~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.
No comments:
Post a Comment