop the NY Times to remove the material but he failed because of democracy.
Vietnam? Vietnam?? WTF are you talking about, the Vietnam war was not secret, and in fact Nixon ended it!!! What you are talking about was Watergate(again, let me complement your High school education). And that had nothing to do with democracy, but rather freedom of speech.
The government doesn't control the media (least, not in the US. try china though). But someone does. I'm not saying that there secret, or evil, or even in agreement with each other. However the media must be controlled by someone, otherwise it wouldn't function. Most of the media. Music, movies, video games, etc are controlled by a handful of companies. SONY, NewsCorp (fox), Viacom, Time-Werner. Almost all of the general(non-internet) media in the world comes from these sources.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
BTW his columns and some new ones can be found here
Those columns were the best part of the month back when I was younger!
In your comment, "than" should be "then." You are a moron too.
I don't know about gattica, but I do know a little about the research. Look at
http://www.sangamo.com
They're building "light switches" for genes, and the going price is 50K a pop. US dollars only please.
Do you read _Science_? there's been a blurb every issue for the past 2 months about the future of gene therapy in the US, because some unfortunate MD's killed a kid while trying to cure him. The whole clinical trials regulatory system is in for an overhaul.
Waiting for the HGP to finish isn't holding up scientists/entrepreneurs. People will make money off this any way that they can, as long as they can convince VC's of the potential for profits. But the money driving this research isn't coming from you or me, it's coming from the Phizers and AstraZenecas and Upjohns. Since the end motivation for these companies is shareholder value and _NOT_ improving general public health, the ethics of current gene therapy efforts are dubious at best.
I think that pharmaceutical companies of today will be the Big Tobacco of tomorrow.
I laugh, because I'm crying inside.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
So what's the solution? Well, obviously we can't just not treat people who have diseases which may be genetic in origin, but we could sterilize them as a condition of their treatment. Now I'm not advocating this by any means, but if people are so gung-ho about maintaining natural selection, that's what they'd have to do.
The problem is the very same gene that encode your sister's presumed predisposition to cancer could encoder some other resistance or survival trait.
As has been noted on another /. thread on this topic, you have the example of sickle cell disease among africans. It can be lethal but it also makes them immune to malaria.
The human genome is still a mystery and thats why I beleive no one should be allowed to 'tinker around' with it. Not to mention by creating these 'designer' babies they are complete disrespecting life in order to satisfy their own desires.
Although the technology isn't going to arrive tomorrow, the very real prospect is that we will
... pure postmodernist sophistry. Sure intelligence is multifactorial, and some of the factors might turn out to be partially incompatible, so that we have to decide which factor is the most important component of intelligence and compromise the others. We might even find that intelligence is partially incompatible with some other trait, and we need to make a choice on what kind of tradeoffs we need to make. But that just means there are a few subchoices within the crucial question: will you be choosing to maximize your child's potential through genetic manipulation?
1) work out how genes interact to produce socially desirable phenotypes (eg. intelligence). I heard the head of arguably the top biomedical research facility in Australia (Dr Suzanne Cory, Head of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute) comment that it would take us 100s or 1000s of years to work out what the genes mean. I disagree; I think that while this might seem likely to a biologist, once enough mathematicians work on it we will find an automated method that greatly accelerates this work. Bioinformatics is only in its infancy; what it makes possible may be the greatest demonstration of the power of mathematics and computer science to date. In any case, we don't need to really understand it. The history of science is the history of partial understanding and application of that understanding before we really know what we're doing and all the side effects.
2) develop reliable techniques for germ-line gene therapy or other techniques for making genetics changes in the embryo. Somatic gene therapy is unlikely to ever reach the level of sophistication required to modify the genetic complement of all cells. Germ line gene therapy is just much easier.
When 1) and 2) have been achieved to a sufficient degree, someone, somewhere will start doing germ line gene therapy to make (for arguments sake) smart people. It will start off experimental, probably somewhere with few laws regulating such procedures. Then the ultra-rich will be able to have it, then the slightly less rich. There will be some ugly errors at first, but they will be forgotten as we become more competent and develop improved methods of quality control. As the technology improves and becomes more widespread, at each point there will be people at the border --- people who can afford the technology and must decide whether or not to use it. They will want the best for their children, and they will see that unless they do use the technology, others will have an edge over them. They will fear that their children will be unable to compete --- much as many of those parents currently into "maximizing their child's potential" by trying to get them into the best schools, do the most number of activities to the highest level, etc, do it out of fear. We all know this is losing our childhood and a part of our humanity; but many of us are willing to make that sacrifice to compete, because if we don't, someone else wins and we lose. The same principle will apply for germ-line gene therapy. We will end up choosing it, not because we fail to appreciate the harm, but because of a fear of condemning our children to a lifetime of being second rate.
I hope it comes after I have kids (and it probably will). I'd rather not have to make that choice. By the way, the comment that intelligence and other traits are in the eye of the beholder, and so there won't be any dillema
(I won't be reposting this if there are any spelling errors; I'm sure you can work out what I mean.)
remove the sz's from my email to use it
Suppose that she got cancer because she carries a genetic predisposition for it (this is entirely possible). Now if she's been cured of this cancer and goes on to reproduce, she may pass this "bad" gene on to future children, who may not be so fortunate with the placement and treatment of their tumors. If she hadn't had surgery or radiation therapy, she may well not have survived long enough to reproduce, thereby removing her icky genes from the gene pool.
Bad news, buddy. If your sister does carry this genetic predisposition for cancer, there's a pretty good chance that you've got it too. She'd have inherited it from her parents, and they're your parents too, so into the euthanasia chamber you go. It's for the good of the species, you know - gotta remove those "icky" genes before they damage yet another generation.
Another point about genetic predispositions... we don't know how many of these predispositions would be rendered insignificant if environmental causes were removed. What about people predisposed to cancer if and only if they contact some particular chemical, or (this one is documented) elevated dosages of X rays. "In the wild", these people would not be selected against, but in our modern world, where we have industrial sovents and chest X rays, they get cancer. Technology has not eliminated selection - it has just changed its form. Some people who would have died (or at least not bred) now survive and pass on their genes. Others who would have lived and passed on their genes now die childless. It's been going on since time immemorial, and the world hasn't ended because of it.
Certainly we ought to be wary of what can go wrong with gene therapy, but this notion that humans are doomed because they've used technology to thwart natural selection is hooey. Humans are doomed because EVERYTHING is doomed. Lets at least enjoy our time here, and do what we can to minimise suffering. Sometimes that means saying yes to biotechnology, and sometimes it means saying no. You'll have to use your own judgement.
Or let your leaders use theirs, and make your decisions for you. Personally I prefer to use my own.
I can't help but think of those GAP commercials frequenting the airwaves lately:
Everyone the same.
Are you telling me that any parent would say to their child, "I had the chance to remove (ugliness, extreme physical traits like over-short, over-heavy, over-thin,disorders like Downs and learning disabilies, any preposisions to conditions that would greatly increase the chance of early death or painful life such as arrythmia, Alzheimers, et al), but I just didn't do it. I could have made your life more enjoyable, but I just didn't think that was ethical, I would much rather see you have a childhood/adulthood/whole life of pain/rejection than compromise on my morals". I'm not an ideal body-type, especially since I have scholiosis that is quite noticable when I don't have a shirt on, which keeps me from participating in many shirts-n-skins games, swimming at public places, makes me slightly self-concious in front of my girlfriend. Now, I've dealt with it, and have live through the fun-making of childhood, and am mostly happy with the person I am today. But, given the choice, I would definitely change a couple things. Who wouldn't? Making all childred future models or star athletes seems silly, although I'm sure many would do it. But using technology to ensure everyone has an average acceptable physique and mentality is reasonable to me. People can live their lives with hinderances and be happy with who they are, but many also deserve to be able to enjoy many parts of life that they are unable to. Would you deny anyone that?
While 'exotic' people can look beautifull, there have actualy been sciantific studies into the nature of beauty. It turns out that the more average people look, the more beautiful.
If you were to take pictures of thousands of random men, or women, and use a computer to create an 'average' that 'average' will look very attractive.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
(_Wrath of Khan_, anybody?) could very well happen if widespread GE occurred. As an aside, I would like to point out that there is not an immediate relation betweeen genetic engineering and the HGP; although the latter makes the former much more viable and flexible, it is not an inevitable product of the HGP. We should definitely not attempt to legislate the HGP because of the dangers of genetic engineering (as katz seems to imply might well be beneficial), we should just regulate what genetic engineering and gene therapy should be able to do (enforcement might be difficult, but it would definitely be possible).
