Lunar Eclipse Tonight!

~Just a reminder to catch the lunar eclipse tonight (that is, tomorrow the 21st of December very early in the morning) as the Earth's shadow briefly covers the Moon.  The eclipse will be visible from most of North America.  So brave the cold tonight for a show in the heavens that you won't soon forget!

For more details, see the NASA lunar eclipse page for the event. Below is a quick guide from that page, showing the time when the eclipse will take place:

‘Tis the Season

~Happy Holidays to all of my wonderful readers!  Whatever you celebrate, I wish you all a very joyful December.

Here’s my miniature Christmas tree:

American Journal of Bioethics through NC LIVE

~I've recently been exploring some recent articles and discussions in bioethics, and came across the American Journal of Bioethics, the world's largest peer-reviewed bioethics journal, which was started in 1999.  Unfortunately, it's not open-access, but using my mad librarian skills, I found that NC LIVE carries the journal with a one-year delay on published articles.  Not ideal, but I've enjoyed looking through some older articles, on issues about providing medical treatment to captured terrorists, gender selection, nano-medicine, and assisted reproduction.

If you live in North Carolina, you too can look through the journal (and thousands of other resources on everything from car repair to downloadable e-books) through NC LIVE.  Just pull out your library card and go here to get started.

Pining for Spring

~A picture I took yesterday while out on an evening walk:

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, part 10 -- Spare-Part Children

~Today's topic is spare-part children (also known as "savior siblings"), in which an embryo is created in order to benefit someone else.  Now obviously, that first sentence carries strong negative connotations, but the practice is not as obviously bad as you might initially think. Specifically, it refers to the result of of a couple using reproductive screening to select for genetic match for an existing, sick child, in order to use the new child's umbilical stem cells.  These stem cells have the potential to grow into any part of the body, and therefore, implanting matching stem cells into a the afflicted area of a sick person can often result in a cure.

A good example of this, and the first family to make use of this procedure, was the Nash family of Colorado.  Their six-year old daughter, Molly, was dying of a rare and fatal genetic disease called Fanconi anaemia.  In the fall of 2000, they used in-vitro fertilization to fertilize twelve embryos, and chose the one that most closely matched Molly.  The resulting son, Adam, not only did not inherit the disease, but stem cells from his umbilical cord saved Molly's life.  Initial reaction was strongly negative from both fertility experts, clergy, and others who considered it a slippery slope towards designer babies.  But this doesn't change the fact that the Nash family now has two happy, healthy children.

Most Americans who have heard of spare-part children know of the practice through Jodi Picoult's novel (and related film) My Sister's Keeper.  In the novel, a couple uses screening as described above to harvest stem cells from their new daughter’s umbilical cord, in order to treat an existing daughter who has leukemia.  Although initially this procedure is successful, years later the older daughter relapses, and the now-teenage "spare-part" sister is pressured to donate a kidney to her sister, causing all sorts of drama! and tension!.

I have not read the book or seen the film, but before I move further into this discussion, it's important to note that that organ donation is not the usual arrangement for a spare-part child.  Ethically speaking, there are three different and increasingly problematic levels:

1. First, there is umbilical cord harvesting.  Since the umbilical cord is usually discarded anyway, there is no direct harm to the newborn "spare-part" child (aside from emotional & philosophical issues that I will delve into below). 
2. Second, there is the more extreme form that occurs in My Sister's Keeper, in which a spare-part child donates material beyond their stem cells.  This is fraught with ethical problems, especially when considering organ donations or painful bone-marrow extraction.
3. Finally, the most extreme and ethically problematic area is for a spare-part baby's material (especially organs, etc.) to be used not for a sibling, but for an adult with health problems.  This is a disturbing and nightmarish scenario which I will also discuss.

The arguments against people having spare-part children are fraught with emotion.  Is such a child simply a commodity?  Will they be psychologically damaged when they learn they were created "merely" to help a brother or sister to live?  Is this an example of having “designer babies”?  Is it the same as “playing God"?  If so, what if anything makes having spare-part children somehow different from the other reproductive technologies that I have examined?

In a bioethical sense, having a spare part child is considered ethically acceptable if two criteria are met.  First, the child's tissues can only benefit a sibling, not anyone else.  Second, the couple must actually want another child, to love and care for the same as an existing child or children.  In other words, a couple should not have another child only for its tissues; they have to actually want another child even without said tissues.  Although this second criterion is in some ways impossible to adjudicate, it at least makes sense.  The goal is to avoid a couple having a spare-part child and treating it like…spare parts.

