Slashdot Mirror
Planet Gattaca
No subject sends the techno-ostriches ("we-just-make-this-stuff, we're-not-responsible-for-it") rushing angrily for their holes in the ground faster than any suggestion that genetic research, increasingly computer driven, is proceeding more rapidly than any consideration of the staggeringly complex social, moral and ethical issues it raises.
This is all is too far away to worry about, they squawk. Or it won't really happen. Only scientists, programmers and biologists understand it enough to talk about it, anyhow.
But 1997's eerily prescient movie "Gattaca" proves once more that science fiction does better peering into the future than scientists themselves. In that movie, whose ads included a line that says: "There is no gene for the human spirit," Vincent (Ethan Hawke) a young man of the future, wants to travel in space, but he can't because he has a heart condition. So he can't pass the genetic screening tests that have turned humanity into a two-tiered class, the perfect and the others.
Vincent is one of the last "natural" babies born into a sterile, genetically-enhanced world, where life expectancy and health are determined instantly at birth. Myopic and slated to die at 30, he has no chance of a prestigious career in a society that no longer discriminates because of race or gender, but because of genes. He assumes the identity of Jerome, healthy at birth but crippled in an accident, who provides Vincent with hair, blood and urine samples to he can get through checkpoints and pass the astronaut's screening tests. Vincent plans to voyage into space in only a few days if he can avoid the gene police, who are trying to track him through an eyelash he left behind on an office floor after a superior who discovered his secret is found dead.
What's so bizarre about "Gattaca" is that it's not really even science fiction, but an early documentary of the 21st Century. Genome research is now going on all over the world, the idea that we can unravel the essence of life enthralling scientists, who believe they may at long last be able to eliminate mental and physical disease, prolong life, and greatly ease human suffering.
In all this enthusiasm, there is less consideration of the nature of a world in which there is no human suffering, or what, precisely, suffering even means. Or in which whole categories of humanity - the mentally and physically impaired, the short, the ugly, the rebellious, the depressed, the addictive - may soon begin vanishing from the earth. There isn't much talk either about the social implications of a reality in which this high-powered genetic screening capabilities are available only to technologically-advanced classes and cultures.
News of Gattaca Nation projects roll in almost daily. There is the Mother Gattaca Project, the Human Genome Project, stumbling but well on its way to cataloguing all the DNA strands of human existence sometime in the 21st century.
Last week, a genetic research company announced it planned to map the genes of the entire Icelandic population and to beginning drawing DNA samples there. The 275,000 mostly homogeneous residents of Iceland are considered ideally suited to genetic study; according to Wired News researchers believe that creating a massive genetic database could lead to the discovery of disease patterns and new drugs.
Last Tuesday, microbiologists at the University of North Carolina said they had examined two of the smallest known bacteria, a kind known as Mycoplasma. Their minimum set of genes -- the ones needed to survive and replicate in a nutrient-rich environment -- from 265 to 350, said the researchers, who told reporters that building a cell from scratch no longer appears impossible.
Elsewhere last week, the BBC reported, scientists working at the Institute for Genome Research in Maryland announced that they believe they have found the essence of life - at least on a genetic level - which comes down to about 300 genes. This is the minimum set of molecular instructions required to build a living organism. "It [the building of such an organism] would clearly be creating a new species of life that does not exist," conceded Dr. Craig Venter, founder of the Institute for Genetic Research (TIGR) and the head of the Celera Genomics Corporation.
Dr. Venter is unequivocal: he now has the ability to build a living organism - a new species. This statement ought to have rocked the world, sending journalists, ethicists, scientists, lawmakers and politicians scurrying to figure out what that means for humanity, good and bad.
But apart from links to a few websites (including this one), it barely made news at all.
The lessons of technology - that it is inherently unpredictable, and even the best intentions often unleash unintended consequence - ought to make us wary of this runaway genetic research. Dr. Venter made a point of telling reporters that there will be no effort made to proceed with this experiment until there has been a "full and public debate."
But it's worth noting that Dr. Venter and his team want to study the ethical issues after, not before, his team in Maryland has already pared down the tiniest-known living organism, a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium, to its essential genes. It's dubious this secret will be kept for long, no matter what the result of this "debate." If these findings weren't troubling, even to the scientists uncovering them, why the need for a debate at all?