BTW, genetic engiunnering is really, really cheap (to do, that is) . Labs are inexpensive to create if basic enough, materials are dirt cheap, and it would be real easy to inroduce the gene for, say, an extra NMDA receptor or ten on every neuron in your brain (to increase your ability to remember things). We do stuff like that in the lab I work at all the time. Assuming there were strict goverment controls on the use of Genetic engineering/gene therapy, this would not need to be a service available only to the super-rich: everybody could benefit.
The issue of diversity is a serious problem: however, there would be plenty of randomness in all of the areas not effected by Genetic engineering, and this would be approximatley equal to the rate of change that exists currently. Actually, it might even speed up, making us more likely to live through some kind of plague or other catastrophe.....
[crazy idea]: why not engineer a retrovirus containing all of the desired standard genes (smarts, strength, adaptability, etc.), synthesize it in vast quantities, and inject it into the population at large? You could introduce subtle differences to insure the variey discussed above, and there would be no physical difference between social calsses like that described in your post. In addition, we'd all be a lot smarter, and hopefully more likely to not do dumb things (like genicide, environmental/self destruction, etc.)(AKA 'raising the bar')
bottom line: a tricky issue, but there seem to be simple solutions to all of the issues raised. Who can say we wouldnt be better off if we could control (some parts of) our own evolution instead of leaving it completely to chance?
The truth is out there - we'll let it back in after it sobers up a bit. -The Cube
Ok so the evil government wants to control people but they loathe to do it with easily detectible means. So what better way then to stop rebellion at the source. Just genetically engineer stupid, vapid, but stunningly beautiful people. This is all too similar to Hitler's arian race concept.
Well, the reason they wouldn't is beacuse they would have to be replaced by these people at some time. It would serve no purpose.
Also, while atractive they wouldn't be very effectual. You could enginer them, but in order to propagte, they would ether have to mate with the 'normals', or have them removed by some other means. If there 'vapid', they would only want to sleep with eachother. And if there stupid, they woudln't be able to figure out how to pull off a holocost.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Step 1: Map the Human Genome
...
Step 2: Understand the Genome
Step 3: Whatever we want.
It really is that simple. Once we have the source, and understand how it works, the interpreter is built in.
What will be the first things we want ?
1) Immortality
2) Power
3) Space (on which to effect the power on)
Sound familiar ?
Evolution is dead. Humanity is too.
But , _we_ will continue
There is NO arguing _If_, only _When_.
Its only a matter of time now. Always has been.
How many people read Katz' essay? It's beside the point.
If you doubt there is a demand for compliant children, I have one word for you: Ritalin.
The technology will surely get cheaper as time goes on. And as these "good" genes become more prevalent they can be duplicated the natural way. (I wonder... With patents on genes, does someone with those genes have to buy additional licenses to legally reproduce?)
One could also argue that the people of the wealthy nations are the only ones that really matter, because that's where the power is.
Found that book: The Future and it's Enemies, by Virginia Postrel (The Free Press, 1998). Fabulous book on progress, and attacks statists on the left and the right as being foolish in their attempts to dictate the future.
The fact is, it's impossible to completely control your environment, just as it's impossible to completely control the future. You are correct in stating that nostalgia for the atomic family of the 50's is rooted in control of the masses. It's far easier to control something you can understand, as opposed to something you don't.
That brings us back to the HGP. People oppose it because it challenges the status quo. It's progress. It has the potential for great applications, as well as harmful ones. The reasons posted (anti-God, Gattaca-like future society, etc) all say the same thing, even if the posters don't realize it: "I'm afraid of that which I don't understand."
I say let rip. All progress (social, economic, political, scientific, etc) arises from someone willing to take the risks involved. Somebody had to be the first to be immunized, right?
Cheers,
Brian
Well, the majority of meinal, true-minimum wage jobs are held by Teenagers, Highschool students who want to make a few extra dolars.
If we lived in a world with super-intelgent people, you could just have teens, and collage students do the crapy work, and then have to good jobs later
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Hate to break it to anyone who thinks the Human Genome Project is either a great achievement or a great danger. We're so far away from understanding even the simplest biology (I give you viruses and cancer as examples) much less the biological mechanisms underlying gene expression that I doubt anything too significant will come out of the raw data before the end of the next millenium, good, bad or otherwise.
It's one thing to throw an automatic sequencer at some DNA and quite another to understand what comes out. The people impressed by this are probably the same ones who were impressed by Deep Blue beating Gary Kasparov through brute force.
It's amazing to me that despite the years of research and tons of cash thrown at biologists, they can't even understand the simplest virus. Maybe if a few slashdotters switched professions, biology would make some progress.
I can't remember Dr. Teller's first name. I saw him about four years ago at a gathering of "Notable People". He was so old you could barely see his eyeballs through the fleshly eyelids and hairy brow. He looked as though he might fall over.
Someone asked a panel of individuals (about ten people, including Teller) whether a scientist should consider the moral consequences of revealing their discoveries to the world if the possibility existed for abusing such knowledge (I can't remember exactly how the question was worded, but this gets the idea across).
Dr. Teller hadn't spoken till now. At once he blurted out with his still heavy accent: "I have to answer this question!".
(It sounded more like: "I hav to anzer zis kvestion!").
His blunt answer to the question of "should we" was an emphatic "yes". He seemed to abdicate responsibilty for the manner in which the technology he helped develop was used. To this "pure scientist", the "should we" question had political implications and didn't belong in a scientist's vocabulary.
He saw it as NOT a part of his job description to address the question. That was for someone else to decide. HIS job was in discovering the mechanisms belying nature.
So the question really does come up where the scientists are concerned, not just in the pop-entertainment realm. At least ONE of them has dealt with it.
(I'm paraphrasing Teller here, but the mispellings are my own, and I don't have access to a recording of the event.)
I'm getting this sentiment from other posts, but I'd like to formulate it more...um...clearly: If having only the purpose of attaining welth isn't inherently evil, then Satan's farts smell like my grandmother's cookies.
--------------
Given the history of technological breakthroughs once this technology has been unleashed, it's a near certainty that cloning will be used to create children. The nature of technology and much of the controversy and complexity that surrounds it is people disagree about goals. Some parents will find it noxious to bring cloned humans into the world, others will find it irresistible, even noble.
-------------
The idea that any technology is an unstoppable force is rather amusing. We have the option of stopping human cloning right now. Simply stop all funding for cloning, pass laws that make cloning any chordates illegal and there you have it -- no cloning in our lifetime.
What is going to happen? A mad scientist is going to steal fetuses from an abortion clinic and experiment on them until he gets cloning right? The concept is laughable. Right now we are so far away from cloning it takes major laboratory funding and brainpower to have any advances.
I wish people like this that wrote the article grow up and realize that technology isn't something that is an immutable force. Technology is humans working together on research. If we want to stop the human genome project or cloning we can do it -- Techonology won't somehow steamroll us into the future.
-Shaka
This technology is scary, but who's gonna stop it? We're on the march to marrying man an machine. Does anybody doubt it? The best we can hope for is that we don't destroy ourselves in the process.
We shall not cease from exploration. And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started, and know the place for the first time.
from T.S. Eliot's Little Gidding
Your comment is interesting, but you've got the stagnant and evolving groups reversed. The people who avoid genetic engineering are the Luddites who will stagnate (humanity will not change much due to our global communications and technological advances preventing the natural selection and geographical separation required for significant evolutionary change). The people who engage in genetic engineering will have many different ideas on what people should become, leading to generations in the future that will be more different from us than any in the past have been. Perhaps this great change will eventually lead to speciation when someone decides to areform their children to settle Mars or once we have much more knowledge change them into lifeforms that can live in more extreme environment such as space itself.
Well, you've basicaly just described the current situation in the world and added the word "genetic."
Remember, the education someone recives while growing up can effect there IQ by 70%, 3rd world leaders will mearly have to try to get strong genotypes bread into there populations like they need to get good education now.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
why? you are very very dumb.
Something that I have often though about, was wither genetic engineering would keep us, as a species, from ever developing any new genetic traits? I am note so sure how the whole evolution thing goes but I believe I have a basic understanding. A new characteristic is expressed that enable the subject to have a higher chance of mating. This "new" gene gets passed on to the offspring. If it remains beneficial it will eventually become dominate. If we are screening for "bad genes" or only over expressing the ones that we think are "good" we might miss out on something truly evolutionary as far as genetic developments goes. Instead of continually evolving wouldn't we just be making the best of what we have already achieved? Ironically I think the same thing can be said for things like eyeglasses, as long as we are giving people with genetic defects a level playing field we can never evolve past them. Like to here what you all have to say! Del Gecko egreco@ju.edu
"All beliefs and methods of proof are based on certain assumptions which cannot be proven. The best you can hope for is a self-referentially coherant system."