If this still worries you, consider that evidence from existing cases of families having spare-part children seem to show no negative emotional effects.  Such spare-part children seem loved, normal, and as well-adjusted as non-spare-part children, even if they know they were conceived as tissue donors (such as Adam Nash from the above example).  Also, as with so many of the other reproductive technologies from the course, it's very easy for us to slip into the trap of judging those who make use of them, without considering the needs of others and picturing ourselves in their place.

Also (although it may not be cheering to consider), humans have been having children for specific purposes for all of recorded history.  Consider kings and aristocrats who demand a male heir, or parents who want offspring to carry on the family name (or because their own parents demand grandchildren).  Having children was something simply expected of many ancient cultures, and royal families especially needed to have "backup" children to assume the throne in case of the death of the primary heir.  Nowadays, some women have  children to avoid (or delay) execution or prison time, while other families and individuals may want children simply for tax breaks, welfare payments, or citizenship. The only real difference between this sort of reproduction and families having spare-part children is that in the latter case, parents are forced to be honest about their reasons.  Considering that the child may very well save their sibling’s life, if anything they are likely to be quite loved.

However, there is another, darker dimension to a discussion about spare-part children.  It revolves around the third and most danger-fraught ethical level that I discussed earlier, where a spare-part child is born not to benefit a sibling, but someone else.  Perhaps a parent who needs a tissue match, or perhaps a wealthy individual who pays the parents a great deal of money in order to secure a match for him or herself.  Or perhaps something even stranger.

A (fictitious) example of this is the science-fiction film The Island, which involves an illegal underground center run by a corporation and filled with clones.  The clones, it turns out, have been "ordered" by wealthy individuals who have cloned themselves in order to harvest organs and tissues when needed; the clones, of course, are perfect tissue matches for their "parents".  While such a large-scale operation (and also cloning) is presently the stuff of fiction, I wouldn't put it past an unscrupulous dictator or other wealthy individual to cook up a close tissue match of themselves using their own genetic material, simply to harvest the organs and tissues of their "child".

The idea is frightening: such children are literally no more than spare parts.  They are likely to live their lives locked away, pampered and kept healthy, but isolated without social contact, education, or freedom.  I think the existence of such spare-part people may already be happening, which is one reason why this practice must be internationally regulated.  [On a side note, now that medical science has recognized the usefulness of umbilical stem cells, more and more parents are choosing to have the umbilical cords of their children frozen for the child's future use.]

So to recap, when considering the ethics of spare-part babies, ask this key question: is the child being born solely to serve as a donor?  If so, then it's probably unethical to have the child.  If not, and if it just involves umbilical cells, it’s probably alright.  But consider:

• If a set of embryos are fertilized with the intention of having a spare-part child, and none of the embryos proves to be a good match, are the parents somehow ethically obligated to undergo embryonic implantation anyway, and thus have a non-matching child?  Obviously, we can't force someone to impregnate themself, but if the parents don't want to do it, should we (as a society) take that reluctance to mean the parent's don't really want a child for its own sake?
  
• What happens if the ill child (the intended tissue recipient) dies or severely deteriorates during the pregnancy for the donor child?  Does this place increased pressure on the parents to abort the pregnancy?  If they do so, should they be legally accountable, even if abortion is legal where they are?  Does the fact that it's a spare-part child make any sort of legal difference?
  
• Since the child has no choice about whether or not to be born and donate its tissues, is having the child in the first place somehow unethical?  I think this is only the case if the child must donate additional organs or tissues beyond their umbilical stem cells.  On the other hand, none of us had a choice about being born.  In a sense, we're all here without our consent, so asking "what does the child want?" or "what would the child choose to do in this situation?" is absurd.
  

What do you think?  If you had a young child dying of a disease and matching stem cells were the only cure, would you consider screening for another child who was a tissue match?  Why or why not?

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, part 9.3

~Today I conclude my discussion of germ line modification, an inheritable form of genetic enhancement/engineering (G.E.), from the audio course Creating Humans: Ethical Questions Where Reproduction and Science Collide.  Previously, I’ve discussed some of the scientific, legal, and social consequences of this technology.  Now, I come to some philosophical thoughts about the implications of genetic enhancement.

What I find most interesting of all about germ line modification, the thing that makes it the most interesting reproductive technology from the course, is that it forces us to confront some of the deepest questions of human existence.  We all want what’s best for our children, but if we choose to make use of this technology, we must ask what exactly that means.  What do people really want out of life?  Why are we here?  Can direct genetic changes make life “better” for our children and humanity as a whole? 

