How Far Should We Go?

[Fremmer]

From this article about creating embryos with DNA from 3 people:

LONDON (AP) - British scientists have created human embryos containing DNA from two women and one man, a procedure that could potentially prevent conditions including epilepsy, diabetes and heart failure.

Though the preliminary research has raised concerns about the possibility of genetically modified babies, the scientists say that the embryos are still only primarily the product of one man and one woman.

"We are not trying to alter genes, we're just trying to swap a small proportion of the bad ones for some good ones," said Patrick Chinnery, a professor of neurogenetics at Newcastle University involved in the research.

The process aims to avoid passing onto children bad mitochondria genes, which are contained outside the nucleus in a normal female egg. Mitochondria are a cell's energy source, but mistakes in their genetic code can result in serious diseases like epilepsy, strokes, and mental retardation.

Naturally, this raises moral and political questions about how far we should go when it comes to creating people. How far should we go? Is any "gene swapping" acceptable? Limited gene swapping? Full-on gene swapping?

I'm not aware of any laws that limit this activity. Should we have such laws?

Your opinions are appreciated!

 

[Freedom_1st]

Genetic engineering is the next step in human evolution imo.

Increased brain size needs to be first if we are going to survive as a species, ha ha.

 

[BoringAccountant]

I do not know if I can rationally comment on this. My religion is close to me and I know what that says regarding this.

On the other hand though, I am extremely curious from a government standpoint how they should handle this. Is this something that since it is not enumerated in the Constitution should be allowed, or is it a states issue, then if it is a state issue, does that mean you can have CA allow cloning and SC not allow it.

I do think however, that this will become a slippery slope very quickly...

we're just trying to swap a small proportion of the bad ones for some good ones

at what point do you determine something a "bad" gene in need of changing, would not we all then be clones of one another.

 

[TheBluesMan]

I have very strong religious views on this subject, but...

This thread is about the legal ramifications of scientists experimenting with human life, not about religious prohibitions. Keep it that way and keep it open. So far, so good.

 

[Freedom_1st]

I welcome our new genetically enhanced overlords.

 

[rhgunguy]

Genetic engineering is the next step towards "A Brave New World". It is scary to think that the diseases and conditions that nature put in place to regulate the population will soon be obsolete. Next stop, living to the ripe old age of 200! That will pose a problem if people are still allowed to retire at 65 and draw social security, but hey, human evolution!

A case can be made that medical technology will cause more suffering than war as we out-live nature and the planets ability to sustain the lives of billions who should have died 10, 20 or more years ago. Evolve out of that one.

Ban it all. Let nature run its course.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I will test the product of merging Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman and Boomer (from Battlestar Galatica). This may be viable as the next step in human evolution but it needs evaluation. By me.
----------
I know, sadly, folks who have had kids with horrific genetic diseases. If they could have a kid and the genes that led to such diseases replaced, I'm ok with that.

Saw one kid die horribly at 5 and someone grow up to 20 before dying. Said person said they wish they weren't born.

Perhaps parents who carry such genes shouldn't have kids period rather than chance it. Or should they test the embryo and abort it? Some folks don't like that solution.

I'm OK with this for the purpose stated.

 

[Fremmer]

Limit gene-swapping for only those instances in which a bad gene (that will probably cause disease) is identified?

Or go further, and swap genes for those which preclude an average lifespan in general?

Or even further, and swap genes to make people smarter than average, happier than average, in other words, manipulate genes that have nothing to do with disease?

How do we set the limit?

 

[Garand Illusion]

There was a clear warning about this stuff in STAR TREK II, the WRATH OF KHAN. Ignore it at your own risk.

From a religous POV ... if anyone knows of any biblical warnings against this, please personal message me. I'm honestly curious.

From a secular point of view ... I just think we need to go very slow and carefully and err on the side of NOT doing it. It's kind of like the discussion on the ethics of parents choosing ahead of time whether they're going to have a boy or girl. We'd probably not be to bad off here in the US with that, but some countries would have generations of 80% boys.

