A Measured Response Regarding Genetic Bioethics

[DemonArchangel]

Just an essay I wrote recently to defuse tension between a few of my friends. I think you all should see it though.
~*~*~
Given the recent controversy between the three of you regarding the implications and morality of genetic engineering, I have decided to weigh in on the issue myself. Now, before I start, let me note that the subject of bioethics is an enormously tricky one, involving a confluence of faith, logic, technology and morality, with everything in between. I obviously cannot address the topic wholly and impartially without consulting multiple experts and writing a very long book regarding the subject. So everything that follows will be my (somewhat) informed opinion regarding the issue of genetic bioethics.

First of all, let's start with an understanding of genetic engineering. I'm not a biology major, and I'm sure that many of the people reading this note aren't biology majors either, so I'll simplify the nature of the genetics (if only for the sake of my own sanity) by describing the gene pool as just that, a swimming pool. Now most of the pool is made up of water, which are the basic genes that all people share in common. The water in the pool is constantly recirculated as old water is pumped out and new water is pumped back in, this reflects life and death. However, since the gene pool is a swimming pool, it isn't going to be the purest of water. In fact, it's filled with dirt, dead skin cells, urine, sweat, bacteria, viruses, algae and other nasty things, mainly because the genetic pool isn't perfect and will never be. Back before the advent of genetic engineering, people were stuck swimming in the gene pool with the dirt and filth, because there wasn't any way to clean the water.

Enter genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is like throwing chlorine into the pool to clean it up a bit, making it a bit safer to swim in. However, adding too much chlorine (or other cleaning chemicals) to the pool is a bad thing, making people unable to swim in it. A point previously brought up was the potential of diseases to wipe out a population lacking in genetic diversity. That would be a consequence of adding too much chlorine to the gene pool. For example, repeated attempts of genocide against Jews has resulted in the concentration and prevalence of Tay-Sachs disease amongst their population, while the selection pressures of the Middle Passage across the Atlantic has resulted in a sharply higher rate of hypertension amongst African-Americans versus the rest of the populace. The Hapsburg Dynasty of 17 and 18th century Europe managed to inbreed themselves into a group of drooling, deformed idiots, resulting in the substantial inefficacy of their government. Overzealous attempts to modify a gene pool through whatever means is obviously not a good thing.

At the same time, genetic engineering and attempts to manipulate genomes are a vitally important part of human life. Go take a look in your fridge. Unless you're in the middle of nowhere, living solely off hunting and gathering, chances are that there will be at least one thing in your fridge that is the product of genetic engineering. Early man, who couldn't quite digest the wild grasses and grains he was eating, decided to breed something with a slightly higher carbohydrate and protein content. Then, needing protein and getting sick of eating the stringy, gamy flesh of hunted beasts, he decided to breed some of the local buffalo and wild boar into something tastier and juicier. Over thousands of years, the plants and animals first farmed by humans grew into the products we know and love to eat today. Eugenics (precursor to genetic engineering) have been an enormously important part of human society, for the sole reason that it allowed man some free time to do other things besides find food.

Now I'm betting that upon seeing the word "eugenics", at least some of you are going to go "OMFG HITLER!" Because it's impossible to invoke genetics without addressing the potential of Godwin's Law, I will note that Adolf Hitler was a complete idiot, and the "eugenics" he was practicing was solely for the benefit of expanding his power and promoting his pseudo-science. Everybody's favorite dictator was throwing chlorine with reckless abandon into the gene pool while simultaneously pissing in it. Eugenics means "well born", and has been practiced consistently by farmers and animal breeders. Even those who breed dogs will know that inbreeding, and breeding dogs that are too similar, will result in genetic taint. Hitler's racial pseudo-science is not eugenics, in fact, the 3rd Reich (and those who influenced them) practiced strict dysgenics. Also, if you're wondering, eugenics as a discipline, is still widely practiced. After all, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and yes, genetic engineering, are all forms of eugenics. In fact, genetic engineering allows humanity to do in a single stroke, what used to take millions of years of evolution. It is an enormously potent tool for understanding and manipulating the fabric of life.

But genetic engineering is just that. A tool. Like a nailgun, that bottle of chlorine, a hammer or a pipe wrench, genetic engineering is a tool, and should be treated as such. Obviously, you wouldn't use a pipe wrench to smash windows or cave someone's skull in (or at least I hope so). Just the same, genetic engineering should not be abused in the name of perfection or power, or wielded by the ignorant as a weapon. Genetic engineering has the potential to relieve human suffering, to feed the hungry, to cure the sick. But it also can destroy genetic diversity and viability, be used to engineer some truly horrifying diseases and cause untold amounts of human misery. Thus, there are tremendous ethical and moral implications relating to the discipline, especially since genetic science is still a poorly understood branch of science. We do not know what the long-term implications of genetic engineering are. However, we know that we must try to understand those implications as best we can and make every attempt to use the knowledge responsibly, otherwise it could backfire miserably.