The answers, if there are answers, are more complex (and interesting) that you might think.  As with all of the technologies I’ve discussed so far, the question is the same: where do we draw the line?  Most of us would likely not have a problem with engineering out fatal genetic disorders (e.g. Tay-Sachs).  But what about nonfatal but crippling genetic diseases (e.g. Lou Gehrig’s Disease)?  Again, I think most people would think it’s ok to prevent those.  Going farther, is it ok to remove obviously “bad” but not necessarily fatal or disabling problems, such as an increased likelihood of Alzheimer’s or breast cancer?   …again, I think most people would not really have a problem with altering the DNA of their unborn children to prevent them from suffering this, even if the fix in question concerns one’s mental capabilities (again, such as Alzheimer’s), rather than purely physical problems.

It’s when we move from the realm of “cure” or “prevention” to “enhancement” that people get squeamish.  While I think many of us are rightly uncomfortable with allowing parents to use genetic engineering to create specific physical traits such as height or hair and eye color, can we really object to parents altering an embryo’s DNA to be, say, resistant to HIV or other diseases?  Or to have less likelihood of developing diabetes?  Or to have teeth that won’t require braces?  Or to not develop severe acne? Or to be less likely to have poor eyesight?  To have more balanced cholesterol levels?  Or, if we colonize the Moon or Mars, to be more resistant to radiation?

I could go on and on, of course, but you get the idea.  Personally, I don’t really have a fundamental ethical problem with genetic enhancements like the ones I describe; the problem as I see it is societal, as I discussed previously.  I think people see germ line engineering, rightly or not, as an unavoidable slippery slope from small changes (removing the chance of a fatal genetic diseases) to overwhelmingly bad changes (creation of an oppressive genetic “master race” that will enslave us all!).  Genetic engineering, like the other technologies examined in the course, is merely a tool, one we would be foolish to outright ban or ignore.  Instead, making decisions about what can and can’t be done, what is and isn’t morally, ethically, and legally allowed, will be a long, complicated, and international effort.

But where use of this technology veers into the realm of mind-bending philosophical speculation is when we consider its power (not yet, but in the future), to affect not only our descendant’s physical traits, but their mental ones.  It’s from these that we recoil (consider my discussion of genetics vs. mind control from the previous post), but if that’s also your reaction, take a moment to ask yourself exactly why you find the idea so disturbing (“from the gut” is not an acceptable answer).  For example, consider the list of physical genetic alterations I listed two paragraphs ago.  Now ask yourself, is it ok for parents to genetically engineer their offspring to be less likely to develop severe depression?  Why or why not?  What about ensuring that one’s child is not born with severe retardation?  What about making sure the child is, in fact, highly intelligent?  Or has a perfect sense of musical pitch?  Or, for that matter, has a cheerful disposition?  I mean, we all want our children to be happy, right?  Right??

Consider the extremely disturbing implications of this research paper.  Here’s the abstract (colors added for emphasis):

• “Happiness or subjective wellbeing was measured on a birth-record based sample of several thousand middle-aged twins using the Well Being (WB) scale of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ). Neither socioeconomic status (SES), educational attainment, family income, marital status, nor an indicant of religious commitment could account for more than about 3% of the variance in WB. From 44% to 53% of the variance in WB, however, is associated with genetic variation. Based on the retest of smaller samples of twins after intervals of 4.5 and 10 years, we estimate that the heritability of the stable component of subjective wellbeing approaches 80%.”

In other words, whether or not one is “happy” most of the time is, believe it or not, largely a matter of genetics.  Now, I’m sure that many people, perhaps almost all people, are uncomfortable with the idea of altering the genetic code of their unborn children to ensure that said children are happy.  But why, exactly?  Because the child should be able to make their own choices?  But…what if they’re genetically predisposed towards being unhappy (or worse, severely depressed)?  We might say that civilization is built on unhappy people wanting to improve their lot in life, or expound on the brilliant art, etc. created by “tortured genius” types.  But is that enough of a reason to leave “sad” genes intact?  I mean, the whole point of civilization and so forth is to make us happier…right?  Can you really fault parents for not wanting their children to start life with this sort of genetically predetermined burden?

That’s why I find the philosophical dimensions of germ line modification so fascinating.  It makes us ask what we (speaking through our unborn descendants) really want out of this life that we’ve all been thrust into without our consent.  Why are we here?  What’s the point?  Is it to suffer, endure our lot, and take what we can get?  To worship and praise a deity? To free ourselves from suffering?  To find meaning in suffering?  Is it to enjoy each moment as best we can?  To learn things?  To help others (…to enjoy themselves?)?  To uncover the secrets of the universe?  To perpetuate our genes by having children?  To rebuild a shattered God?  To find True Love?  To just make it to the weekend??