While that sounds like it might curb population growth, I would not want to deal with a world power military where the culture behind it is 80% male and female deprived. That's not really a joke, either.

 

[BoringAccountant]

Hey Glenn,

I would be in somewhat agreement with you if we could be sure it would end there, similar to a flu-shot, prevent something from happening before it does, but how do we regulate that?

 

[Rangefinder]

IMHO human nature has one major flaw---incredible arrogance with heavy overtones of self-importance. I think the more humans try to tinker with nature, the farther removed from it we'll become until good 'ol mother nature has enough and shows us just how insignificant we really are in the whole cosmic equation.

We've gone from horse-and-buggy to nuclear physics and quantum mechanics in one century. It's a bit like a homeless person suddenly being given a million-dollar lottery ticket. Are they responsible enough to make it stretch and grow throughout the rest of their life, or is all that 'new-found' wealth going to get the better of them as they squander it on all the things they don't need and not have a dime to show for it in five-years time?

Too much-too fast-with too little understanding of the bigger picture, IMO.

 

[tyme]

I am increasingly convinced that GE (eventually constructing entire genomes from scratch) is the future, and I think any limitations on it must be temporary and well-justified on practical, secular grounds. Of course this, as any other technology, will require wiser politicians/leaders to manage the effects, and that's where we may run into problems. Unless we can find a more intelligent means of governing ourselves, I think technological progress will overwhelm our laws and turn our societies into quasi-anarchist states (where some higher-tech activities are essentially unregulated, or regulated ineffectually, even while laws remain regarding murder, physical theft, etc.), even without genetic engineering.

I think the most pressing issue in genetic engineering is ownership of genes. Someone much wiser than anyone I've heard discuss this problem is going to have to figure out how to balance the right of sentient beings (and maybe an imbued right all biological creatures) not to have their genes "owned" against the need for some kind of intellectual property to allow the profit motive to drive progress in genetic engineering.

at what point do you determine something a "bad" gene in need of changing, would not we all then be clones of one another.

Of course, because every potential parent has the exact same idea of what the ideal human would be like.
</sarcasm>

Furthermore, even if everyone did have the exact same idea of the ideal human, until every single gene is fully understood, people will not use the exact same genetic sequence for their children because of the possibility of a killer recessive gene hiding in there somewhere. IMO, it doesn't do much good to be a perfect physical specimen when you can't have kids naturally with any other perfect physical specimen. What if some disaster (like an asteroid or engineered disease) sends us back 100 or 200 years along the time-line of technological progress? Oops. Suddenly only the very rich (as in useful trade goods) will have a chance of getting access to the limited remaining genetics experts, even if there were a remaining stockpile of necessary equipment and materials that would suffice until the high-tech economy scaled back up.

Genetic engineering is the next step towards "A Brave New World".

I fail to see how genetic engineering will lead us toward a Brave New World. It is political policy (i.e. government reaction to events/science/technology) that causes dystopias like that, not scientific progress itself.

A case can be made that medical technology will cause more suffering than war as we out-live nature and the planets ability to sustain the lives of billions who should have died 10, 20 or more years ago. Evolve out of that one.

Ban it all. Let nature run its course.

Definitely an important issue, but one we're going to have to deal with even without human genetic engineering. Non-GE medical technology will continue to extend lifespans. The difference is only a matter of degree.

In light of that last statement of yours, I'm curious why you're not in favor of banning all medicine.

Following that line of thought, we should also ban any use of the higher reasoning capacity of our brains, because it allows us as a species to advance (I hesitate to say evolve) in ways that oppose natural evolution.

...until mother nature... shows us just how insignificant we really are...

