It seems that selective genetic engineering is already a reality. Scientists used selective breeding to fertilize a human egg that did not possess the gene for Alzheimer's.
The potential benefits of such a program are obvious -- we can eliminate the potential for many of the diseases that now appear to be genetically linked.
But just how long will it be before people start picking and choosing their kid's genes with power like this? And how acceptable will it be in the eyes of society?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Gattaca.
Mark
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
Hmmm... so that means I can have blond twin boys with blue eyes. Scary thought...
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Yep. It'll start out as almost universally unacceptable. Then a few people will do it. And like so many other things, eventually it will become more and more common, thus, more and more acceptable, thus more and more common...
IMNSHO
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well, I see no problem with using these techniques to prevent the development of serious diseases and other afflictions. Heck, using these methods, it may become possible to seriously cut back on things like cancer, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, clinical depression...
But the opportunity to misuse this technique is also great. I forgot to mention Voyager's "Lineage" in which this exact same thing happened -- genetic engineering was used to cure some sort of genetic defect, but B'Elanna tried to change the kid's physical characteristics, too.
Of course, it's possible to go even beyond that step, and move into the territory of the Eugenics Wars -- creating children that will be "superior" in various ways: improved intelligence, strength, or whatever.
Let's just hope that this stuff can be restricted enough to ensure that it doesn't get out of hand...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Isn't this Office Lounge material, and not Trek material?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Probably. *move*
I'd also point out that it would be very difficult to regulate this to just deal w/ diseases and such. Officially, it might be used for that, but people will be slipping the doctors a couple hundred dollars under the proverbial table w/ a request for a perfect kid, and plenty of the doctors will do it.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I suspect, in one or two hundred years, people will look at our reluctance to use genetic engineering in the same way we look at the reluctance of some to use anesthesia one or two hundred years ago.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Let's hope not.
Also, there weren't exactly a lot of ethical or moral dilemmas regarding the use of anesthesia. This (i.e.: creating genetic templates) is a somewhat different situation.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
We think so.
But, again, I'm willing to bet it will be considered poor taste, if not downright illegal, to allow a child to be born with "uncorrected" genes in the future.
Posted by Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
Artificially altering people's gene's I fear will ultimately eliminate the need (or the ability) for the human genome to adapt and evolve. With uniformally similar genome structures mutations that could potentially be useful the the human race will be filtered out, and how can we know which mutations will and will not be beneficial?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
As eyeglasses have removed our ability to evolve better eyes? Or forklifts our ability to lift really big things?
Posted by Jernau Morat Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
Antagonist has a good point there. Although evolution is essentially over for those of us in the developed world, I think basic laws of nature still hold. Genetic diversity is important, and removing certain genes could have unforeseen consequences in the longterm. I wouldn't compare altering the genome to use of technology, we can always stop using forklifts, but genetics is very complicated and, at our current level of understanding, unpredictable. I think people have learned from past instances, such as excessive use of antibiotics and subsequent problems with antibiotic-resistant pathogens, that nature can always surprise us.
Having said all this, I have to say that I'm in favour of the responsible use of genetic screening to filter out genetically related diseases, because I think it's a good idea to reduce the amount of suffering in the world.
BTW I would have thought the Flameboard would be more suitable for this topic.
[ March 01, 2002, 02:06: Message edited by: Jernau Morat Gurgeh ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Sol: "we"?
Glasses and forklifts have been around for how long? Evolution is an ongoing process, far too slow for us to notice (not over the course of a few centuries, anyway).
There is another - rather ugly - side of the coin which has been carefully steered clear of by the high-ups making the decisions: eliminating deadly diseases will lead to overpopulation. By reducing the amount of suffering we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Seems to me that the genie is out of the bottle now, it is just a matter of how we proceed from here. Knowing somewhat of human nature we will use this technology, reguardles of the consequences to the gene pool. A recent article and thread here delt with a person claimimg that humans will no longer evolve. He is wrong, we will no longer evolve "naturally" but along the lines we choose. This in some ways could be what we need to get off this planet. How about humans with the gene to hibernate, perfect for long term space missions? Give them 4 hands, more useful in 0 g enviroment. And loss of disease does not have to mean world over population, it just means population must be controlled some other way. I really think the debate is not wether we should use the tech., because we will but how do we use it.