Hopefully, hopefully we can one day break the cycle of recursive reasoning. Just because I don't have the foggiest idea how doesn't mean that I'm going to stop trying.
What do you look for in a mate? If you can answer this you are performing a form of natural selection.
Ok, Antibiotics are pretty good at blasting bacteria the first few times but we havn't removed desease from being a problem.
I don't have a subscription to Nature, or Science, or for that matter, anything else. I'm glad to see this issue aired on slashdot, where it can be debated by hundreds of idiots and a few smart people. I do think that perhaps a more thorough discussion of what is and isn't ethical than one or two lines was in order, though.
-Dave Turner, AC of convinience
The Boston Globe is currently running a six-part series about this. "Choosing Naia" follows a couple whose child has a bunch of health problems (hole in the heart, Down's Syndrome, etc.) from the day they find out about their disabilities. If anything, it puts a human face on some rather esoteric debate.
Put my clarinet beneath your bed 'till I get back in town.
"The Human Genome Project, often referred to on this site, may be the most inspiring and disturbing technological project in contemporary history."
And here I thought the Gary Coleman webathon took that honor!
"It embodies the often tragic drama of contemporary technology: well-meaning people trying in the noblest way to improve the world; setting in motion forces few ordinary people understand, agree upon or are prepared for."
There are things that mankind was not meant to know. Ooooh scary!
"The Human Genome Project may be the most inspiring and disturbing technological project ever undertaken."
Didn't you just say that? Oh wait, contemporary history, gotcha. But I think your default dismissal of all those experiments performed on us by ancient astronauts is downright speciesist!
"This is the first time we've decided in so organized a way to alter the nature of life itself."
So this is the Felix Unger of big science as opposed to all those paltry Oscar Madison predecessors?
"The project is a metaphor for everything that's both right and wrong about technology:"
As are Pamela Anderson and Anna Nicole Smith.
"well-intentioned people are using it to try to make the world better; at the same time continuously unleashing forces we haven't fully considered or agreed upon, and can't or won't control."
And this is the second time you've said this so the third time better be different or you'll have broken one of the most important rules of storytelling!
"During the past few years, as many Slashdot readers know, scientists all over the world have begun a coordinated, systematic effort to create a complete biochemical description of the human genome - the DNA contained in the chromosomes of human cells - and to develop a genetic map indicating which components of this genetic material determine certain human traits, from depression to disease to susceptibility to addiction to eye color or artistic ability."
And they still can't get a date on Friday nights! Coincidence? I think not.
"The project began in l990, part of a global effort co-ordinated by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health."
With generous additional funding from the Trilateral Commission, The World Bank, and the guy on the grassy knoll.
"Though its founders expected the project to last 15 years, advances in computing have accelerated the completion date; now it's only three years away."
Which is exactly the same time I expect to complete my collection of Star Trek action figures!
"The goal of the human genome project is nothing less than to read and record the entire string of (at least) three billion letters in human DNA."
Do you think there are any love letters in there?
"According to a progress chart on the project's website, the progress towards mapping the genetics of human beings now stands at 36 per cent."
And if you call in now, we'll throw in this free supercomputer and strong encryption for no additional cost!
"Aided by new supercomputers that analyze, store and distribute data faster that was thought possible even a few years ago, geneticists believe they have already identified the location of genes identified with dozens of disorders, including cystic fibrosis, some forms of mental retardation and Huntingdon's disease."
But sadly, the genetic markers for clue, charm, and studliness remain as elusive as ever.
"Supporters of the project hail it as a means of eliminating disease, emotional disorders and other forms of human suffering. But the risks and ethical dilemmas are staggering, especially considered against a backdrop of scant serious discussion anywhere in the world, certainly not in the United States."
I did not have SEX with that WOMAN!
"Could employers and insurance companies obtain an individual's genetic information?
More importantly, could telemarketers?
"Could government agencies or law enforcement authorities use genome research to invade privacy and predict behavior?"
And this is worse than the current multiple choice tests how?
"Could prospective spouses demand DNA screenings to reject unsuitable mates?"
As long as they collect the samples themselves, it sounds pretty fun to me!
"Perhaps, most likely, will parents beginning using the results of genome research to begin the process of seeking out the "Perfect Baby?""
As opposed to screaming baby, squishy head ball of red baby, and baby goes scream poop?
"To screen sperm and egg for, size, IQ, cloning, emotional and physical health?"
All that from an acrosome, wow!
"There is no scientific consensus as to how far this project can go, or how quickly. Some geneticists have argued that the genome project is a pipedream, that the dream of unraveling the strands of human life are much more complex and mysterious than any scientific project can really grasp."
Ding! ding! ding! ding! We have a winner!
"But the history of genetics, supercomputing and technology all suggest that humanity is entering a new, inevitable era in the use of technology to alter human life"
Uh, didn't that "era" start with the wheel?
"a direction that makes Victor Frankenstein's primitive experiments look like a crossword puzzle."
The chief difference between Victor Frankenstein's "primitive experiments" and today's crossword puzzle is that his stuff worked.
"The genome project evokes a world practically bursting with technological hubris, a universe in which all children would be born healthy, and suffering would be greatly reduced. What could be nobler or more inspiring?"
Pokemon for president?
"And there is a darker side to this radical project"
There ya go Johnny with da negative vibes!
"even though few people in our society are considering it much. We have set out on a project whose goal is to alter the nature of human existence, without the interest of a single national political leader or a single Congressional debate (this in a country in which the mere mention of sex on the Internet sends legislative bodies into hyperdrive)."
Yay! You said it differently this time. Good for you!
"In effect, children may be given genotypes"
In my day, we had to WORK for our genotypes!
"genetic profiles. Offspring considered grotesque, revolting, impaired, repugnant or offensive could be eliminated."
Watch out, Must See TV fans!
How many parents will choose ugly kids when they can be assured attractive ones?
How many parents choose contraception over noisy brats and an SUV?
"Why have an idiosyncratic or rebellious offspring when you can choose a cheerful and pliant one?"
'Cuz it's fun to piss off the neighbors?
"Biomedical ethicist Leon Kass is one of many scientists who worry about the pace of genetic research as well as its moral consequences."
And boy does that beat worrying about those lonely Friday nights!
""When a couple now choose to procreate," he writes in the eighth edition of "Technology and the Future," edited by Albert Teich (Bedford/St. Martin's), "the parents are saying yes to the emergence of new life in its novelty, saying yes not only to having a child but also, tacitly, to having whatever child the child turns out to be."
And when the couple is horribly disfigured in accident with a mechanical rice picker, they are not only saying yes to having trouble eating anything solid in its novelty but also, tacitly, to liquid lunch. His point?
"Our children, he writes, are not "our" children or posessions; they aren't supposed to live anyone's lives but their own. In altering the nature of new life, parents can not only live vicariously through their offspring but completely shape their lives."
Whereas Pop Warner Football and beating the little sap until he becomes a skating, violin, or math prodigy are completely different!
"Genetic screening is only one of the moral dilemmas our culture will soon face as the result of fast-moving genetic research."
Get your filthy hands off of me you damned dirty gorillas!
"Scientists and biologists are nearly unanimous in their belief that within the next decade, someone, somewhere in the world will clone the first human being."
They're bringing back Adam?!? Damn, I hope they don't forget to bring back Lilith too if you know what I mean hubba hubba hubba!
"Given the history of technological breakthroughs once this technology has been unleashed, it's a near certainty that cloning will be used to create children."
They're bringing back Adam as a fully grown adult? Damn^2 now I really want to get Lilith's number right out of the tube!
"The nature of technology and much of the controversy and complexity that surrounds it is that people disagree about goals. Some parents will find it noxious to bring cloned humans into the world, others will find it irresistible, even noble."
While still others will focus on the Lilith angle if ya know what I mean WooHoo!
"This kind of social technology - conceived with the noblest of intentions - is not containable. It has no real direction beyond the fact that skilled scientists with powerful tools want to do it. In fact, not doing it seems as inconceivable as doing it."
Blah Blah Pandora's Box Blah Blah. Been there, done that, let out the demons.
"But we're kidding ourselves if we think the only result will be the eradictation of some diseases and human suffering."
We're going to take down the last words of suffering and disease?
"Too many people will want to use it, too much money can be made off of it. The convergence of capitalism, technology and genetic engineering will be explosive, especially in a society as technologically thoughtless as ours."
Don't worry, Klaatu has a whole bunch of robots from his homeworld especially prepared for us!
"Some forms of genetic selection - rarely labeled what they actually are - are already in widespread use, from genetic screening to prenatal diagnosis. They've already raised lingering ethical questions, only infrequently disseminated by journalists, politicians or scientists."