Anthropomorphizing mother nature just clouds the issue. The danger with technological progress is that it will be misused by humans to our extreme detriment (GE'd plagues), or that we will trigger some catastrophic environmental change, or that we will run into a brick wall of natural resource limitations. True instances of mother nature "showing us" our insignificance would be things like a nearby supernova frying us, or an asteroid impact, or a non-GE'd plague. Technology is the one thing that can save us from things like that.

 

[rhgunguy]

Following that line of thought, we should also ban any use of the higher reasoning capacity of our brains, because it allows us as a species to advance (I hesitate to say evolve) in ways that oppose natural evolution.

Reguardless of how I felt in 3rd grade math class, long division will not bring about the end of civilization.

Why not use that "higher reasoning capacity of our brains" to realize that extending lifespans overextends the carrying capacity of our planet. Furthermore, before we investigate the former, we should use our "higher reasoning capacity of our brains" to expand the latter. After all, proper nutrition would expand the natural lifespan of many on our planet by double.

In light of that last statement of yours, I'm curious why you're not in favor of banning all medicine.

This of course would cause a massive outrage amongst those that need a pill to get through everything from a simple headache to "stress" at the office or other social settings.

My maternal Grandfather was diagnosed with prostate cancer at 65 and underwent succesful treatment for it. I can expect a similar fate. I however think I would rather let the cancer do its job and take me by 70. God is going to take me when he takes me(sorry,but religion is more a part of who I am than an internet firearms forum), I will accept whatever fate I am delt, whenever that may be.

 

[tyme]

So if I understand correctly, you are actually not in favor of allowing nature to take its course with respect to certain things we enjoy (crop management, etc.). You just want nature to take its course with regard to genetics because of your personal beliefs. So if you get the flu and it doesn't go away after a week or two, you won't go to the doctor? Or is that another area where you'll throw your "let nature take its course" philosophy to the wind?

I will accept whatever fate I am dealt, whenever that may be.

Your choice, but not a choice you get to impose on others. If the consequences of bucking fate are overpopulation, that's something we as a species will obviously have to deal with (or nature will deal with it for us through starvation and disease). That is not a good reason for laws restricting advances in certain areas of science. We might as well outlaw everything remotely un-natural (which is highly subjective and could include higher reasoning and all modern medicine). That's my point.

 

[Thumper]

It's a bit like a homeless person suddenly being given a million-dollar lottery ticket. Are they responsible enough to make it stretch and grow throughout the rest of their life, or is all that 'new-found' wealth going to get the better of them as they squander it on all the things they don't need and not have a dime to show for it in five-years time?

I don't like the ramifications either, but your analogy is insulting to anyone who's worked in research for about the past hundred years. Nothing has been "given" to the human race.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Genetic engineering is the next step towards "A Brave New World".

I didn't post that. I posted something else - please clear up the post.

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

Where will such stop? If it can be done, it will. If you don't allow it in the USA, if a clinic in Thailand will do it, people will go there.

 

[toybox99615]

a substantial dilemma at best

The entire medical practice spectrum is a dilemma. We don't see to many cries to forget all the changes brought about over centuries of medical practices. Most people probably agree that the witchcraft method of curing some ailment was best left in the dark ages. There was not a great deal of public concern when transplanting body parts and/or organs came about.
We don't here a great deal of controversy over medical practices that return a dying/dead victim to life. Perhaps this is just the current dilemma for us to ponder.

There is one series of people who support these developments from the basis that god would not allow such discoveries if he did not want them to happen. Then there are another series of people who profess god would not allow these at any level. Deciding which side is right is a dilemma for all to consider.

 

[tyme]

Sorry, Glenn. I've fixed that attribution.

There is one series of people who support these developments from the basis that god would not allow such discoveries if he did not want them to happen. Then there are another series of people who profess god would not allow these at any level. Deciding which side is right is a dilemma for all to consider.

And there is a third series of people who would dispense with the "God" consideration and evaluate GE on other grounds.

 

[Fremmer]

What other grounds?

 

[Shadi Khalil]

im with it. clone everything.