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them". I think everyone knows who that was, hmm? Big hair, good at numbers.
He was right about that, about gasoline, tobacco, and nuclear waste. No doubt we would fuck up the future-genome if we changed our base genes now, without care, thinking in short-term as humans always have.
Of course, some scientists believe we have reached our peak at physiological evolution since we won't subject ourselves to the same obstacles as 1000 years ago. Other say we have a long way to go yet, it's a pretty big debate.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
eliminating deadly diseases will lead to overpopulation. By reducing the amount of suffering we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot.
That same argument could be used to argue against helping hungry children in poor third-world countries. It's also the same argument that's lead to millions of cases of infanticide in China.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
It's a bit of a leap to say that the mere avoidance of overpopulation leads to Chinese infanticide. It's the cultural desire for male children in China that's the problem, and you can be sure that as genetic screening becomes more advanced, just being able to choose the sex of your children will become child's play (if you'll excuse the term) in comparison.
However, I agree with what Nimrod said - just with increased health care, and the ability to sustain life no matter what disabilities that life might have, is effectively removing evolutionary pressures. In fact, the way the world is going, it sometimes seems to me that humanity is actively breeding intelligence out of the gene pool.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
In the short term, anyway, this won't be an issue that anyone but the wealthy will have to deal with. If genetic tinkering/engineering becomes at all acceptable in the next few decades, it will only be available to the super rich. The children of the poor to middle class will continue to face life with genetic "impurities" for the next 30 to 60 years until the technology develops to the point of making it standard pre-natal care.
Now, I don't pretend to be a sociology expert or anything, so all of this, as usual, comes with a big ole IMHO attached to it.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm not suggesting any of this is good or bad, by the way, which is why I don't think this is Flameboard material. Simply...inevitable. Beyond that, I personally see nothing sacred about evolution or our genetic code. Moreover, I think that when the issue is examined dispassionately, we would find that giving children benefits is almost always good, and denying them such is almost always bad. Making sure they have the best possible genome*, to me, seems no different than making sure they know how to read.
*: Of course, the real question is "What's the best possible genome?" Nobody knows. Yet. I'm not suggesting everyone rush out and start screwing around with their genes today. That would be both futile and suicidal. (And I'm not really suggesting anyone should alter their genes ever. Just examining the issue.) But just because our understanding of how genes work is limited today does not mean it will always continue to be so.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Sol...I gotta ask.... what's the story behind the note that you link to in your signature...?
I don't necessarily believe that they're good or bad either. Trying sincerely to improve people's lot in life is usually a noble effort. However, I guess I don't believe that humanity will eve be able to apply it such a way that everyone will benefit from it fairly and equally.
Call me cynical. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I came across the image in my daily trawl for unusual things, and thought it mindbending enough to share, albeit in an oblique way. Found Magazine contains all sorts of items people, well, found, which contain information no doubt very important to the people who first held them, but which is incomprehensible to the rest of us. I'm fond of that sort of thing.
As far as equality goes, I suspect there have been very few technologies or discoveries of any kind that have been applied fairly, and see no real reason why that should change in the future. If it makes us feel any better, I do think that it is harder to perpetuate such gross inequalities on an informed populace. I also think our track record of dealing with technology has improved over time, as laughable as that may seem. I'm a hopeless optimist, I guess.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Dealing with technology over time? I really don't think that it's improved THAT much.
Let's start with just you and me. I don't know that much about you, but I can assume that you own a computer. I own a computer. For some people, the Internet is now considered a basic staple of existence, for information and other material.
Yet how many people out there do not have a computer, have no access to the World Wide Web... and for that matter have yet to have sufficient shelter, food, clothing...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)