The Senator strongly disagrees with the notion that just because the child has the same 3 degenerative conditions and a 50% genetic overlap with the sentator's genome that this makes him his illegitimate son. The senator prefers the term "amazing coincidence".
"A quarter century ago"
The movie _Jaws_ made me forever terrified of the ocean and changed the moviegoing experience forever!
biologist Bentley Glass wrote of "The right of every child to be born with a sound physical and mental constitution, based on a sound genotype; the inalienable right to a sound heritage."
Sadly, he wrote this in a letter to _Penthouse Forum_ where it was unjustly ignored in favor of a story about two cheerleaders, their pet dog, and the night watchman.
"Maybe so. But is this a universal right, or one extended only to affluent people in industrial societies with access to advanced medical technology and generous insurance plans?"
That's why we feed the rest of the world those genetically modified foods but there you go getting ahead of yourself!
"What about developing and Third-World nations, where few will have access to Perfect Baby technologies?"
More importantly, will they be Y2K compliant?
"What about despots and dictators who might want to use genome maps to create certain kinds of communities and nations?"
Been there done that, see beautiful Romania.
"Have we really thought through the implications of unleashing medical procedures that would reduce the incidence of addiction, depression, retardation and physical disabilities?"
Imagine a world where the mental homes had to throw a bake sale to buy thorazine!
"Are we comfortable living in a world in which whose categories of humanity - the retarded, the blind, the disabled - will disappear from our part of the earth?"
Well they shouldn't have been flying over the Bermuda Triangle!
"Do the healthy lose something when it's possible to eradicate the impaired?"
It's been possible to eradicate the impaired for quite some time now actually and some third world nations have been practicing these techniques all along, sheesh.
"Will the rights of children really be protected, or will the ultimate result of such pell-mell, until -recently- unimaginable tinkering be a world in which people are no longer distinct from one another - a humanity that's universally attractive, intelligent, able-bodied and eyeglass-free?"
No no that was that Twilight Zone Episode _Number Twelve Looks Just Like You_. This will be much different: no Rod Serling, no overly drawn out prolog to a really simple plot twist, and much better special FX!
"If any technological project embodies the engineer/author Samuel Florman's tragic view of technology, it's the genome project."
What no Microsoft Windows? Shame on you!
"Jules Verne and H.G. Wells are most often credited in our culture with predicting the future, but both had spotty records."
Criminals both of them I say! Besides, Uri Geller and Edgar Cayce have done MUCH better!
"Increasingly, the writers who seems to have had the clearest bead on the 21st century were Orwell, author of "1984" and Aldous Huxley, who wrote "Brave New World," both foresaw the growing social movement towards conformity and the use of technology to shape and control culture."
It took you all night to think of that, didn't it? Of course, posers like Robert Heinlein, David Brin, Harlan Ellison, and Isaac Asimov havn't come up with anything useful!
"But even he wasn't quite far-sighted enough."
Huxley was near-sighted actually, and tragically addicted to vision self-improvement programs.
"He thought government would be the force most likely to peep into our bedrooms, gather information on our tastes and behavior and pressure us to dress, talk and think uniformly. In this at least, he was mistaken."
Kill the telemarketers!
"In the 20th century, the most repressive forms of government - Communism, Fascism, Apartheid, Nazism - have collapsed or been defeated. Their efforts to censor culture or employ technology to control behavior have failed."
But Pokemon, Crack, and Prostitution just keep on chugging!
"The most powerful institutions in our time aren't evil governments but powerful corporations with billions of dollars to conduct research, gather information and shape culture and society."
Kill the WTO Man!
"Modern corporations - Microsoft comes to mind - are not intrinsically evil, and have no political or ideological goals beyond money, but they are frighteningly powerful and influential, bigger than most governments on the planet and obvlivious to their own impact on creativity, freedom and individualism."
I want my freedom to innovate!
"A generation ago, who could have imagined that one company would have its software in more than 90 per cent of the personal computers in the world?
Oh gee, you mean they hadn't ever heard of IBM?
"Whatever the Genome Project ultimately does or doesn't uncover, it won't be Nobel Laureates"
Like Robert Shockley and Carlton Gadjusek?
"and non-profit groups that get to control it or decide how this awesome new technology will be sold and used."
Say thank you, Jesus!
"It will likely be corporations, the only institutions in our society with enough power to acquire and manipulate mass markets."
Yeah Matt Drudge and Dan Dorfman, what posers!
"In a world where people who want to have kids offer attractive men and women tens of thousands of dollars for their sperm and eggs, what might people pay for the Perfect Baby?"
_Now how much would you pay? But wait there's more! It's not found in any store!_
"And who do you think will control and own the patents and peddle the genetic maps?"
My friend Flicka?
And what can really be had from the sequence? Most people talk about genes, which, yes, are very important, but the entire genome is not packed into these nice little packages. Many regions of the genome are simply not expressed at all and some serve only a regulatory function. And it probably wont be known which are which for a long time. I would like to note that while all of the Escherichia coli genome has been sequenced, probably at least a third (if not more) of the regions that could be genes are unknown in function! And it is still not known what exactly makes 0157:H7 virulent over the E. coli we carry around in our own guts. Bacteria are much easier to study, and many people are putting in many man hours to answer these questions. My point is that, while we may know what the sequence is, it will take a huge amount of resources to make any sense of it, before it could even be used for the things people fear it could be used for.
Mammals are harder to experiment with, and much more complex than bacteria. There are many practical limitations to the speed with which discoveries can be made in human genetics. Just knowing three billion base pairs of code do not a cloned child, or an engineered perfect child, make. (The practicality of such a venture is hard for me to see at this point.) I think time and money will be the limiting factor in the advance of the horrors spoken of in this article.
And, since mammals are so much harder to work with, they take more time and more MONEY. Ultimately, yes, it will be up to the people with the money to decide just what future advances are made in the wake of such a potentially enormous amount of information. Only the people who can afford to do the work will do it; they will get their money from the people who have it and decide to give that money to said people to have the work done.
I do think there needs to be international discussion on the subject, but within reasonable boundaries. Instead of focusing on the bad things that "could" happen, the people with the power to influence the money should be talking about what SHOULD be done. Then, if the resources are directly applied to those experiments and scientific ventures deemed valuable by the whole, there will be little left for any other "side projects". But, it can only happen with rational and directed thought about what is possible and practical, not with scare tactics and politicking about what is feared.
1) By finding the markers for specific genetic diseases, a couple who both have a family history can still have children together by doing invitro cloning and testing the embreyos and only implanting those who are recessive or negitive. This is already possible for those diseases we have a marker on, but very expensive. Actually adjusting the genes is still scifi.
2) By mapping the genome, they are making better treatments possible for existing diseases. Thats genetic and viral diseases (if you know the exact code for the cells that HIV infects, you are much farther along on finding a way to block the infection.) Why do you think private pharmacutical companies are racing the genome project to completion? They want to copywrite those genes (a subject in itself) not to offer genetic selection to parents, but so that they can own any drug treatments based on that info. The Genome Project is racing them to make that genetic info "open source" and reduce the chance of one company getting a monopoly on a life-saving drug and ransoming peoples lives to the bottom line. (they do that anyway, but its way worse when there's no chance of a generic equivelent.)
Long story short, there's incredibly more to this project than the "Quest for Knowledge vs Dark Eugenics Dystopia" stuff I'm seeing here.
This message brought to you by your friendly neighborhood bio major who lives with a HGP tech.
...will work for Chick tracts...
Could it be that once everyone looks the same, beauty will fall on those who look different? Likewise for other traits.. when everyone's kid has an awesome jump shot, maybe people just won't watch basketball anymore. Games could become complicated and challenging again... (when was the last time you saw a tic-tac-toe tournament on tv?)
I just don't see genetic engineering as a real threat.. i'd wager the pre-fab kids become the new shunned class, or they move off into their own little cliquey world (sort of like they have now- after high school, i never see em and never deal with em ;) )..
in fact, you know, i never even think about cliquey-type things unless jonkatz is writing an article. Hmm....
While the picture Katz paints is scary the technology to make smarter and more beautiful people is far away. Most of these traits are polygenic that it is controlled by several to hundreds of genes. Even if we could document what each gene did we have no way to predict how the different copies of the genes interact with each other. Also each of us is a product of the environment and we cannot control the environment; ask any experimental biologist about this. Yes, the genome project raises real ethical questions but it does not mean we should refrain from learning about who we are. The nastier predictions are something of science fiction I believe.
What do you look for in a mate? If you can answer this you are performing a form of natural selection. At this time people start to marry after high school. So people meet someone at university or college, or they go to University or college together. These people, and they are a large enough population to have an effect, are selecting for intelligence. (unless your education system is messed and intelligence isn't a requirement to higher education) As for health, some one more universally physically atractive is usually healthy, because those who choose unhealthy mates children die. If you want less of a tendancy towards genetic desease, don't have kids with someone of your own genetic background. This is because most dominate genetic deseases kill rather quickley, genetic deseases are usually recessive and are unlikely to be in two different populations.