…because if any of the above reasons sounds like a good, or even acceptable, meaning for life, I think it’s intellectually dishonest to dismiss germ line engineering, even for…no, especially when it comes to influencing the mental and personality traits of our descendants.  If you think we’re here to enjoy life & control our suffering, and have the capability via G.E. to make it even a little bit more likely that your children, grandchildren, etc. are more likely (and remember, this is all tinkering with probability, not certainty) to enjoy their lives regardless of external circumstances, is it your duty to do so?  Should it not, in fact, be one of your top priorities if you could do it?  And if you think we’re here to learn more about the world, then shouldn’t you ensure that your child is smart?  But if you increase your child’s intelligence, are you possibly decreasing their happiness?  Does making them more likely to be happy make them less likely to be productive/ambitious?  Should we strive for ambitious children?   …I could go on for hours!

Honestly, the only real objection I can ultimately see (assuming we actually acquire a reliable, non-experimental understanding of this technology) is religious: that we shouldn’t mess around with human DNA because God, etc. etc.  And I think that’s the position that a lot of people will take, but not for the same reasons.  Some people that feel this way will, I hope, actually take the time to think about why their religious/philosophical beliefs prohibit such alterations.  But I think that a lot of people will retreat into religious objections (not only for G.E. but for many of the other reproductive technologies from the course), simply because it’s easy to do so.  Although I find these sorts of ethical dilemmas fascinating, I know that most people don’t; they just want simple, easy-to-understand solutions to challenging ethical problems.

With it’s strong, almost overwhelming religiosity (especially in politics), the United States is especially prone to this, and I think that will make it difficult for us to have a real, national dialog to decide on these and other important bioethical issues.  It will make it even more difficult to involve America in an international framework to regulate and enforce the decisions we are able to make.  Because, like all the other reproductive technologies, regulation of them is useless without international conventions; otherwise, those with the means to do so will simply travel to genetic clinics in nations or other areas (or perhaps hospital ships in international waters?) where G.E. and so forth is legal or uncontrolled.

As for myself, I’m terribly torn on the issue of germ line engineering.  Part of me sees this technology as one of the great hopes for humanity’s future, bringing with it the eventual promise of freeing humanity from a great deal of painful evolutionary baggage that we’ve accumulated over millions of years, but which now weighs us down.  It’s a vision of a world in which people don’t die from fatal genetic diseases, or are born with diabetes, or get Alzheimer’s and thousands of other health issues, and where people don’t need to get braces for their teeth or backs or legs, or wear eyeglasses, or get zits (…but would that be considered beautification?), or die from cancer in their 30s, or take drugs for genetically-induced depression, anxiety, blood problems, and so forth.  A world where people are healthier, happier, and live longer even without expensive pharmaceuticals or therapies, even if we all went back to living in caves.  Such modifications to the human genome are certainly “unnatural”, but is the world I describe really so bad?

However, with so many emerging technologies, science fiction has a half-century advantage on us.  Genetic engineering is a time-tested staple of speculative fiction.  In general, owing to the need to create dramatic plotlines, it’s generally depicted as a bad thing.  Star Trek, for example, postulated “Eugenics Wars” in the near future (i.e. the 1990s) led by genetically engineered “Augments” such as KHAAAAAAAN!, leading the outlawing of genetic enhancement in the Federation.  S.M. Stirling’s Domination novels take the use of G.E. to create a “master race” to a horrifying conclusion, with humanity divided between the “Draka” rulers and their “Servus” slaves.  The Japanese show Gundam Seed depicts a world divided between genetically-enhanced “Coordinators” and unaltered “Naturals” mostly on Earth, with massively destructive wars (which, naturally, involve giant robots) waged between the two groups. I think these scenarios speak from our visceral fear against altering the fundamental nature of humanity.

Although the worlds they depict are extreme, I think they make some good points about the social and legal dimensions of G.E. If we allow free, or even limited use of this technology, will we have to keep track of who’s been enhanced?  Should people whose physical capabilities (such as strength, speed, etc.) have been genetically enhanced be barred from the Olympics?  What about the Tour de France?  What about professional sports?  College sports?  High school swim teams?

And what of those whose brains have been enhanced, giving them, say, a better memory or savant-level math skills?  Should they be forced to disclose this on college applications?  What about job applications?  Should there be a box that you have to check if you’ve received G.E. (whether in the germ line or in a somatic cell line sense), and if so, disclose exactly how?  Will non-enhanced people need some sort of affirmative action law?  Or is that too much government intervention?  Should those who can afford it be free to use G.E. on themselves or their children?

