"Because human beings are far more than the product of genes--because DNA is one of many factors in human development--the feats of genetic manipulation eventually accomplished will almost certainly turn out to be much more modest than what the designer-baby advocates predict. But we cannot dismiss the possibility that scientists will achieve enough mastery over the human genome to wreak enormous damage -- biologically and politically."
Dr Marcy Darnovsky - The New Eugenics: The Case Against Genetically Modified Humans http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/gmhuman.htm
---
1. Independent's support for human germline engineering - ngin
2. Let us rid society of genetic defects, says DNA pioneer - Steve Connor
3. Genetic research to eliminate disease should not be prevented by fear - editorial
---
1. Independent's support for human germline engineering
The school where I work cancelled its subscription to the Independent some time ago because of the increasingly malign influence of its Science Editor, Steve Connor (who provided the stronngest journalistic support for the media SIRCus project) on the paper's overall editorial tone and coverage.
There could be no greater proof of the rightness of that decision than the following article and its accompanying shroud-waving editorial.
With the Independent declaring, that inserting "genetic material into human sperm or egg cells" "seems the most promising way of rewriting the genetic code of a human being", let nobody be in any doubt from this point on that the promotion of human germline engineering has gone mainstream in the UK.
That fact has to be seen in the context of a still more morally vacuous Prime Minister obsessed with the supposed benefits of biobiz , and who has the likes of Lord Sainsbury as Science Minister at his shoulder. These are the people who have already guided in human embryo-cloning - something which has clearly already acted as a catalyst for entrepreunerial human cloners.
The Independent is of course basing its editorial line on a scientist whose thinking is often so bizarre if not deranged that it has frequently caused uproar and outrage
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/JM100.htm
---
2. Let us rid society of genetic defects, says DNA pioneer
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
16 April 2001
James Watson, the "father" of DNA science, has called for the law to be changed so that scientists can alter the genes of sperm, eggs and embryos and so rid genetic defects from future generations.
Dr Watson, who with Francis Crick shared a Nobel prize for the discovery of the DNA double helix in 1953, says that fears over the creation of "designer babies" are misplaced and that the potential benefits of controlling the ultimate engine of human evolution far outweigh the risks.
Altering the genes of sperm, eggs and embryos - so-called germ-line gene therapy - is specifically outlawed in Britain, America and many other countries, ostensibly because of the risks of meddling with genetic material and introducing possible side-effects that will be passed on to subsequent generations. There are also ethical and moral concerns about tinkering with human DNA to improve a family's genetic stock either by eliminating "bad" genes or introducing "good" ones. Critics say it raises the spectre of eugenics, as practised by the Nazis.
Dr Watson, who played a formative role in the human genome project and is president of the prestigious Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, argues passionately in 'The Independent' today for society to review its opposition to germ-line gene therapy.
"I strongly favour controlling our children's genetic destinies. Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed," Dr Watson writes.
Answering those who even oppose the genetic modification of plants and animals, he says: "To my knowledge, not one illness, much less fatality, has been caused by a genetically manipulated organism."
Attempts to prevent germ-line gene therapy on humans are reminiscent of the measures designed to limit the use of DNA manipulation 25 years ago when scientists agreed to a temporary moratorium on the technology, Dr Watson says.
"The moral I draw from this painful episode is this: never postpone experiments that have clearly defined future benefits for fear of dangers that cannot be quantified," he says.
---
3. Genetic research to eliminate disease should not be prevented by fear
Independent editorial:16 April 2001
Who is afraid of "designer babies"- James Watson, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who helped unravel the structure of DNA, will no doubt be accused of wanting to create genetically-modified superhumans. He is doing nothing of the sort. It is to be hoped that anyone who reads his actual words (see page 5) will better understand the ethical dilemmas that surround genetic science.
Mr Watson's argument for carrying out the kind of research that could enable people to alter the genes of their children to eliminate serious disease is a powerful one. If it is possible to identify and alter the genes that predispose people to childhood cancers or to adult Alzheimer's disease, why not do it?
There are two arguments commonly advanced for not even trying. One is the most risk-averse formulation of the precautionary principle, which is that scientists should not interfere directly in the genetic code of human beings for fear of unknown and unforeseeable consequences. Never mind that this is a line of argument that would have legislated against the use of electricity, the invention of the motor car or the development of plastics. Genetic engineering is held to be in a different category because it intervenes so directly in the evolution of the human race.
Mr Watson certainly has no patience with this view. "Never postpone experiments that have clearly defined future benefits for fear of dangers that cannot be quantified," he writes. Broadly, he is right, although sometimes science should be cautious. The BSE disaster was a reminder of the dangers of the unforeseen. Even if no one could have known of the prions that transmitted the disease, the benefits of feeding animal remains to herbivores were too slight to justify the practice. The potential benefits of genetic technology, however, are substantial.
The second argument against genetically engineering humans is that it would be a slippery slope to eugenics. All this stuff about eliminating incurable congenital diseases, critics suggest, is simply a cover for the ambition of crazed scientists to engineer a super race of genetically privileged humans. Once we have the ability to remove "bad" genes, the next step will inevitably be to insert "good" ones, for greater intelligence, better looks and fitter bodies. It is true that many parents already screen out Down's syndrome foetuses, although most people with Down's enjoy fulfilled lives. But that is an ethical dilemma with which we wrestle already.
Furthermore, as Mr Watson points out, while the predisposition to many conditions that cause suffering is controlled by a single gene, factors such as innate intelligence and looks are determined by a complicated interaction between thousands of genes. Intervening to alter one gene is possible; the science of ‘Brave New World’ is still a long way off. Fear of one should not prevent the other, which promises the alleviation of suffering in the near future.
The practical problem is that this fear is inscribed in our legislation in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 1990. The act bans research on how to insert genetic material into human sperm or egg cells, which seems the most promising way of rewriting the genetic code of a human being.
We should not be ruled by the fear of the unknown or, worse, the fear of having to make difficult moral decisions. Yes, genetic science will pose more awkward questions about what kinds of "disability" like Down's or dwarfism ought to be "designed out" of the human species, but they are not essentially new. The Act should be amended, and scientists should be encouraged to try to minimise the chances of people being born with pain or an early death written into their chromosomes.
---
"The mechanistic paradigm has failed the reality test in life. What is not generally known is that it has also failed the reality test within western science itself. Contemporary western science across the disciplines is revealing how nature is organic, dynamic and interconnected. There are no linear causal chains linking genes and the characteristics of organisms, let alone the human condition. Yet, the discredited paradigm of genetic determinism is still being perpetrated by the scientific establishment, in exactly the same way that neo-liberal economics still dominates the political mainstream. Not only is the old paradigm good for promoting genetic engineering biotechnology, it also makes many of the unethical applications seem compelling. "-Mae-wan Ho http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/44.htm