M. genitalium, says Dr. Venter, lives in the human genital tract and lungs, causes no known disease, but has fewer genes than any other known living thing. Humans have beetween 80,000 and 140,000 genes, say geneticists, but M. genitalium has just 480.
"I think if we could get down to the point of truly understanding and having one of the formulas for life - and you have to understand that there are thousands if not millions of different formulas - it would be a profound breakthrough," Dr. Venter told the BBC.
That's an understatement. Finding the formula for life would dwarf almost any previous scientific achievement that comes to mind, not to mention knocking conventional religion and theology on their antiquated behinds. What is a theologian supposed to tell some kid who can read the recipe for human life? If we can make it, doesn't that raise certain ultimate questions?
Dr. Venter says that "we are not going to carry out this experiment until there has been a broader debate on this issue," a common refrain among biologists and geneticists.
But where is this debate supposed to occur? In Threads on Slashdot? In the United States Congress, whose idea of technological debate is requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in schools? Or in the American media, still stuck on hacking and cracking, e-commerce, or whether or not Johnny will sneak onto the Playboy website?
Recently a group of bio-ethicists met with a panel drawn from the Roman Catholic, Jewish and Protestant faiths and concluded: "There is nothing in the research agenda for creating a minimal genome that is automatically prohibited by legitimate religous considerations."
So what? Is that the only major ethical issue? And why put this discussion in the hands of scientists and members of organized religion -- the latter probably responsible for more hatred, bloodshed and cruelty than any other single force in human history?
Dr. Venter has only to log onto the discussion that will follow this column to get a realistic dose of just how likely it is that a rational, coherent public discussion of "scientists-playing-God" will take place.
"Gattaca" wasn't the first crack that culture took at this issue. Mary Shelley published her brilliant take nearly two hundred years ago in the novel "Frankenstein", which found in the discovery and taming of nature's most powerful secrets a hidden agenda for trouble.
Victor Frankenstein didn't like being questioned about the morality of the things he made and the secrets he unlocked any more than his successors do. When his own monster challenged him, he called him a fiend and a freak and told him to get lost. He paid for it dearly.
H.G. Wells, who helped invent science fiction with publication of his first novel "The Time Machine," foresaw that the future could be a dangerous place, and was one of the first novelists to place his characters in the context of technological and biological evolution.
But despite his own training as a biologist, Wells never imagined the discoveries that would create the new science of molecular biology soon after his death and dominate the landscape of biology into the next millenium.
The issue with these Gattaca projects isn't whether or not they should proceed. Only the most fanatic Luddites could seriously argue that understanding the secrets of human existence and eradicating disease ought to be - or even could be - forbidden? Geneticists believe human cloning is only a few years away, legally authorized or not.
About all we can do is hold Dr. Venter and his colleagues to their word, and hope there is some rational discussion somewhere before the corporate lawsuits and patent issues are resolved, and the first genetic research lab starts peddling perfect, cheerful Icelandic babies around the world.
To stop the research would be to deny one of the noblest traits of the human character - to figure out the world and make it better.
But Victor Frankenstein's problem is our problem. "The world," he declares in the novel, "was to me a secret which I desired to divine. Curiosity, earnest research to learn the hidden laws of nature, gladness akin to rapture, as they were unfolded to me, are amongst the earliest sensations I can remember."
Victor would be having the time of his life in the modern world, where his kind of research is no longer even considered controversial, where corporations dominate regulators and lawmakers, and where experiments that play around with human life don't have to be conducted in remote, crumbling Gothic towers, but get the enthusiastic support of venture capitalists and punch-drunk, morally-oblivious technologists.
But the words of Victor's creation are even creepier in l999 than they were when Mary Shelley first wrote them:
"You propose to kill me," thundered the monster when Victor threatened him if he didn't go away. "How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends."
The monster's warnings - and Shelley's instincts -- were more than borne out in the horrific bloodbaths and environmental havoc of the two centuries that followed them.
Victor didn't listen then, and nobody's much listening now. But the warning still rings true.