As you can see, the ethical, legal, social, and even philosophical implications of genetic enhancement are mind-boggling.  But the genetic genie may very well have already left the bottle.  As a society, we can’t simply stick our heads in the sand and pretend this technology doesn’t exist; nor, I believe, will we be able to effectively ban it entirely even if we wanted to.  It’s going to be used, one way or another, but exactly how we decide to use it will be one of the most important issues facing humanity over the next century.

So what do you think about all this?  Should we allow G.E. or not?  To what degree?  Would you use it if it were available?  Why or why not?

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, part 9.2

~A far more controversial form of genetic engineering is germ line modification, also called germline engineering.  This is a catch-all term for any changes in a person’s DNA that will affect their descendants regardless of use of any other genetic engineering.  If the genetic engineering affects a patient’s reproductive system (i.e. their gametes), it would be considered germ line modification.  Another example would be if the DNA of an in-vitro fertilized embryo is altered in a lab prior to implantation into a womb; the resulting child would then carry the engineered changes, and pass them on to his or her offspring.

Germ line modification is not yet technologically feasible, but as biotechnological research progresses it will quickly become so.  Understandably, this type of technology, although it remains theoretical for now, is highly controversial.  First of all, there’s an inherent concern that it will provide an unfair advantage to children whose parents have them enhanced.  As I’ve mentioned before, most of the reproductive technologies in this course are and will be the domain of the wealthier people and nations of the world, and modifying the DNA of offspring seems, to many, to create an even more unbalanced playing field in the arena of life.  Some fear this will lead to a genetic aristocracy or hierarchy; for example Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World features hatchery-raised children genetically slotted into genetically-determined roles within society, with the brilliant “Alpha-double-plusses” ruling at the top and the “Epsilon semi-morons” doing manual labor.  The film GATTACA also features a society divided on the basis of genetics, with genetically “inferior” humans relegated to menial roles.

But consider: the children of wealthy families (whether in one’s own nation, or compared to families of poorer nations) are already born with huge advantages over their less-wealthy “peers”.  The Declaration of Independence may assert that All Men Are Created Equal, but strictly speaking that’s only in a legal sense (and only for white male landowners); the moral sense is far more fungible.  Do you think it’s right that some expectant mothers receive excellent prenatal care and nutrition, while other mothers give birth on their own with no medical treatment and babies born half-starved into a life of malnutrition?  That some children receive excellent medical care and educations, while others have nothing? Of course it’s not morally “right”, but the entire history of human civilization is one of inequality.  The question here is, does germ line modification go too far, and if so, why?  What makes it different?

I think a major objection to germ line engineering is suspicion of parental motives, whether for the aforementioned class division or because nudging genes around can unduly influence a child towards a particular course in life, especially if you alter genes affecting personality or mental capabilities.  Most people are uncomfortable with altering the very nature of a child to force them onto a specific path; it seems to much like brainwashing.  Yet consider: human society universally acknowledges the right of parents to intervene in the lives of their children, in many cases strongly influencing (and yes, even forcing) into certain situations, careers, marriages, and so forth.  Is it really any of your business if a family chooses to engage in genetic enhancement to increase the chances of their child doing better in a particular area?  Remember, genetics is not mind control; nature may be stronger than nurture most of the time, but environment still plays a significant role in the development of a person.

Also, consider that humans have been genetically “enhancing” plants, animals, and yes, our own children, since before the invention of agriculture.  We’ve bred docile cattle, loyal bloodhounds, nutritious vegetables, beautiful flowers, prettier children, and more, but until recently, it’s all been mostly haphazard.  We hope that the person we marry and have children with will prove a good genetic match and that our children won’t have genetic disorders.  We hybridize two flowers, hoping the result will be both attractive and viable.  We breed racehorses until we get a winner.  But now, with an exact knowledge of the genetic code, much of the guesswork can be removed or minimized, and we can simply go about what we’ve been doing all along, but with more precision.  Or so the logic goes.

Another argument against germ line modification is vaguely fatalistic, often with religious overtones.  The idea here is that by altering The Very Basis of Life, we are tampering with Things Man Was Not Meant To Know (yes, I enjoy capitalizing clichés).  Some feel that directly altering DNA is “unnatural” and tantamount to meddling with the handiwork of God, saying in effect that we know better than Him and that the lives we are “given” are somehow not good enough. 