After all, you wouldn't throw too much chlorine into the gene pool, would you?

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Hapsburg Dynasty of 17 and 18th century Europe managed to inbreed themselves into a group of drooling, deformed idiots, resulting in the substantial inefficacy of their government.

You've got to love the chins though.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Personally, i'm all for eugenics. There are some truly terrible genetic diseases that now, we as a species have the power to remove once and for all. No one need ever suffer from them again. And yet we go about saving people with these diseases, in the name of human compassion. Call me callous, but it's hardly the best thing for the genepool when you're keeping the ebola floating around in there.

[Craterus]

The gene pool would be much cleaner if nobody swam in it.

[DemonArchangel]

True. But it's open to all (except the sterile, celibate or unlucky) to swim in, and we must accept that. I mean, there are things that you can do to prevent population growth, but those generally aren't that effective.

[TevashSzat]

IMO, eugenics will probably will be required at some point in the very very distant future, as in centuries at least and when we would all be long dead and string theory would be middle school scienfce. It is simply too controversial right now to even attempt it

[rory_20_uk]

At the moment the opposite of eugenics is taking place: intelligent, good job? Probably you'll have 1-3 kids on average, and start having children late due to other concerns. No job, on long term benefits? Knock as many out as possible - after all then there's a bigger house as you can't be in cramped accommodation. Might as well start knocking them out early as well, ashw at else is there to do? Social pressures against this? Nope - we've scrapped those!

The most severe genetic defects people used to die from, and hence helped filter the "swimming pool". Now we have the ability to ensure that they lead as normal lives as possible - ensuring that the crud in the pool is recirculated.

[PBI]

At the moment the opposite of eugenics is taking place: intelligent, good job? Probably you'll have 1-3 kids on average, and start having children late due to other concerns. No job, on long term benefits? Knock as many out as possible - after all then there's a bigger house as you can't be in cramped accommodation. Might as well start knocking them out early as well, ashw at else is there to do? Social pressures against this? Nope - we've scrapped those!

That only really holds true if being jobless and on benefits is a genetic trait. Didn't the eugenicists around the turn of the 20th century have similar worries? I seem to recall reading an article written around that time where someone expressed similar concerns; that the working classes were "breeding like rats" while the "genetically superior" aristos had relatively few children. Given that my ancestors were very definitely the sort of people the eugenicists were worried about and I, my parents and all my siblings are in decent jobs I can't say I'm too concerned.

[DemonArchangel]

The biggest problem with eugenics and dysgenics is determining what exactly is good or bad. Stephen Hawking's genetic line might be more prone to ALS, but his genetic line might also result in great intelligence.

To more directly address the question, the sheer number of powerful, intelligent and influential people that came from poor backgrounds proves that poverty is not a genetic condition. Genetically speaking, our gene pool has never been healthier, especially since people have mostly gotten over their fear of different races or ethnicities.

[rory_20_uk]

I should retract my earlier ill thought out, knee jerk comment. My excuse would be that it was done in haste at work when I was in a foul mood without even the cursory thinking that my posts get.
There are far more variables than those I mentioned, and it is unscientific to make such sweeping statements based on sketchy, anecdotal evidence.

[Ironside]

The biggest problem with eugenics and dysgenics is determining what exactly is good or bad. Stephen Hawking's genetic line might be more prone to ALS, but his genetic line might also result in great intelligence.

To more directly address the question, the sheer number of powerful, intelligent and influential people that came from poor backgrounds proves that poverty is not a genetic condition. Genetically speaking, our gene pool has never been healthier, especially since people have mostly gotten over their fear of different races or ethnicities.

One aspect you haven't covered is the fear that the tool is too powerful for us to handle, something like giving the control of the nuclear arsenal to a 10 year old.

Otherwise a good eassay.

[DemonArchangel]

I think it was implied in the message that genetic engineering *is* too powerful for us to handle (at least at the moment), at least until we know what its strengths, weaknesses and limits are. We should proceed gradually with the technologies, until we are absolutely confident that we can use it without unintended consequences.

[Viking]

Personally, i'm all for eugenics. There are some truly terrible genetic diseases that now, we as a species have the power to remove once and for all. No one need ever suffer from them again. And yet we go about saving people with these diseases, in the name of human compassion. Call me callous, but it's hardly the best thing for the genepool when you're keeping the ebola floating around in there.

What makes you think that new genetic diseases are suddenly not going to appear because we removed those who we knew? As for diseases such as ebola, aids etc. then you can most certainly expect new ones around the very next corner.

I think it was implied in the message that genetic engineering *is* too powerful for us to handle (at least at the moment), at least until we know what its strengths, weaknesses and limits are. We should proceed gradually with the technologies, until we are absolutely confident that we can use it without unintended consequences.

Isn't that what we're currently doing, however? Anyhow, I don't see the great dangers of genetical engineering. Humans will always be humans; and if they're not, well, then they've evolved into another specie, and it would be the trillonth time this happened.