Katz says that the discovery of the minimum number of genes neede to make a life form will mock religion because it is antiquated. However all the scientists are doing is taking pre-existing building blocks, that behave in a pre-existing way in nature and trying to make an organism that uses as few as possible. The likelyhood is that they will fail because the genes are more complex than the scientists really understand. Nature tends to eliminate unneeded genetic parts over time so it is likely that the organism is very close to having as small a genetic code as possible to allow it to survive and reproduce. Removing genetic material may allow it to only exist in special laboratory conditions, and reproduction may be less efficient. The scientists don't really know what is going to happen, which is why they carrry out the experiment, but just removing possibly unneeded genetic material from an organism is no where near creating life.
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
This one is devoid of content, Jon! All you've said is that humans are studying genetics and that this is a bad, dangerous thing. You haven't told us why (except that it will raise some uncomfortable questions for religious people). You may vague references to Gattaca, but never once say *why* genetic engineering may be a problem.
Your journalism is even a little lacking, because you don't even mention any of the possible benefits: cures for cancer, the correction of genetic illnesses, etc. If you want to state a debate, offer points of view from both sides.
We can't debate with you if you haven't provided us any substance!!!
Dana
Without further ado, here it is:
I think my point is made: science can never explain the primal causes, can never account for the ultimate origin of anything. To try to claim otherwise is the worst kind of hubris. And I do wish that you would try to be at least a little more balanced in your coverage.-- Slashdot sucks.
All in all a very poignant movie about an all-too forseeable future.
He is glossing over an important fact: The human genome will be decoded. The question is whether it will be open and available to all, or be the patented intellectual property of a few.
At least he did a little research; last time he posted on this topic he seemed unaware of Gattaca's existence.
I normally don't engage in Katz-swatting, but the Genome Project needs our support. We, the Open Source community are some of the best equipped to understand the importance of what may be the most important Open Content project to date.
Not so much a sig as a lack of one.
We're talking about two millenia worth of thought and reflection on life and morality here, Jon, not some Johnny-come-lately spawn of the so-called Enlightenment.
Katz and other intellectuals love to bash on Fundamentalists and Catholics as if they were all educationally stunted retards, which is a symptom of their own inability to deal with the arguments resented by those people. (It's called an "ad hominem" attack.) The fact of the matter is that Catholicism, Judaism and other monotheistic religions include large numbers of people whose brainpower makes Katz look like the tenth-rate scribbler he is. Fifty years from now, does anyone seriously think that Katz will be thought of as being in the same league as William F. Buckley, to name but one well-known Catholic intellectual?
In any case, this is just typical whining by somebody who doesn't like the answers he's getting from organized religion and therefore assumes that there are no good answers. Can we just have another link to suck.com next time? At least that was amusing.
People tend to get bent out of shape not because this proposes to synthesize bacterial life, but because they fear that this will eventually lead to being able to synthesize human life from raw chemicals. People further vaguely worry that synthesizing human life would remove the distinction between animal and human, life and non-life, and rationalize all sorts of non-ethical things. However, they're wrong, and organized religion already has agreed with me. First, the worry, then the reassurance.
The uninformed worry goes something like this: if you believe there is no clear demarcation between an adult and an infant, infant and a fetus, a fetus and an embryo, embryo and a zygote, and scientists are able to synthesize a zygote from pure chemicals, it's only a few more assumptions to get to the conclusion that humans are just complex probablistic automata, not worthy of special value or consideration above insects.
However, the problem with this unfocused anxiety which Katz shows signs of, but fails to properly examine, is that it makes fundamental assumptions which are not proven, or even likely. The flaw is that if the components of life are deterministically constructed, it is still possible to believe in a human soul, in a self with free will, and all the special value and ethical considerations that human life is due. All you have to do is read GEB (Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid) by Douglas R Hofstadter.
Religion long ago agreed with the GEB premise (or a parallel one) when it accepted evolution (even guided by God, which also doesn't imply a lack of free will). Evolution is exactly the same type of (probablistic) process that chemically constructing a human is, so it doesn't follow that synthetic people don't have souls in just the same way that evolution does not imply that all humans are mere selfless animals. The religious advisors know that, but the common lay people like Katz never got wise to the deeper meaning of the earlier debate on evolution.