While there are many good arguments against germ line modification, I find this argument weak.  I mean, we’ve already altered existing species and driven other species into extinction.  We’ve already altered our environment and living conditions precisely because they weren’t good enough for our needs.  How is altering our genetic code, which is full of evolutionary baggage and problems, any different? 

Also, it’s both callous and ridiculous to take a family whose line is plagued with a particular genetic defect (for example, hemophilia) and say that their affliction is the handiwork of a deity, so their descendants must piously suffer it.  Are the other reproductive technologies discussed in the course (IVF, surrogacy, donation, screening) equally “unnatural”?  What makes them different?

Like so many ethical controversies, this is hardly a new dilemma.  I periodically read or hear about families who refuse vaccinations and/or medical care for their children on religious grounds, saying that only God has the power to heal, etc.  In an era of plane travel and increasingly disease-resistant microbes, society may eventually be force to deal with vaccine refusers who may inadvertently spread diseases.  Do you think it’s ok for a family to refuse medical treatment for an ill child, or refuse to vaccinate them, on religious grounds?  Should the parents be legally culpable if the child dies from a lack of treatment?  Many (including myself) think the parents should be held liable.  Yet vaccinations are an alteration of one’s body.  So is medical treatment.  How is germ line engineering to prevent genetic diseases so different?  And it that’s ok, where do we draw the line from “treatment” to “enhancement”.  Should we draw a line, or leave it up to the parents?

I’ve barely scratched the surface of genetic engineering controversies, and I’m not done with germ line engineering just yet.  Tomorrow, I’ll go into what I find to be the most interesting aspect of this technology: how it forces us to confront the deepest and most profound questions of our own existence.

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, part 9.1

~Continuing my course analysis of Creating Humans: Ethical Questions Where Reproduction and Science Collide, the next topic is genetic enhancement.  Of all the topics examined in the course, this is the one that interests me the most in its ethical, social, legal, and scientific implications.  And of all the reproductive technologies we’ve looked at, genetic enhancement is the most fundamental, directly altering the nature of a living creature at the molecular level. 

 

From the discovery of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule to the completion of the human genome project, researchers have barely begun to scratch the surface of how miniscule changes in our DNA can result in profound changes.  We’ve learned that genes can even be switched on and off in response to other factors (such as hormones).

 

As I discussed earlier, the terms "genetic enhancement” or “genetic engineering” often leave a bad taste in people’s mouths, tainted as they are by the legacy of the eugenics movement, which was largely based on sterilization and pseudoscientific/nationalistic ethnic stereotyping.  It was particularly hard-hit by World War II and the Nazi “Master Race” ideal.  Some people react to the idea of genetic enhancement with scorn, saying that in the hands of a dictator or Nazi-like group it could be devastating.  Although that’s a valid view, recent advances in genetic technology have revived eugenics as an individual choice, rather than a social policy, making the idea of genetic engineering  more acceptable to many people.

 

Broadly speaking, there are two different types of genetic enhancement.  The first is somatic cell line engineering, also called gene therapy, which affects the genetic code of an individual patient.  Trials are still underway regarding the efficacy of gene therapy, and results have been both promising and disappointing in different cases.  An example of a recent promising gene therapy study involved implanting certain genes into the joints of patients afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis.  In response to the genes, the patients’ bodies produced a protein that, in turn, blocked the action of the protein causing the arthritis.

 

In general, somatic cell line engineering for medical purposes is not a morally controversial subject and is therefore ethically acceptable. Think of it as a form of medicine that may help cure genetic diseases or conditions; although the treatment may be dangerous and/or useless, so is taking experimental medicines.  The risk, and resulting changes, affect only the individual.  And so far the changes we can create are small; we’re still a long way from creating syfy mutants with extra arms or super-soldiers with incredible combat skills simply by injecting someone with some genes (although that would be awesome).

 

However, somatic cell line engineering is quickly becoming an issue in athletics, where it is known as “genetic doping”.  Although the efficacy of such “doping” is questionable at best and certainly high-risk, unscrupulous athletes will use any advantage they can get, and genetic doping has the advantage (for now) of being undetectable, unlike testing urine for traces of steroids.  The International Olympic Committee formally banned gene doping in 2003, but it may be only a matter of time until the first genetic doping scandal erupts.  Will it be in baseball?  Swimming?  Perhaps the Tour de France?

 

Tomorrow, I will discuss germ line modification, a far more controversial form of genetic engineering.  For now, here’s a link to the Human Genome Project section on the Ethical, Legal, and Social issues surrounding genetic knowledge and engineering.

San Antonio: Time to Par-tay!

