Is This a Good Idea? Transgenic Human Babies?

June 08, 2009

In case you haven’t seen them, here are photos those almost unbearably cute marmosets and their glowing green feet, created by Japanese scientists who implanted a jellyfish fluorescence gene into monkey embryos. The experiment, detailed in a paper just published in the scientific journal Nature, is momentous because it marks the first time that a gene-encoding protein has been fully integrated into the DNA of a primate, enabling the fluorescent-footed monkeys to pass the artificial trait on to their offspring. It’s a development that has a lot of medical researchers excited, because of the potential for breeding primates with genetic tendencies for human diseases, who then could be studied in research to find cures. Conversely, animal rights activists, who are already against the use of apes for medical experimentation (see my previous blog on that subject), are likely to become even more outraged by the breeding of transgenic primates for laboratories.

Keep reading! There's more...

But enough about monkeys. What if scientists used the same techniques to modify human embryos in a way that permanently altered humans’ genetic makeup, producing new traits that would be passed on to future generations? They might create transgenic infants who would grow up to be not only healthier and more resistant to diseases, but possibly more athletic, more intelligent and better looking than previous generations. And if we want to let our imaginations get extreme, perhaps they might even be able to imbue the little tykes with characteristics and abilities from the animal kingdom, such as gorilla-like muscular power, cheetah-like speed, webbed feet for better swimming, or a hollow, birdlike skeleton and a pair of wings for flying. Hey, if they can make monkey feet glow under an ultraviolet light, could the creation of real-life X-Men be that far behind?

Naturally — or perhaps unnaturally would be a better word choice — the notion of tinkering with our basic humanness in such a fashion positively horrifies a lot of people. Fixing genes linked to diseases sounds like a no-brainer, but it’s also the first step on a slippery slope. Once you start tinkering with the human genome for the purpose of enhancing performance, where it is going to lead? Would athletic and intellectual competitions become meaningless? Would society divide itself into two classes — people whose parents could afford genetic modification for them, and those who had to get by on nature alone? What if an evil government bent upon conquest abused the technology to create a race of genetic super-soldiers?

Actually, genetically modified humans already exist. In 2001, a team of fertility researchers revealed that they had used a process called ooplasmic transfer to inject the eggs of female patients with cytoplasm from donor eggs before fertilizing them and implanting the embryos. Though the researchers’ intent was merely to help infertile women conceive, two of the 15 children produced by the technique turned out to have genes from the donor female as well as the birth mother and father. After fertility clinics started advertising ooplasmic transfer on the Web, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration quickly imposed a ban on the use of the technique except in approved research. (FYI, here’s a 2002 FDA presentation that explains both the science and the agency’s concerns.)

Unlike 44 other countries, however, the United States hasn’t — at least not yet — enacted an explicit ban on inheritable genetic modification of humans by other techniques. That leads some to worry that sooner or later, somebody is going to try to do with humans what the Japanese researchers accomplished with marmosets. As the Washington Post’s Rob Stein reported

But because the work marks the first time members of a species so closely related to humans have had their genetic makeup permanently altered, the research set off alarms that it marked a troubling step toward applying such techniques to people, which would violate a long-standing taboo.

"It would be easy enough for someone to make the leap to trying this on humans," said Lori B. Andrews, who studies reproductive technologies at the Illinois Institute of Technology's Chicago-Kent College of Law. "If you make this kind of change, it's passed on to all future generations. Many people think it's hubris to have people remaking people in this way."

The approach could tempt some to use the technique to try to engineer desirable traits in people, creating a society of genetic haves and have-nots, Andrews said. Others worried that the work could have additional disturbing implications, such as potentially blurring the line between species.

The Center for Genetics and Society, a scientific watchdog group, also is sounding the alarm about the likelihood of eventual human applications of the marmoset experiment. In a FAQ on inheritable genetic modification, the center further opines:

…some advocates of IGM now openly promote its use for producing "enhanced" or "designer" babies, and even acknowledge that it would exacerbate existing inequalities and create new kinds of inequality. Proposals for genetic enhancement and the world view that accompanies are widely seen as a threat to social justice.