"There's so much left to know/ and I'm on the road to find out." -Cat Stevens
Wow, Katz certainly tugs the chains of FUD like the best of them - quoting Shelly like a madman.
I, however, see wonderful applications of this knowlege - first create the simplest organism that can live. Then start adding to it - add the genes for producing Insulin. Grow the microbes in huge vats - poof! Insulin by the gallon, for pennies per gallon.
How about figuring out a carbon sequencing gene set? The "programming" of it would be maybe the greatest intellectual challenge we've had recently, but in the end - poof! microbes that can produce petroleum products. Where we need them. No more supertankers, no more oil wells, no more pipelines. Make it where it's used. (Of course that will cripple the economies of dozens of countries around the world... side effects are unavoidable. On the good side, it will probably take years, so there will be plenty of warning for those smart enough to take the hint)
Or how about a microbe that binds carbon out of the atmosphere? Convert CO2 to O2 with super efficient microbes - poof! space travel just got a whole lot easier. The greenhouse effect could be reversed. No wait - better than reversed - regulatable. No more Ice Ages while we're around.
And the downside? People will try to kill off diseases, resist pests, etc. The problems we have now with breeding resistant bugs and germs will only accelerate. It's been a brush war so far - soon we'll be bringing in the heavy artillery. We're pretty tough - I think we'll win in the end. But there will be quite a bit of "colateral damage" to the environment.
How about AIDS? Maybe the solution isn't killing the disease, maybe the best solution is to alter our genes - raise a new generation that AIDS can't affect at all.
In all this though we'll do it because we can - there will always be a soft spot to open the door to this research ("But we can use it to cure Muscular Distrophy! Surely you can't be against THAT?"). And it will happen - moral discussions are irrelevant. Whatever is "decided" the research will go on. Pandoras box cannot be closed again.
We just have to make the best of it.
Mycoplasma genitalium, sequenced by Fraser and Venter, is in principle a deletion mutant of Mycoplasma pneumoniae, sequenced by people from the group I'm in. That means, it lacks a few genes M. pneumoniae still considers interesting for general survival, but all in all those two species are highly similar, with the same genetic apparatus etc.
Both species can be subjected to random transposon mutagenesis - you shot at the genome with a tiny little thingie called "transposone", which randomly destroyes some gene. If the gene destroyed is important, such a cell will not grow and reproduce. Therefore in the mix you have only mycoplasmas, whos important genes are preserved, will grow. You can then use the Polymerase Chain Reaction to amplify and examine what genes specifically got destroyed - that means, which genes are not necessary to grow ...under laboratory conditions, of course. And ceteris paribus, that means - all other conditions being equall. Especially, other genes being intact.
Venter tries to a) make the impression that he did the work b) he's got a strain with xxx genes "switched off", which is not true. We only know that all of this 150+ genes are not needed for mycoplasmas to grow if other genes are intact. The way to constructing the "minimal cell" is long, if you want, I can get into details.
By the way, this information has three to four years, and Venter started talking about his "custom-made" M. genitalium about two years ago.
The whole project will make huge publicity and a very little contribution to science. First, "essence of life", my foot. A piece of RNA with a couple of molecules surrounding it is perfectly capable of proliferating, evolving and making you deathly sick, providing it finds enough cells to proliferate within. Intact mycoplasmas need a lot of organic substances in their growth medium - you have to add bovine serum. Essentially, the border between something quite inanimated like virus and a living cell is smooth. Next, this "crucial genes" will be different for different systems and assemblies. Finally, you have assembly this living cell out of "living" molecules - it needs polymerases, ATP, lipids, synthetised DNAs and RNAs and so on just to start living. Ian Wilmut put dead DNA into a "dead" (unable to proliferate, without genetic material) cell, so did he created new, artificial life? Bulls..cience. Artificial life will be when you start with natural, inorganic and simple molecules. Assembling existing parts has not much in common of finding an existing formula of life, especially because it will not help you understand how those parts work! And this is a different research (proteomics/transcriptomics) and it is really a way to go before there will be an appriopriate article on /.. By the way, /. publishes lately a lot of cheap sensations. Sorry to say it.