Ok, Antibiotics are pretty good at blasting bacteria the first few times but we havn't removed desease from being a problem. Some people have resistance to HIV, causing a form of selection.
Natural selection is not dead, we just happen to be way up the food chain, so have few preditors.
As for the topic at hand, we select for the genetic charicteristics without looking at the DNA, what will looking at the DNA change? And as for cloning, thats just dumb your liable to have all your offspring wiped out in one plague. Cloning is a bad evolutionary trait.
The problem is peaple will be on both sides of any idea of what is a problem or not. bad teeth. is it a problem or attractive diversity? all I know is I don't want anyone else deciding these things and making rules about them.
No one is saying "Hey You! out of the gene pool!" there simply saying "Lets put this in the gene pool"
Hitler liked lobster, does that make eating lobster inherantly evil?
While trying to selectivly breed humans could be a bad thing, no one is talking about doing that, only adding new genotypes into the pool.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I belive the poster is only talking about the last 100 or so years. We arn't really to the point of 'no more evolution' but we are getting there, quickly.
I think gamate manipulation (replicating editing) is the only true solution. No one has to die, or be stelized. Once the new genomes are created they will replicate through out the genepool
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Under communism, it won't matter that GE people are smarter, stronger, and more beautiful.
Social engineering through fear of change.
GE is coming - pick one: communism, or starvation.
-Dave Turner, AV of convinience.
"Not what God made, but what He intended" - Roger Waters
Hey, does anyone know who exactly it is that's getting there DNA seqenced? I heard it was about 500 people, but I remember reading that it wasn't a very ethnicaly diverce group...
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The human Genome Project is not about having the right genes, mearly about Knowing what genes we have
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Before i thought Katz's articles were hokey, but this is plain dumb.
.. The largest company here, General Motors, took in $178 billion last year which is dwarfed by the government's $1,721 billion last year. Microsoft has only recently crossed $10 billion. Intel $25 billion. IBM $78 billion.
Corporations are in no way bigger than the government
You can't be scared of knowledge; someday someone is going to map the entire thing. Now it would obviously be better if it is public knowledge instead of an evil corporation tinkering with it all.
No way are any major implications of this going to errupt overnight. We won't see armies of Bill Gates clones running around anytime soon, nor are we going to have viruses to specifically wipe out Linux programmers. We'll deal with it when it comes.
Think about it! The Human Genome decomposed and reconstructed in a special way - mutations. Opportunistic diseases are sure to mutate as well and may attack the mutants. The mutants may lack the intrinsic abilities to adapt if mistakes are made in the recombination.
We live in a sybiotic relationship with our beneficial microflora and microfauna; do we want to run the risk of upsetting that balance? Do we want to run the risk of causing a killer bacterium or virus to spread?
Here is the most dangerous part!
Do we want there to exist the possibility that the genetic manipulators (biological programmers) may put code into the DNA to cause a breakdown if certain conditions are not satisfied (the lysine contingency from Jurassic Park)?
We could all be turned into slaves. Get ready for THX-1138 .
I have an interesting piece of trivia:
According to my Biblical studies, I think that we were created perfect in DNA structure with no aging or long-term effects of disease. But, God reprogrammed us to age and suffer sickness. We still thrived and became very powerful because our lifetimes were very long. God then reprogrammed us again to have an average livespan, in general conditions, of about 65 years and scrambled our language to confuse us. These info are from the book of Genesis. Therfore, programming DNA, are we not playing God?
I'm not saying we shouldn't study the genome; I'm saying that we should be most careful of allowing corporations the power to tamper with our genetic structure.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
we as a species has not been involved in the evolution process for a long long long time....we on the other hand keep things like cancer going because we mate with people that have these genes Sorry if this is a little too bio-geeky, but I was a bio-geek before I decided that IS would be so much fun :) The reason humans haven't been 'involved in evolution' (which, strictly speaking we have 'cuz ANY change in the genes, or the relative frequency of genes, present in a species is evolution) is mostly due to our ability to alter our environment rather than our environment altering us through natural selection. For instance, we could evolve speed to protect us from big predators, but instead we just created lots of weapons and changed habitats for the predators. I live in Illinois which used to be lots and lots of prairie and some woods where predators could live, but is now lots and lots (and lots) of farmland and urban sprawl with essentially no predators bigger than a fox or coyote. No big genetic changes, but the humans are so safe that we actually miss the predators and go to zoos to see them. As for mate selection based on genetic markers for diseases such as cancer, this is not the straightforward proposition that everyone makes it out to be. The links between a disease and a marker are usally along the lines of '47% of people with disease X had mutation Y in our sample of 19 X-sufferers, of course 35% of the Y-mutants don't have X', not 'everybody with disease A has mutation B, and everyone with mutation B has disease A'. These linkages will probably get a lot more accurate when the HGP is complete, but some diseases will just have lots of causes. Cancer is the perfect example - I don't care how resistant your genes say you are to cancer, you'll get cancer if you smoke a carton-a-day while you work as the clean-up crew at Chernobyl. In general people overstate the importance of genetics in this sort of thing. Even something as seemingly simple as eye-color is affected by developmental conditions in the womb (too warm shuts down the enzyme that produces pigment and you get blue eyes), so it shouldn't be surprising that susceptibility to diseases, much less mental/emotional traits, is heavily influenced by the environment. I don't think that too many genetic counselors will be guaranteeing their work even after the HGP is complete. Also, all the genes individually are only a part of the picture. The interactions between the genes, and between the genes and the non-coding DNA are probably as important, if not more. Analyzing all of these interactions, and the interactions between the interactions (if that makes any sense)will probably take a long time, and won't be so easy to mass-produce as the actual genetic sequences. The danger of people making decisions based on anothers genotype is amplified by all of the complexities above (Think about all the problems with DNA evidence such as lab contamination, explaining probability to people not smart enough to get out of jury duty {an old joke, :}, etc. and multiply that by about 1000). Not only is it questionable whether or not they should do so, it is likely that the decisions will be based on insufficient data. If your insurance company rejects you/jacks up your rates because you a carrier of a gene that is sometimes linked to a potentially life-shortening disease, is that fair? I guess it must be, since males with their danged Y chromosome pay higher car insurance (IIRC). If you are running for office should the public know that people with that single base alteration on chromosome 12 that you have are 100 times more likely to go whacko, even though it means 1-in-10,000 rather than 1-in-1,000,000? How about shareholders in the company that wants you as CEO? How about the personnel department at the place you work now? How about the people in your neighborhood?
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
Just date atractive asian chicks....
Anyway people have been doing phenotypic selection for a very long time, I don't see how genotypic selection is any worse. People should have a right to know about any defects that the person they are going to be reproducing with might have.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The problem is the machinery merely existing means it would be used for broader purposes, including the merely cosmetic. And when it is used, it will diminish the genetic diversity of our species
I guess you don't know much about genetics. The way you look has nothing to do with how susceptible you are to a pathogen. No one would want to have a child that is not of there own DNA, that would be boring, and pointless. You'd be carrying, and raising someone else's child.
It is possible to remove or add one trait, and leave the others alone. Changing someone's Eye color is not going to reduce genetic diversity.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
What about him? He still would be born, only not paralyzed.
Actually, he probably would not be. But that's not the fault of the human genome project, or the gene therapy that might someday result from it. It's the fault of biological testing. Nothing new there.
When and if gene therapy becomes available, it will still be difficult and expensive. Parental and prenatal screening are already available, and are far easier and cheaper. The world's wealthiest parents might opt to have a child even with a prenatal diagnosis of a devastating genetic defect. They know they could afford treatment. Everyone else would be advised to abort, and probably to avoid future pregnancies. If Hawking's parents had had such tests available, it's reasonable to assume he'd never have been born.
That having been said, I still don't think that genetic testing (or the human genome project for that matter) is a bad thing. It sounds cold, but for every Hawking that's never born as a result of genetic testing, there are countless others who would have done nothing but suffer. And drain the resources of the health care and education systems.
If you disagree, that's fine too. Don't get tested. But if your kid turns out to have a genetic disease that could have been prevented with screening and a judicious application of contraception, don't expect me to be happy about paying for the kid's lifetime stay in an institution. Or (if we're lucky) the kid's gene therapy.
I've actually already read Postrel. Interesting book, although I'm not sure if I agree wholeheartedly.