But while some may fret about genetically manipulated "Frankenbabies" members of the Transhumanist movement have long advocated tinkering with the human blueprint and making a few improvements. (For example, check out my previous blog on synthetic “smart” skin. Here’s an excerpt from a pro-genetic modification treatise by transhumanist writer Nick Bostrom, in which he raises some compelling arguments:

…the promise of genetic enhancements is anything but insignificant. Being free from severe genetic diseases would be good, as would having a mind that can learn more quickly, or having a more robust immune system. Healthier, wittier, happier people may be able to reach new levels culturally. To achieve a significant enhancement of human capacities would be to embark on the transhuman journey of exploration of some of the modes of being that are not accessible to us as we are currently constituted, possibly to discover and to instantiate important new values. On an even more basic level, genetic engineering holds great potential for alleviating unnecessary human suffering. Every day that the introduction of effective human genetic enhancement is delayed is a day of lost individual and cultural potential, and a day of torment for many unfortunate sufferers of diseases that could have been prevented. Seen in this light, proponents of a ban or a moratorium on human genetic modification must take on a heavy burden of proof in order to have the balance of reason tilt in their favor. Transhumanists conclude that the challenge has not been met.

So what do you think? Would inheritable genetic modification of humans be a good thing, or would it lead to a genetically stratified dystopia even worse than the one Aldous Huxley envisioned in his 1932 novel Brave New World. Express your opinion below.

Comments

[Skeptic]

I think you're misinterpreting Huxley, who wasn't envisioning genetic modification to create a superior race. Instead, he predicted the in-vitro tampering with offspring to stunt their development and create a race of dull-witted worker-consumers.

[jamerz3294]

there is no doubt that we will *tinker* with our genetics, at first to prevent disease, lengthen life, etc. but where will it end? Do we create a race of Supermen? And what are the moral implications of who gets to be enhanced, and who doesn't?

[Astroboy]

I want a race of super-powered babies.

[David Godfrey]

David Godfrey,14 says:

I think it is so cool that we can make mutants and we can genetically modify humans. But i have one question:
When you talked about giving humans a birdlike skeleton and webbed feet. If you genetically engineered her to have those characteristics, would she/he change right away or in a couple of days.

[Patrick J. Kiger]

He or she would be born with those characteristics.

[Natural Man]

The future humans who are tampered with genetically won't have an opportunity to object or consent.

[Caffeine Driven Stress Magnet]

What if we add genetic attributes to our descendants, and they turn out to be bad ones instead of beneficial? They're stuck with them then.

[Yes Nukes]

how freaky would they be? Pretty freaky I bet.

[Neo-Luddite]

This sounds like something out of "The Island of Dr. Moreau."

[Joe]

While there are some obvious benefits to this technology in regards to eliminating genetic errors but by doing so we may potentially lose genius traits that are common among people with ADD and some forms of autism. We could also potentially lose our population of savants and subsequent understanding of how their brains function to perform the amazing things of which they are capable.

[Curtis Benson]

hey Joe, you raise some excellent points. I just read that 35 percent of entrepreneurs have dyslexia. Apparently their difficulty in reading forces them to work much harder at developing their listening, memory for details and verbal communication abilities.

[Jason]

people think of transgenics as creating human mutants, but the real value of the technology will be the creation of xenografts--immune system friendly substitute organs that can be transplanted into our bodies. Someday transgenic farms wil supply hospitals with organs just as supermarkets are supplied with meat.

[Mothra]

I worry that people are going to try to make perfect children. Why don't we all just grow up in test tubes.

[Emily Litella]

Transgender human babies? You mean like Chastity Bono? Oh...never mind!

[Robin Carmichael]

I don;t care about transgenic babies, but that How Stuff Works ad about snot is disgusting!!

[Eric Reader]

What if they just used the process to make spare organs for transplant, instead of whole babies?

[Free Elections in Iran]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC2YCgDaL10&feature=related

[No More Experiments on Apes!]

I'm horrified by the original experiment on the marmosets. Who knows what detrimental effects this gene may also have.

[How About a New Blog, Already? This One Has Been Up for Ages!]

Are you taking a mental vacation, or what?

[Jaybird]

I think it's a terrible idea to tamper with the human gene pool this way. We're going to turn future generations into MONSTERS!

[Dr. Strange]

One man's monster is another man's mutant superhero.

[Roland Veasey]

I don't really like this idea. For some reasons, ever hear of what happens to genetically modified plants? Also, what if someone infected a baby and it had gene that could do something real devastating that if it mated it would kill thousands of people. Also, what if someone used it too control people like robots. Like you said, what would happen to regular people? What if the person does not want to be a mutant?