Regards,
January
(from the JanKatz-Falls-For-Every-Commercial-Trick-Dpt.)
And neither does religion. If you have such a problem with the universe existing by itself without a supreme will (AKA 'God') creating it, then, personally, I have a probleme with a supreme will existing by itself, therefore it has to have been created by something else, probably a metagod, which would need in turn a metametagod etc ...
This is one of the main fallacy of religion: the need for a first cause.
Here we have a common misconception. There need not be anything before God, because there is no before God. Time is not something which governs a supreme entity. Time is of necessity a function of God. Hence Time only affects those things which God has decreed they affect. Our entire existence, the entire existence of the universe, everything is simply one state of God's existence. We are all in essence part of God, just as the rest of the Universe is. There may very well be multiple universes, multiple planets teeming with intelligent life, all manner of things. Man can not dictate God's will to God. Finding alien life will not engender any kind of crisis of faith in me, nor will humans sticking together a few legos to create a simple organism. When Man creates something from nothing, then I will be impressed. Until then I can find no conflicts between my faith and our science.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Except keep in mind that to the eyes of some folks, genetic engineering is extremely dangerous, destructive, and could cause the end of the world as we know it. Or have you forgotten Monstanto's terminator seeds?
Why people worry about genetic engineering in general is that it introduces a new organism (by tinkering an existing one, granted) which had not existed before. The worry is that someday we'll create an organism for which there is no viable preditor, and it'll get released into the biosphere and like Kudzo in the west, will wipe out whole species and clog large chunks of the biosphere. Or worse: given that many organisms share genetic material (that is, many organisms will cross-swap DNA strands), we'll create an organism which cross-swaps it's DNA with other species and create something truely horrible.
It's the latter that's got everyone up in arms over terminator seeds, by the way: they're afraid the gene switch that makes the resulting plants sterile will swap into otherwise viable crops, rendering whole third-world farms sterile. And that's a bitch because in the third world, they use the seeds gathered from last year's crop to grow next year's food.
By changing a few words we get ...
Here we have a common misconception. There need not be anything before the universe, because there is no before the universe. Time is not something which governs a universe. Time is of necessity a function of the universe. Hence Time only affects those things which exist in the universe. Our entire existence, the entire existence of the universe, everything is simply one state of existence. We are all in essence part of the universe, just as the rest of the universe is. There may very well be multiple universes, multiple planets teeming with intelligent life, all manner of things. Man can only work within the physical laws of the universe. Finding alien life will not engender any kind of crisis of faith in me, nor will humans sticking together a few legos to create a simple organism. When Man creates something from nothing, then I will be impressed. Until then I can find no conflicts between my faith and our science.
Thus we see that the word "God" as used in the original post is simply a place holder and is logically equivalent to the word "universe" in this version.
The simple fact is that we don't know what existed before the universe. And any discussion about that topic is pure speculation.
I find this topic quite interesting. But I have no trouble sleeping not knowing the answer. Some people have a difficult time with this, and the concept of God serves an emotional need for them. I am not one of these people, and the concept of God as prime mover to me seems content free.
Steve M
Usually, it's Jon Katz who is the one guilty of techno-determinism; this time it's his critics.
It is not inevitable that the human genome will be decoded.
Likely? Yes, if things continue. But there's nothing inevitable about it. Y2K or a stray asteroid could wipe out technological society before the HGP completes. The governments of the world could stop funding HGP and outlaw further experimentation. All of the scientists involved could have a change of heart and abandon the project. The future is not know to us, and the progress of the HGP is due to deliberate human effort, not some force of nature.
No, the first question is whether this is worth doing at all. That is what Katz (in his unfortunately flame-baited style) is pointing out.
Only after the first question is answered does the second become relevant.
I suppose you will point out that the HGP will almost certainly complete no matter what public debate happens at this point. This is probably true, but it hardly reassures me that my voice is going to be heard on whether the results will be patentable.
O, what hubris!
A familiarity with software, and an agreement with the principles of open source, does not confer any special understanding of ethics and especially bioethics. This is arrogant (to think that because we know software, we are better equipped than the biochemists to know what they are doing) and elitist (because I Am A Technologist, my opinion matters more than my mom's).