Should We Activate Dormant Genes to Spur Human Devolution?

October 11, 2011

There's a fascinatingly weird article in this month's Wired magazine, "How to Hatch a Dinosaur." Paleontologist Jack Horner, noting that today's chickens are the evolutionary descendants of dinosaurs and still retain much of their genome, pitches the notion of re activating those long dormant genes in a chicken embryo. If you activate enough of those genes, Horner believes, you'll end up with a creature that begins to resemble its ancient predecessor -- what Wired writer Thomas Hayden playfully dubs a "chickenosaurus."

Bringing Up Baby Mammoth

The idea is similar to one proposed in 2008 by Penn State University scientists Stephan C. Schuster and Webb Miller, who sequenced much of the genome of an extinct woolly mammoth from a DNA sample gleaned from a hair ball. Noting the similarities between the mammoth and modern African elephants, they've proposed modifying about 400,000 sites on the genome of an African elephant cell, converting it into an embryo. That embryo presumably could then be implanted into a female elephant, which, at least in theory, would then give birth to a baby mammoth. Here's a New York Times article on their idea, which they hatched after a discussion with Harvard geneticist George Church, who has developed a method for altering 50,000 sites on a genome at a time.

But Church, of course, is better known for his work with the human genome; he's founder of the Personal Genome Project, which is striving to amass the decoded genomes of 100,000 different volunteers, in order to advance the understanding of genetic contributions to human traits and possibly to help find cures for diseases. (Here's a 2010 New York Times article on the project.)

Connecting those dots got me to thinking. Call me over cautious, but it strikes me that this notion of creating a chickenosaurus has a few potential downsides. Initially, it might be cool to have dinosaurs as pets or as theme park attractions, but once a few of them get loose and start reproducing on their own -- assuming they're able to do that —we might have an overpopulation problem that would make suburbanites' complaints about white-tailed deer eating their shrubbery and garden plants seem trivial. (On the other hand, if you own a high-powered rifle and are the adventurous sort, maybe you'd enjoy living in a real-life version of the new TV series Terra Nova.

But what if, instead of trying to de-evolve chickens or elephants, scientists tried reactivating archaic genes on the human genome, and causing future generations of Homo sapiens to revert to characteristics that the species had in the past?

A New View on Evolution

This might require a change in our thinking. Since Darwin, we've been looking at evolution as a one-way process, a slow, steady slog out of the primordial ooze to the La- Z- Boy lounger. There has been a debate in recent decades over whether the human race has reached an end stage of development or continues to evolve -- perhaps into a future version with six fingers and a gigantic cranium, as depicted by David McCallum in an episode of the old TV series The Outer Limits.

Incidentally, the makeup artists for The Outer Limits may have gotten it wrong when they put six fingers on future humans. As this 1998 Scientific American article explains, evolution can just as easily result in simplification as it can increased complexity; ancient horses had several toes, while their modern descendants have just a single digit.

Either way, it may be hubris on our part to assume that evolution is always beneficial. A 2009 Scientific American article called "What Will Become of Homo Sapiens?" discusses the belief of some scientists that humanity might actually be becoming less intelligent and more physically flawed as the result of evolution, with problems such as attention deficit/h yperactivity disorder and Tourette's syndrome possibly spreading throughout the human population. (A caveat: The latter scenario is based upon speculation that these disorders might be genetic and encoded by a few genes that could be passed along more efficiently than more complex genetic interactions.)

Elimiating Disease

One 2011 study suggests that human evolution may have taken another wrong turn, leading to the loss of function in a gene called CMAH, which may make humans more prone to obesity and diabetes than other mammals. While they made us healthier in some ways, our ancient dalliances between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals may also have led to our modern vulnerability to autoimmune diseases, according to this recent article from the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper. In particular, as this article details, some scientists theorize certain long-ago changes in the human genome that provided resistance to ancient plagues may now make us more vulnerable to HIV.

I'm not saying that future generations should do the equivalent of a total factory restore and go back to looking like Ardipithecus ramidus, most likely our earliest hominid ancestor from 4.5 million years ago. But what if we could selectively turn off or alter all those human genes whose evolution has been problematic and bring back earlier traits that might be more beneficial?

According to this article by two Japanese scientists, for example, early humans apparently had a much keener sense of smell than we do, as evidenced by the 50 percent of all human olfactory genes that are now dormant. It's also conceivable that ancient humans, who lacked complex language and writing, let alone the ability to consult Wikipedia on their smart phones, may well have had superior memory abilities. (A 2007 study found that chimps, our evolutionary cousins, are dramatically better than adult humans at remembering strings of numbers.)

And as this LiveScience article notes, some of our hominid ancestors may also have had superior physical abilities, such as upper-body strength and short-distance speed. It could be that if your favorite NFL team needs an upgraded running back, a prospect with some revived Australopithecus genes might just be the ticket.

