Carnal Reason

Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more

Lyrics to I’d Love to Change the World, by Ten Years After

The song goes to the heart of socialism: resentment born of envy. The chosen goal is not to make everyone rich. To the contrary, it is to eliminate the rich. It is better to destroy wealth than to build it. A similar sentiment manifests itself in the modern anti-science movement.

LONDON — Scientists have transplanted a nearly entire human chromosome in mice in a medical and technical breakthrough that could reveal new insights into Down’s syndrome and other disorders. The genetically engineered mice carry a copy of the human chromosome 21. It is the smallest of the 23 pairs of human chromosomes with about 225 genes. Children suffering from Down’s syndrome, which is one of the most common genetic disorders, inherit three copies of the chromosome instead of two.

The achievement caps 13 years of research by scientists at the National Institute for Medical Health in London and the Institute of Neurology. “We are very optimistic that we will be able to get insights into what goes wrong with people with Down’s,” said Dr Victor Tybulewicz, who headed the research team.
…
The Down’s Syndrome Association in Britain welcomed the research, saying it could have a positive impact on the lives of people with the condition.

“Any research that could lead to a greater understanding of why people with Down’s syndrome are more susceptible to certain medical conditions is obviously extremely important, although it must be recognized that this research does not herald a ‘cure’ or a ‘treatment’ for Down’s syndrome,” the association said in a statement.

But Human Genetics Alert, an independent watchdog that focuses on the ethics of human genetics, described the breakthrough as frightening because animals with human genes are being created.

“It is worrying that there has been no public debate about whether this kind of technique ought to be allowed. I think we need a lot more public debate about that,” Dr David King told Reuters.
Wired

I was surprised that anyone might oppose research whose ultimate goal is to eliminate Down’s syndrome. I was also puzzled at the idea that this “kind of technique” requires permission (from whom?). And why are animals with human genes inherently frightening? The world already has such animals. Chimpanzee and human DNA is nearly identical.

I looked for answers the Human Genetics Alert website, where I found an article entitled The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering. Here are some excerpts.

In his recent book, Re-Making Eden (1998), Princeton biologist, Lee Silver celebrates the coming future of human ‘enhancement’, in which the health, appearance, personality, cognitive ability, sensory capacity, and life-span of our children all become artifacts of genetic engineering, literally selected from a catalog. Silver acknowledges that the costs of these technologies will limit their full use to only a small ‘elite’, so that over time society will segregate into the “GenRich” and the “Naturals”:

Naturally the costs of these imagined future technologies are already known, and fixed for all time. Unlike, say, corrective eye surgery, which was originally quite expensive but whose cost has steadily come down.

The (speculative) threat is pure sci-fi:

The GenRich - who account for 10 percent of the American population - all carry synthetic genes… that were created in the laboratory …All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as labourers, and their children go to public schools… If the accumulation of genetic knowledge and advances in genetic enhancement technology continue … the GenRich class and the Natural class will become…entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

Resentment of the imaginary GenRich is offered as a reason for prohibiting research intended to help real people with tragic problems.

Furthermore, there is always another solution for those couples who are certain to produce a genetically disabled child and cannot, or do not want to deal with this possibility. They can choose not to have children, to adopt a child, or to use donor eggs or sperm. Parenthood is not the only way to create fulfilment through close, intimate and long lasting relationships with children. The question we have to ask is whether we should develop the technology for HGE, in order to satisfy a very small number of people.

A much better question is whether such technology should be prohibited in order to satisfy a very small number of zealots. Notice how the author conveniently disregarded the needs of children whose genetic problems are discovered only after birth.

One of the flaws in the argument of those who support the possibility of HGE for medical purposes is that there seem to be very few good examples where it is the only solution to the medical problem of genetic disease.

Especially since HGE is currently medical research rather than medical practice. The author’s goal is to make sure that HGE methods never become available, no matter how effective they might be.

The main advantage of HGE is said to be the elimination of disease genes from a family. Yet in nearly all cases, existing technologies of prenatal and preimplantation genetic testing of embryos allow the avoidance of actual disease. There are only a few very rare cases where HGE is the only option.

And screw those rare cases.

In essence, the vision of the advocates of HGE is a sanitised version of the old eugenics doctrines, updated for the 1990s. Instead of ‘elimination of the unfit’, HGE is presented as a tool to end, once and for all, the suffering associated with genetic diseases.

Yeah, the use of voluntary medical techniques to help people with genetic problems is not much different from herding them into death camps.

And in place of ‘improving the race’, the 1990s emphasis is on freedom of choice, where ‘reproductive rights’ become consumer rights to choose the characteristics of your child.

It would be a terrible thing if the idea of ‘reproductive rights’ came to encompass ridding children of genetic disease. The only true ‘reproductive right’ is the right to kill children before they are born.

Posted on September 28th, 2005 by pwyll
Filed under: science