~This is the last set of pictures from last week’s trip to San Antonio, Texas:

^ We were in San Antonio to celebrate my paternal grandmother’s birthday.  Happy 80, grandma!

^ Grandma and her great-granddaughter (my niece…yeah, I’m an uncle, it’s kind of scary). And of course, the cake…

^ ...what cake?? OM NOM NOM.

^ Dad, my nephew, and my sister.  Nice vest & tie, little guy!

^ The cake lid somehow turned into an improvised bongo drum.  I may have had something to do with that.

^ My aunt Hannah, with her cookie-cake and gift: a wine monkey (yes, we’re a strange family).

^ The cookie-cake was discounted at the store.  I wonder why?

San Antonio: Remember the Alamo

~Here’s part two of pictures from my recent family trip to San Antonio, Texas.  Naturally, a top tourist attraction, and the heart of the city, is the Alamo.  Here it is in all of its beat-up glory:

 

^ The area that is now Texas was once part of Mexico, and many Americans immigrated there to build farms and ranches.  They brought their slaves with them, but unfortunately for them, Mexico outlawed slavery when it became independent from Spain in 1821.  The first solution to this problem was for the settlers to declare their slaves (~5,000 by 1836) indentured servants for life.  The second solution (and for numerous other reasons) was to declare independence from Mexico, launching the Texas War for Independence in 1836.

Just before full independence was declared, soldiers from the Provisional Government of Texas seized the Alamo, which at the time was a large compound surrounded by an outer wall that would today occupy a significant chunk of downtown San Antonio (the Alamo is smack in the middle of the city).  We all know the rest of the story, immortalized as it is in American mythology: the Texans, led by Davy Crockett, temporarily hold the Alamo against a much larger Mexican army, fighting to the last man against impossible odds.  “Remember the Alamo!”

Inside, the Alamo isn’t really a museum; there are only a few artifacts (such as Crockett’s rifle) and a diorama of what the Alamo compound originally looked like.  Just outside, however, is the Museum of the Alamo, which, from what I could tell, consisted of a gigantic gift shop.  I guess it’s not history unless you commercialize it.

Interesting fact: a Hyatt hotel in downtown San Antonio near the Alamo was originally planned to be much taller than it is today, but had to be scaled back after it was determined that the hotel would cast a shadow over the Alamo.

 

^ Of course, I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t seek out the nearest library wherever I go.  This is The Daughters of the Republic of Texas Library, build near the Alamo in 1950.

 

^ The library from the front.  Inside it holds an impressive collection of historical documents & maps relating to the history of Texas from its years as an independent nation, including one of the original signed copies of the Texas Declaration of Independence.  The library staff and volunteers were very pleasant and helpful.

 

^ Dad again, relaxing on a bench in the pleasant garden outside of the library.  He’s a cool guy, isn’t he?

 

^ Both of my adorable parents, in front of a statue of a giant rooster.  The area in the background is an artists’ workshop in the La Villeta Historic Arts Village.

 

^ A sign on the Fig Tree Restaurant in La Villeta.

 

^ A Predator taking a break from hunting to mingle among the lowly humans.  Actually, this is a wax sculpture displayed at the Ripley’s Believe It Or Not! Plaza Wax Museum near the Alamo.  I wonder how the Texan (and Mexican) soldiers during the battle would have reacted to this fellow, using his invisibility shield and plasma cannon, hunting among them?  Gotta sell that idea to Hollywood…

 

^ A river tour by night.  Clearly not as popular as the daytime tours.

Pictures from both birthday celebrations to follow!~

The More the Merrier

~The furor over the recent Arizona law intended to catch illegal immigrants has largely died down over here in North Carolina, although with the election in a few days I imagine it’s still an important issue in Arizona.  Among other provisions, the new law (originally Arizona Senate Bill 1070, now the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”) requires police officers to question people they suspect are illegal immigrants, and, if they fail to produce valid documentation, to arrest them. 

Emotions on this law are very strong on both sides.  Some people say this is tantamount to racist fascism, requiring people of Latino descent – even if they are U.S. citizens – to carry documentation (“papers, please”), at the risk of arrest if they are unable to produce it.  But on the other hand, Arizona does have large and increasing problems stemming from illegal immigrants, especially with violence spilling over from the all-out war between competing drug cartels just over the border.  Many Arizona residents feel very frustrated over ineffectual federal border enforcement and increasing drug & gang violence, so their support for tough new rules is understandable.