Post your own opinion below. And of course, on the topic of devolution, I'd be remiss if I didn't post this video from the DEVO official website, of the boys from Akron performing their 1980 hit "Whip It."

Credit: Sagel & Kranefeld/Corbis | Richard T. Nowitz/CORBIS |

Comments

[Just Me]

The idea of devolving humans in order to recoup 'lost' functions sounds great....let's just hope the thinking and research takes into account inadvertently turning on something that was lost for good reason.

[Just Me]

The idea of devolving humans in order to recoup 'lost' functions sounds great....let's just hope the thinking and research takes into account inadvertently turning on something that was lost for good reason.

[Just Me]

The idea of devolving humans in order to recoup 'lost' functions sounds great....let's just hope the thinking and research takes into account inadvertently turning on something that was lost for good reason.

[Patrick J. Kiger]

I hear an echo in here.... :)

[Erik]

Not evolution process in nature, this is not work idea. Is couple paralel gens. This sistemic proces can calculate and make u need species.
Species tree is full another.

[Erik]

Species tree is directly the wrong side out Darvins. This is pinciple make live species. To unite one line species carry make new high species. Human with these races is finally. P/S
Sorry for me very bad english.

[Erik]

Recent, sorry, i not understand what u vant. Maybe this?
Genes activate ciclic planetar energetic. All is energetic laces. Not energy, not live. In what time this activate. Aber these to bee to stir to activity.

[Erik]

for example:
Cat make united bird, snake, and ...
Species bird, snake, and ... make concrete cat form. And something another.

[Dr C. Ohabuike]

genetic manipulation is so cool. am in for it! its a great world of opportunities. but pls let's get an earth like planet first that we will put these genetically altered animals n humans into then study them widely n see how they turn out. like a lab but this time an earth like sized lab. who knows, we too on earth might just be lab rats for God or whateva species that has kept us down here for so long without ever revealing it or themselves physically to us.

[Dr C. Ohabuike]

genetic manipulation is so cool. am in for it! its a great world of opportunities. but pls let's get an earth like planet first that we will put these genetically altered animals n humans into then study them widely n see how they turn out. like a lab but this time an earth like sized lab. who knows, we too on earth might just be lab rats for God or whateva species that has kept us down here for so long without ever revealing it or themselves physically to us.

[Nikki P]

Wouldn't this actually be an EVolution, because you wouldn't be taking away our genetic traits as they've evolved, but rather incorporating old traits with all of these new ones?

I feel an ADHD, allergy-susceptible superhero coming on...a Superman for the NERDS!

[R B Helms]

Human genes aren't a bunch of switches connected to known super-powers and abilities far beyond the common man. In short, experimentation will ultimately be needed to prove the guesswork as to whether flipping on and off genes for a desired effect really works. And just what humans will be experimented upon, pray tell? Or embryos for that matter…

There's a huge boondoggle in the works here, and unless someone does some real socially and politically ugly Frankenstein science, I don't know just how far this sort of thing will really go...

[fragileswan]

Man is currently devolving at an unprecedented rate. When viewed as a summation of the organism, without regard to the immortal soul; the person is reduced to a beast driven by cold, hunger, thirst, fear and his loins.

The mighty slay the weak out of arrogance, and denial of the soul is denial of the locus of reason, confirming that rational thought has ceased.

If I'm to seriously consider the theory of evolution in the ridiculous state it currently finds itself, then someone must explain what human mothers did between the evolutionary stage at which babies began randomly pooping and the advent of diapers!

You don't grow diapers. They're made from textiles. And why does everyone believe in God? Probability dictates that man should evolve without a concept of faith, because it's a liability to survival.

If I believe in the existence of things that don't exist, and I deny the existence of things that do exist, the world becomes nonsensical and pointless, because nothing makes sense.

I issue a challenge to all: give me one example of something that is not in some way related to your experience.

It think it's much more likely that man has directly interacted with Almighty God in the past, but ignorance on the part of humans has increased, so as to render him essentially blind.

Free choice is not freedom, because it's the freedom to do the wrong thing. If people always knew the right thing to do, free choice would vaporize, because no one will do the wrong thing if they know the right thing to do.

If we just continue on the present course, 100 years from now the world will consist of warlord rulers, their concubines and their slaves.

Physical masculine strength will dictate truth and justice. Females will become the medium of exchange, worth a summation of physical attractiveness and an intact hymen!

There will be no law but that of survival. That's the price we pay for denial. Forty years ago mankind had reached the end of scientific progress.

Nothing truly original has been discovered since, because the human race has been plunged into darkness--devolution.

[corporate gift baskets]

Human mind is so powerful that a lot of newly things are being discovered. Some of them are quite impossible but becoming possible in our present time. Charles Darwin already explained the evolution of man which had raised a lot of debates. Now, manipulating the genes in order to find something better solution is a great idea. However, we have to think that this process has consequences and involves a lot of years of studies.