Back to HGP. I happen to disagree with the assertion that genetic manipulation would be progress. Social progress, that is; it's certainly technological progress. When we start genetic engineering, even on a limited scale, we move into a position where we risk entrenching these differences in social and political life. (Look at Heinlein's Beyond this horizon for an interesting point of view on a society living with genetic engineering). A society of ubermenschen - even worse, a society ruled by ubermenschen - is a dangerous society for all.
I'm not voicing this opinion from a position of ignorance, either. My little brother does genetic research and my mother's been involved in medical research as well.What I am doing is thinking of the consequences - damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead is all well and good, but you can't base a society on that kind of attitude. Especially when they're your own torpedoes.
Believe it or not, progress will occur even without genetic manipulation. We, as a society, have turned away from social disasters in the past. There's no reason we couldn't do it here.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
A common misunderstanding about the Human Genome Project is connecting the knowledge of the linear sequence of DNA to the function of that DNA and those genes. Knowing the arrangement of A's, C's, G's and T's does not equate to knowledge of how that gene is expressed, how it functions, how it is regulated, and how it produces phenotypes. The entire 22nd chromosome of the human genome was recently sequenced, but this certainly does not mean we understand what all the genes on chromosome 22 do. To assume the completion of the Human Genome Project in a few years marks the beginning of some kind of "Brave New World" is very presumptious. Genetics is decades away from understanding how the sequence of DNA makes a person.
Furthermore, those traits that presumably would be "selected for" by prospective parents, employers and insurance companies combine the effects of dozens (probably more) genes; the combinations are nearly impossible to understand. Traits such as size, IQ, emotional and physical health are determined by an incredible array of genes. Assuming we are close to understanding these processes is not warranted.
As well, scientists agree these traits are affected by environmental stimuli just as much as genetics. Genes confer potential exhibition of these traits, not the actual product. A person may have the ability to become the next Einstein but many environmental factors come together to determine if he/she actually does. Genetics is not a magic wand that determines the expression of characteristics on its own.
In conclusion, it is unwarranted at this time make assumptions about the abuses of the product of the Human Genome Project. The author of the article is correct in lobbying for increased debate surrounding this topic, but very presumptious about the effects. The potential for abuse is certainly there. However at the state of modern genetics, these doomsday scenarios are very improbable. The completion of the Human Genome Project should be viewed with optimism and joy at the completion of such a monumental task, not with apprehension.
Pete ------------ http://www.globalserve.net/~cpu -----------------
I have to wonder about the "soul" of these new genetic beings that we are going to create.
We're creating creatures now? Possibly soulless ones? Golly. I thought we were just mapping human chromosomes. Maybe (if we're lucky) finding ways to treat genetic diseases. AFAIK the only "creatures" being made are being made the old fashioned way. Y'know... with a mommy, and a daddy, and they... aw, go look it up.
Before penicilen, you could litiraly Die from getting a simple cut.
Today, that is unheard of, why? beacuse of antibiotics.
I'm not sure where you would place antibiotics, in number 2 or number 3. To me, they would clearly fit under number two. number 3 is imposible
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
You have two choices. you can
A: Find the gene sequence that leads to a predisposition for heart failure, so that it can be removed from the gene pool, saving millions of people each year, or
B: Actively stop people from finding it, beacuse it could hypotheticaly be used to stop people from getting insurance, dispite the fact that there are already laws stating that Insurance firms cannot look at your genetic information...
Would you really chose B?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I've been thinking about this problem off and on for a while, and since the announement that we've completely mapped a significant milestone of human genetic code, it's been much more on than off.
The possible 'dark' side of this may be self-ending. Katz mentions Communism in his article. The one thing that you'll notice is that with Communism, politicians would make a limited political move (Khruschev coming to power and releasing thousands of political prisioners, for example.) The problem, for the Politburo anyway, ended up not releasing this change but controling humanity's undeniable need to do what they think is best, and the majority's universal tendancy to eventually reach the correct conclusion.
I think that we'll always *EVENTUALLY* reach the correct conclusions. Take slavery, for example. In the United States, early drafts of the Declaration of Independence take steps to 'outlaw' slavery. We made the mistake of letting it continue for a while, but eventually, we formally outlawed it, and are now moving very close to actual racial equality. We're also stronger for coming to the right conclusion on our own. It's unfortuanate that any living creature has to suffer for the lackluster speed at which we reach the correct conclusions, but it's good that we reach them. If we had never had a Nazi Germany and World War II, if we'd never seen the horrible effects of even the most primitive nuclear bomb, do you think that we'd have fought out so strongly and with such power against fascist dictators, or against the use of nuclear weapons? I solemnly don't believe so. For every life lost with the use of nuclear weapons in Japan, how many have been saved by avoding a global horror of a global, thermonuclear war?
Overall, we must exerscise caution when entering uncharted territory, it's dangerous, we must watch our steps, but we must be confident in our species ability to be self-righting, and it's amazing ability to do the correct thing.
And these are single-gene diseases, things that have very clear-cut phenotypes, things that we knew about long before the Project even started. Indeed, some of these things had already been sequenced. But how much more daunting would it be to try to come up with a genetic basis for things that we don't even have strict (or even vague, for that matter) biological/physical definitions for, like intelligence? I'm not saying it won't happen, but I think we'll have decades, if not centuries, to worry about it.
While cosmetic uses (as opposed to medical uses) for gene engineering will probably happen, it won't be the thrust of the technology, anymore than it is with surgery today. I'm pretty sure most scientists will be engrossed with solving existing problems before mucking around trying to create the "perfect baby." After all, if you had the money to fund a project, would you give money to something that would help your children but not yourself, or would you give money to something that would help you as well? And I really think it would be a one or the other situation, at least for now. Doing genetic engineering in somatic cells would be a lot different from doing it in germ cells.
Add to this the complication that the most pressing disorders are not of pure genetic origin, such as heart disease and cancer, and the idea of perfecting the human race simply through genetics becomes absurd. Heart disease has obvious environmental factors, and if you don't correct those, no amount of genetic engineering will save you. In fact, people without predispositions for heart disease can screw themselves over eating the wrong foods. And while some types of cancer have obvious hereditary components, all they do is set you up for the fall, like in retinoblastoma, Li Fraumeni's disease, or breast cancer. Environmental factors are the straws that break the camel's back--these are mainly light from the sun and oxygen, things you cannot avoid. Our DNA is being damaged every hour. It's just that most of these damaged cells are meant to die anyway, but sometimes you get unlucky. If you don't die of something else, if we somehow magically cure every other disease on the planet, you will die of cancer. The only way we can solve it is if we find a way to store genetic information in a more robust form than DNA--something science fiction writers like talking about. So while I'm not going to say it's impossible, that's certainly a long way off.
In addition, a lot of less common maladies are de novo mutations. While they can be inherited, a large number of cases just pretty much come out of thin air, from completely normal parents, conditions like neurofibramatosis and Down's Syndrome. In the case of Down's Syndrome, there is very little you can do about it in terms of raw sequence data. Someone will have to figure out why non-disjunction occurs with this chromosome so often--but even that's not that helpful because non-disjunction happens often with every chromosome. It's just that Down's Syndrome is the only one that is compatible with life. Everything else is spontaneously aborted, sometimes even without the mother knowing she was pregnant. So while maybe sequence info can help--we might figure out how certain sequences are important as binding sites in mitosis--sequence info will not be the sole answer. Some creative scientist will have to figure it out.
The idea of eugenics is pretty anathema to the current scientific mindset. Sure, there are some scientists out there who believe in it, but I really think that what we know is against them. As pessimistic as it sounds, I'm pretty sure Nature will figure out some way to kill us even if we somehow eliminated all disorders we know about now. Look at tuberculosis. We thought we had it licked, and now it's coming back. Look at HIV. Everything we throw at it just makes it stronger. Our drugs are in fact making it evolve into something less controllable.
Concern about insurance companies demanding sequence info, and discriminating on the basis of it is perhaps more relevant to current issues. Obviously, this is not going to happen very soon, considering that the human genome project is taking as long as it is. It is very unlikely that everyone will have to wait 10 years to get their sequence done and therefore get approved. But let's say we do figure out a way to do it in a more reasonable time frame. Well, this is nothing new--and I have issues with the existing system. Insurance companies already discriminate according to pre-existing conditions. Got diabetes? Too bad. Got thyroiditis? Oh well. How sequence info will make this better or worse is anybody's guess, but it's not going to turn us overnight into Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Genetic screening already happens. People choose to abort fetuses that are "defective." Here's a novel case: an achondroplasic couple wanted an achondroplasic child, and wanted to abort it they had a normal child. But karyotypes for Down's are practically routine. I don't see us filing in line for soma just yet. (Or wait. Maybe that's what TV is...) I agree that the Human Genome Project and the ethics of what genetic engineering we are doing now are important topics to think about. But this article does nothing to explore issues regarding these topics that are relevant today. Like how drug companies are patenting genes. Or how some biotech companies are trying to make designer seeds that won't reproduce. Or how insurance companies are already using medical information to discriminate and basically deny treatment, using the rudimentary genetic screening we know now. There are a lot of issues that are much closer than the fear of someone trying to design supermen. I say first things first.