But regardless of what you think about the new law, it’s very interesting – and revealing – to discover some of the forces behind its drafting and adoption.  As the following story from National Public Radio demonstrates, lobbyists working for private prison companies were a strong influence on Arizona legislators, “suggesting” much of what the bill would eventually become.  The reason is obvious: these companies stand to make (and now, are making) huge amounts of (taxpayer) money by providing prison services to house the many new illegal immigrants to be rounded up as a result of the new law. Read (or listen to) the whole story here:

Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law

[...on the other hand, this story is from National Public Radio, which has caught a lot of flak recently over firing a contractor for his remarks on Fox News.  So if you think that because of that (and a asinine comment from the NPR CEO) NPR has lost all credibility, should lose all public funding, secretly hates America, etc., feel free to ignore the above story.  Corrections Corporation of America thanks you for your ignorance.]

Some might argue that if CCA can incarcerate illegal immigrants for cheaper than it would cost to pay for a state-operated prison, then that’s a good thing.  But that’s a very short-sighted view that ignores one of the key underlying causes of more illegals being incarcerated at all.  In this case, private prison lobbyists have pushed laws to generate more business (i.e. imprison more people) then they had been doing before the law was passed.  Regardless of whether of not CCA can incarcerate more cheaply per prisoner, it’s money that they would not get at all without the new, stricter immigration enforcement law.

Would Arizona have passed such a strict law without corporate "suggestions"?  Maybe, maybe not.  Should companies that stand to profit from certain laws being passed be allowed to influence those laws?  Absolutely not.  The bottom line: whether or not you agree with the morality/constitutionality of the new law, the private prison industry has succeeded in extracting a new and potentially very large revenue stream straight from the pockets of Arizona taxpayers.

San Antonio: The River Walk

~Last weekend, I went on a voyage to San Antonio, Texas, to meet some of my relatives, in honor of my paternal grandmother's 80th birthday.  Here are some pictures from the trip:

^ The River Walk of San Antonio.  Constructed by the WPA in 1939, this is one of the city's most scenic attractions: a series of walkways and canals along the San Antonio river.  It's lined with bald cypress trees, flowers, restaurants, shops, hotels, and other attractions.  

In the above picture, the river is only three feet deep; once a year for a week, the entire system is drained and cleaned out of the debris that has accumulated over the past year.  Apparently, riverfront hotel rooms are very cheap that week.

^ Flowers along the River Walk.

^ One thing you must do in San Antonio is take a boat tour of the River Walk.  It's relatively short and a fun way to learn more about the history and attractions of the river.  The people in the above image are all members of my extended family... 

^ ...but who's that fellow with the awesome hat?

^ This bird was eying us as we were waiting for the boat tour to begin.  I imagine he lives off of the largess of tourists.

^ One of the many pedestrian bridges that go over the river.

^ The Aztec Theater, listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

^ A mural on the wall of the Henry B. Gonzales Convention Center (click on it for a closer look).  It represents the meeting of cultures of America and Europe, with America on the left and Europe on the right, and the child in the middle being, of course, San Antonio.  The motto Libertatis Cunabula is Latin for "Cradle of Liberty" and appears on the San Antonio coat of arms.

^ The Rivercenter mall.  Not the largest shopping mall in San Antonio, but probably the best-looking.

^ The sign of the Rainforest Cafe along the River Walk.  What a great sculpture!

^ Right outside of the hotel we stayed at, there's a small, heart-shaped island along one side of the river, connected by a small footbridge.  Appropriately named "Marriage Island", It's among the most popular places to get married in the city, with around 300 weddings held here annually.  The above picture shows a sculpture on the island.

 ^ A sculpture of Saint Anthony along the River Walk.  "San Antonio" is Spanish for "Saint Anthony", and the city and river were named such because a Spanish expedition stopped to rest in the area in 1691 on the 13th of June, which is the feast day of St. Anthony of Padua in the Catholic Church.

^ A historical marker on a wall next to the River Walk.  "Old Mill Crossing -- Last Known Place Where Horses Drank And Forded The River.  Dedicated to the memory of our fathers.  Erected by the daughters of Texas Trail Drivers."

^ Another example of the lush foliage found along the River Walk.  Maintaining this is a lot of work: city gardeners periodically ride boats along the river and water the plants by pumping river water through hoses.

^ One of the many fountains along the River Walk.  To keep the canals from becoming stagnant, the water is continuously recirculated through fountains and artificial waterfalls.  As a result, the water does not stink, and there are very few mosquitoes (since they lay eggs in stagnant water).

^ One of the many colorful restaurants along the River Walk.

Next: more photos from San Antonio, including the Alamo and the birthday party.  Stay tuned!