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?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Hmmm... so that means I can have blond twin boys with blue eyes. Scary thought...
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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...
posted
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...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- Move .sig!!
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
As eyeglasses have removed our ability to evolve better eyes? Or forklifts our ability to lift really big things?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing. To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
The Battle of the Pelennor Fields.
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