Jon Katz's article seems to belie a misunderstanding of the Human Genome Project and of genetics in general, and it doesn't do much to address issue relevant to today. While undeniably, knowing the entire human genome can eventually lead to trying to make changes in it, Katz makes it sound as if the Project itself is an attempt at eugenics. All we will have in three years or less is an incredibly long string made up of four letters. In of itself, it will not tell us anything that we don't already know or at least have an idea of. There will be no magical messages, no sudden insights afforded by this knowledge. The things that will benefit from sequence info are things we are already studying, and while it will be useful, it will certainly not be the end-all-be-all. For example, the gene that most biologists think (not all agree!) causes cystic fibrosis was discovered before the Project even started, and we even had an idea as to what it did before we got any sequence info. Not to say that sequence info isn't helpful--it helped narrow down what the most common mutation was--but it requires a lot more than sequence info to understand what these things do and how to control them. Even with the sequence info, we don't have a conclusive understanding of why a mutation in CFTR causes the symptoms that it does. Same thing with Huntington's Disease. Sure, we've found the mutation, but we have no idea what the gene does. We just gave the gene product the name huntingtinin because its function is unknown, even though we have the sequence
And these are single-gene diseases, things that have very clear-cut phenotypes, things that we knew about long before the Project even started. Indeed, some of these things had already been sequenced. But how much more daunting would it be to try to come up with a genetic basis for things that we don't even have strict (or even vague, for that matter) biological/physical definitions for, like intelligence? I'm not saying it won't happen, but I think we'll have decades, if not centuries, to worry about it.
While cosmetic uses (as opposed to medical uses) for gene engineering will probably happen, it won't be the thrust of the technology, anymore than it is with surgery today. I'm pretty sure most scientists will be engrossed with solving existing problems before mucking around trying to create the "perfect baby." After all, if you had the money to fund a project, would you give money to something that would help your children but not yourself, or would you give money to something that would help you as well? And I really think it would be a one or the other situation, at least for now. Doing genetic engineering in somatic cells would be a lot different from doing it in germ cells.
Add to this the complication that the most pressing disorders are not of pure genetic origin, such as heart disease and cancer, and the idea of perfecting the human race simply through genetics becomes absurd. Heart disease has obvious environmental factors, and if you don't correct those, no amount of genetic engineering will save you. In fact, people without predispositions for heart disease can screw themselves over eating the wrong foods. And while some types of cancer have obvious hereditary components, all they do is set you up for the fall, like in retinoblastoma, Li Fraumeni's disease, or breast cancer. Environmental factors are the straws that break the camel's back--these are mainly light from the sun and oxygen, things you cannot avoid. Our DNA is being damaged every hour. It's just that most of these damaged cells are meant to die anyway, but sometimes you get unlucky. If you don't die of something else, if we somehow magically cure every other disease on the planet, you will die of cancer. The only way we can solve it is if we find a way to store genetic information in a more robust form than DNA--something science fiction writers like talking about. So while I'm not going to say it's impossible, that's certainly a long way off.
In addition, a lot of less common maladies are de novo mutations. While they can be inherited, a large number of cases just pretty much come out of thin air, from completely normal parents, conditions like neurofibramatosis and Down's Syndrome. In the case of Down's Syndrome, there is very little you can do about it in terms of raw sequence data. Someone will have to figure out why non-disjunction occurs with this chromosome so often--but even that's not that helpful because non-disjunction happens often with every chromosome. It's just that Down's Syndrome is the only one that is compatible with life. Everything else is spontaneously aborted, sometimes even without the mother knowing she was pregnant. So while maybe sequence info can help--we might figure out how certain sequences are important as binding sites in mitosis--sequence info will not be the sole answer. Some creative scientist will have to figure it out.
The idea of eugenics is pretty anathema to the current scientific mindset. Sure, there are some scientists out there who believe in it, but I really think that what we know is against them. As pessimistic as it sounds, I'm pretty sure Nature will figure out some way to kill us even if we somehow eliminated all disorders we know about now. Look at tuberculosis. We thought we had it licked, and now it's coming back. Look at HIV. Everything we throw at it just makes it stronger. Our drugs are in fact making it evolve into something less controllable.
Concern about insurance companies demanding sequence info, and discriminating on the basis of it is perhaps more relevant to current issues. Obviously, this is not going to happen very soon, considering that the human genome project is taking as long as it is. It is very unlikely that everyone will have to wait 10 years to get their sequence done and therefore get approved. But let's say we do figure out a way to do it in a more reasonable time frame. Well, this is nothing new--and I have issues with the existing system. Insurance companies already discriminate according to pre-existing conditions. Got diabetes? Too bad. Got thyroiditis? Oh well. How sequence info will make this better or worse is anybody's guess, but it's not going to turn us overnight into Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Genetic screening already happens. People choose to abort fetuses that are "defective." Here's a novel case: an achondroplasic couple wanted an achondroplasic child, and wanted to abort it they had a normal child. But karyotypes for Down's are practically routine. I don't see us filing in line for soma just yet. (Or wait. Maybe that's what TV is...) I agree that the Human Genome Project and the ethics of what genetic engineering we are doing now are important topics to think about. But this article does nothing to explore issues regarding these topics that are relevant today. Like how drug companies are patenting genes. Or how some biotech companies are trying to make designer seeds that won't reproduce. Or how insurance companies are already using medical information to discriminate and basically deny treatment, using the rudimentary genetic screening we know now. There are a lot of issues that are much closer than the fear of someone trying to design supermen. I say first things first.
We were programmed to judge beauty, now our judgements will directly influence that program. Homo sapiens evolution will speed up, by means of "cultural selection" :-)
I think the one thing one should consider is the long term effect on the genepool...
If 1) everybody is gonna go for thesame genes, the genepool will inevitably get smaller. Bad thing - variation is essential. Note that just eradicating common diseases would probably have thesame effect.
But if 2) scientists introduce mutations and variations that are as of yet uncommon, that would actually increase the genepool. Of course environmentalists will probably be screaming we're "playing god" again.
Fact is that's how the system works: mutation introduces variety, evolution makes/takes the best of it. Evolution on its own will not (always) result in a perfect solution.
(I heard there's this grasshopper that has nerves running down it's lower body and back up to it's upper body to control it's wings. That just makes it more prone to defects/less resistant to trauma. Apparently it had evolved from a species where the wings were lower or something - the ones with the higher wings were just more successful over generations.)
OTOH one might argue if the rate of mutation is increased too much with respect to evolution, you might get mutation unfiltered by evolution (evolution filters out the more successful properties)
What I'm saying is that both should still be there: We can't just pretend were "evolution" by scrapping a bunch of genes we don't like, without increasing mutation (-> poorer genepool, less resilient)
OTOH we can't just be "mutation", cause the bad stuff might not get filtered out so quickly.
As always there should be a balance between the two. On top of that we'll probably do a better job at mutation (since natural mutation is mostly random), but we'll also probably do a worse job at evolution; (we might scrap some genes that would have proven to be benificial over generations)
Oh well, bit of a long rant.
Yeah, genetic manipulation might not be positive social progress. Probably isn't. But that doesn't (IMHO) mean we should make it illegal, or even abandon something like the HGP. It's difficult at best to forsee the effects of the HGP - Gattica and Beyond This Horizon aside - we can merely speculate.
I would prefer to wait until some early results are in before we assume the worst. I'd like to think that a genetengineered oligarchy wouldn't arise. Of course, given enough rope, humanity has a history of attempting to hang itself.
BTW, went to my local B&N (evil corporate entity alert!) to grab Dale, and it wasn't in. Got it on order, should be here in a few days.
Off to re-read Brave New World. :)
Cheers,
Brian
The fact that the Greeks, in general, were a long lived group is widely accepted; the reason why they lived so long is also interesting. I have read more than one version of the widely-held theory that DIET and EXCERCISE played a vital part in the longevity of greeks. I believe their diet usually consisted of a kind of gruel, fish/seafood, wine and olives - very little harmful fat. Take a greek and feed him fatty food all his life and he'll have a more *normal* life expectancy. For a present day parallel to the greeks lifespan and reason why, just check the statistics on people from the Caucasus - they live a long time and eat lots of yoghurt. :)
To throw something in... the Spartans practiced a kind of infant culling in that babies that were weak, or judged sickly, were left exposed to the elements. Only the strongest children were given the opportunity to live. In other words, the spartans bred themselves for health, strength and virility for hundreds of years - voluntarily. They were famed for their physical prowess but laughed at for their ignorance of logic. The Spartans were defeated by the lowly and physically weaker Corinthians by use of a new deep phalanx tactic. Sparta's military power was broken forever.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I didn't mean to convey the idea that humanity hasn't aspired to Playing God; quite the contrary, it is our attempts at Playing God that brought about our repeated chastisements according to biblical history.
I know some may not adhere to the biblical teachings and I can deal with that but... those teachings and writings do have a VERY IMPRESSIVE RECORD of being correct. Look at the order of events in Genesis itself! While not a verbatim account of the beginning, it carries much fact that pure empirical science agrees with. I think the Bible is a most interesting and important work - a friend in paper.
I go about almost everything I do with a scientific point of view (which gets me into trouble sometimes) and gathering information from the Bible while looking at it from a scientific point of view yields much useful information - especially when taken as a whole and not out of context. It's absolutely uncanny!
So, if we're Playing God now... what may we expect to happen?
Fact: God is an Extraterrestrial.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
If we have the right to end the life of undeveloped human fetuses for personal reasons, why should we not have the right to alter/'improve' the life that fetus might have when it develops? Uniformity does not equal lack of individuality, we already have clones in our society they are called twins.
My personal opinion, human life at any stage of development has a right to go through its existence naturally without outside intervention, but everyone has their own opinions and exerts their own influence over the people around them and it would be hypocritical to control this. Humanity is going to take the path of least resistance, wherever that takes us. It might not be perfect but everyones idea of what is perfect is different anyways
Can't JonKatz keep his tragic sense of life to himself? Must we be subjected to his personal pain, must he raise it to the level of an "issue"?
ATHEIST, FUCK YOU BITCH. GOD WILL KILL YOU!
Your basiclly spouting back tv and similar stories all of which are of limited range. There will doubtless be a rough period of transition where we do dumb things and make mistakes but as always the wheel keeps rolling and soon the technology will seem like yesterdays tinkertoys as we go on to bigger and better things. Society will change, it is always in flux, because any society who doesn't change ceases to exist. Evolution will always win. Those that choose to breed so called perfect children will restrict their own evolution and will eventually out-date themselves over several generations. It is those that are on the fringe that move our society and species ahead. It'd be nice to cure illnesses and assure mainstream society is at least a minimum level of quality but the mainstream will never be the bleeding edge. Man can not stop evolution. Our choices and inventions are evolution in motion. We are nothing more than lab rats to the gods.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
... not the technology in itself that is the defining issue.
Lets face it the world isn't going to become a better/worse place because a new technology is developped. Use of technology refelcts society and over time shapes it. People don't change overnight just because something new is developped.
In a few years time we will know alot more about the genetic makeup of humans, some would call it a "blueprint" of mankind. So ? Does knowledge have to become a dangerous thing every we have more of it.
Most of the people don't know much about genetics, aren't particularly interested in learning but say "We'll have no control over it we shouldn't mess with thing we don't understand"
This sort of argument really makes despair of humanity.
As if most people in the western world wanted control over their lives, to have to make difficult decisions, to have to think, to choose between options.
Of course they don't, the majority of the western world wan't to sit back and let someone drive them through their cosy life and not to have to make a decision more complicated than what sitcom they want to watch on TV.
Of course all technologies have "dark sides" even the wheel. Where would we be now if way back then they decided that the "wheel technology" was way to dangerous to be used and they discarded it.
Even more so what if they decided against farming or domestication of animals because they were scared of the effects of living in one place would have on society.
Of course back then the choice was alot easier to make, but we have alot more time to think about our choices now than they had then all we need is the will.
I used to have a sig but I left it on a bus
Think about this for a moment; one day you can be a man the next a woman maybe the next you'll want to be green. Not only this will be possible but you could change your bones from weak brittle old calcium to a super light buckyball carbon structure. Have superstrong muscles and perhaps move your brain inside your rib cage for safety's sake. In other words become a new species. The world about us will become programable and easily adaptable to any disease or changes that occur.
Nanotechnology is not without it's dangers as is genetic engineering. But genetic engineering will only be the beginning of our understanding of organic processes (along with non-linear mathematics). In the end it will lead to organic machines and individuals that may be indistinguishable from the machines that aid their lives.
On one hand you have evolution of our species with our history kept intact, or a takeover by another species who sees our history and culture in the same way that we see the dinosaurs.
"What about developing and Third-World nations, where few will have access to Perfect Baby technologies? You mean if everybody can't have it, nobody should have it? I thought that this was a basic idea of Russian communism in the 20s, but it kinda went out of fashion since then."
The issue isn't as simple as you make it sound. First-world access to large-scale genetic "improvements" without third-world access to similar would lead to a very sharp increase in the current gap between the haves and have-nots. Every time in society that that gap becomes too great, some form of revolution occurs .. the "haves" would have the benefit of technology but the "have-nots" would have the benefits of numbers. This is an issue that is in everyones best interests to keep in check, don't be so quick to dismiss it out of hand.
And thus eliminate one of the natural imunities to malaria.
Sickle-cell is a classic case of something that appears deadly (and, in fact, is, in homozygote form) but turns out to be an adaptation. This is why the condition still existed when people started studying it. According to the Hardy-Weinberg formula (a simple formula that predicts the spread of gene combinations in a population (e.g., the % of AA, Aa and aa) sickle-cell should have virtualy disapeared a long time ago. This confused scientists for quite some time, untill it was realized that the heterozygote case (Aa) was actualy selected for because it confered resistance to malaria.
I'm not arguing against the human genome project, and frankly I think Katz's article was reactionary & appeals to our baser impulses, but there is a strong argument to be made against genetic manipulation unless we're d*mn sure we know what we're doing.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I hate GNOME and KDE for that matter. BeOS is the best. I love multi-media and all its benefits (porn).
Real men dump cores! Read my journal, I am neat.
As Dr. Evil says: "Riiiiight"
l ighting-glass-floored-parking-lot.
Ever heard of mutually assured destruction? It's a little different these days. Now it seems to be fire-a-nuke-and-we-turn-your-country-into-a-self-
The offensive capability of using nuclear weapons is not worth the cost of having nuclear weapons used on YOUR country. Add to this the fact the the entire nuclear-armed world will be all over you like white on rice, and it's not very good, unless you're trying to get "dealt with".
Look at what a war is supposed to accomplish these days. They're not usually land grabs -- the UN has pretty much shown that those are no longer allowed. What they do is show power. The intent is not to leave acres of scorched earth or to kill off the civilian population, but to remove the enemy's ability to make war against you or your allies (in the case of "defensive-strikes") or to remove their high-value targets (hydro plants, power stations, military labs, etc etc) in the case of offensive strikes.
The point is that none of these targets require the power of nuclear/thermonuclear weapons. FAE (fuel-air explosion) is approximately 5x as powerful as the equivalent mass of TNT. As a matter of fact, our military advisors reccomend that we abstain from using them much, because they're so powerful they look like nukes. With none of the messy cleanup/politics of having tossed heavy unstable metals all over the place. Unless you're trying to take out mountain-bunkers (NORAD, etc) you don't really need nuclear weapons to do it.
To most directly answer your question: if someone starts tossing around high-yield nuclear weapons, that person is a threat to EVERY nation on earth, and has indirectly attacked them via environmental damage. This implicit declaration of war is all it would take for most countries to send some toys over (sir, there's a US carrier group en route. uhhhhh...) and end that little problem. Since nobody is crazy enough to WANT that to happen (see previous example re: glass-floor), nukes are generally saved for last-ditch counterstrikes. Thus, in a way, nukes are solely defensive weapons.
"All I do is eat and poop!" -- Bean
As long as short-term profits are the primary goal of this research, we are in grave danger of stumbling forward with applications of a technology we do not understand, especially given the total inter-connectedness of all life on this planet, which the divide and conquer methodology of classical science has never really come to terms with.
Didn't you also learn in your history class that nothing in history class is true? It is what people think is true based on the evidence they can find. This evidence is usually horribly incomplete and biased. If you meet someone who _saw_ what happened, then they are probably talking some sense. Even then, a lot people in attendance at historical events have their own agendas, so who knows. If you meet someone who talked to someone who saw what happened, they will be talking less sense.
Your text book has taken these chunks of evidence and strung them together to support one point of view, exactly the same as you are supposed to do when you write essays. This does not mean it is true!! You are not supposed to be learning a lot of True Facts about History. You are learning the ability to find sources, analyse them, and invent plausible _theories_ about what happened. You are allowed to say "This is likely to be the case because this quote from a guy who saw it supports it". You are not allowed to say "This is the case because it is in my history book" !!