Do you Approve of Genetic Engineering?

[Mr Skeptic]

At the end of the day, it is not our problem. All these, and more, will be decided by those who will not be born for decades yet.

 

No? How old are you? Unless my faith in human ingenuity is badly misplaced, we will be able to start doing some GM on people within a few decades. Sure, I'll be old, but still alive, hence it will be our problem (since most of us internet folks are young, we should still be alive).

[SkepticLance]

To Mr Skeptic

 

I completed my first degree 35 years ago. That should give you an inkling of my age. I think you are very optimistic about GM on humans. I doubt even simple manipulations will be done for decades, and the complex ones leading to a new population of 'beautiful people' will not happen for the best part of 100 years.

 

I remember when Neil Armstrong stood on the moon. All us young optimists said : 'in another ten years - Mars!' Sadly sometimes things take time.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, I was thinking some simpler GM could be done on humans within maybe two or three decades, if politically allowed. Most of it would be in medicine. For beauty, probably the first GM would only target something relatively simple like obesity which also has medical concerns.

 

Much of the progress I expect would require computer power to keep increasing, or better models for protein folding. Otherwise it will be almost like alchemy, and require insane animal testing for decades before it could be used.

[halogirl]

to: skepticlance

i don't think theres anything wrong with determining physical appearance, i was just trying to come up with an example. personally i feel that genetic engineering is a great idea. in fact its my hope to one day be a genetic engineer.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What harm would it do for a parent to arrange for their offspring to be born bilaterally symmetrical, and with a physiology that kept them slim? Or some other harmless feature which makes them look nicer?

 

Half of my problem is that you can't ensure that such changes are "harmless." We could certainly tell after a generation or two, but genetic engineering has far greater screwup potential than makeup and Botox.

[SkepticLance]

To the Capn

 

I agree with you. That is a big reason why I think it will take 100 years before the 'beautiful people' become widespread. We have to make damn sure we can get it 100% right 100% of the time before we get into it big time.

[dichotomy]

A philosophical question here. If GM Human Beauty becomes widespread, will it still be considered beautiful? Perceived beauty relies on perceived ugliness to even exist, does it not?

 

I’d imagine the GM beauties may be considered healthy, but beautiful, I dunno?

[Mr Skeptic]

A philosophical question here. If GM Human Beauty becomes widespread, will it still be considered beautiful? Perceived beauty relies on perceived ugliness to even exist, does it not?

 

To some extent, yes. That could result in an arms race of frivolous GM for beauty. That seems like it could cause some serious trouble.

[SkepticLance]

Interesting statement about health and beauty, because they ARE linked. The same characteristics we see as beauty are indicators of good health and fertility. If we use GM to make people more beautiful, will it also make them healthier? Probably a pointless question, since by the time we make people beautiful we will also be using GM to make them healthy as well.

 

Just as an aside. I got into an almost identical discussion on a greenie forum. The response was an almost 100% negative and emotional reaction. No, no, no!!! You cannot use GM to change people. Nice to see that respondents on this forum are less emotional and more thoughtful on this topic.

[Rev Blair]

As an avowed but somewhat reluctant Greenie, since you seem to like that term, SkepticLance, I can say that I don't really care what people do to try to make themselves look pretty. That's not to say that your appraisal is inaccurate though...you're pretty much right on the money. I'm the exception that pays for their sins. It's okay though...I was raised Catholic, so it matches my martyr complex.

 

When it comes to human modifications, I figure that the sky should be the limit as long as it's a level playing field. Want a genius-baby that looks like a super model, plays the guitar like Jimi Hendrix, and pitches (or at least writes like) like Bill "The Spaceman" Lee? No problem, but everybody needs to have the same opportunity.

 

A lot of the objections from what you term "the Greenies" are because they understand that those opportunities will not be available to anybody but the richest. There will be no level playing field.

 

Most of them will never admit that...they feel it erodes their moral high ground and they've been called commies (or worse) enough times that they've learned not to say such things out loud.

 

You'd do well to try to walk in another's moccasins for a bit, SkepticLance. So would they.

[SkepticLance]

Hiya Rev

 

Sorry to see you took my comment as a negative. I was actually trying to tell everyone here what great people they are!

 

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. What I get a bit peeved about is when those disagreements are based on emotion, and that is what I found with the 'environmentalist' forum. The refreshing thing about this forum is that when people disagree with me, they normally have good reasons that are not based on emotion to back them up.

 

Doesn't necessary persuade me, but its nice to see the reasons.

[dichotomy]

To some extent, yes. That could result in an arms race of frivolous GM for beauty. That seems like it could cause some serious trouble.

 

 

As long as the 'Arms Race' is solely about female beauty, I have no objections!

[Rev Blair]

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. What I get a bit peeved about is when those disagreements are based on emotion, and that is what I found with the 'environmentalist' forum. The refreshing thing about this forum is that when people disagree with me, they normally have good reasons that are not based on emotion to back them up.

 

What I'm saying though, is that those emotions don't come from nowhere. In our current system, the wealthy will gain further advantage over the poor through genetic modification. That's just a reality of the system.

 

People tend to react emotionally to that reality, but most have also learned that criticizing capitalist doctrine is a bad idea.

[halogirl]

i don't think its beaty that matters in the train of genetic engineering, but once we have physical appearance out of the way, that would leave people open to new things. imagine if our childeren could learn twice as fast as us. next thing you know they'll be developing animals that can travel through space. like that book series by Octavia E. Butler. this is the way i think we should go. this would make the human race more efficient at protecting our own and protecting the earth.

[Mr Skeptic]

Apparently GM has already been done on human embyos. Zev Rosenwaks and Nikica Zaninovic used a virus to give an (apparently non-viable) embyo the genes for fluorescent protein. That was done to study embryo development. However, it seems the technique is pretty much the same as for doing GM on mice.

[Rev Blair]

I'd like to see a genetic modification that kept people from thinking that "22.5 degrees" meant, "Just eyeball it, then blame the guy who wrote the plans when it turns out crooked." Or maybe that's social engineering and I should buy a lathe and begin making baseball bats?

 

Something I was wondering about genetic engineering is how specific it can get. We know that the gene for blonde hair is recessive, for instance, so blondes are becoming endangered as populations mingle.

 

Can we take that recessive gene and make it dominant?

 

What about engineering for intelligence or artistic inclinations? Do you think that kind of thing is generally upped, or are there specific genes? I know we don't know which genes do what, but how specific is it likely to be?

[dichotomy]

Something I was wondering about genetic engineering is how specific it can get. We know that the gene for blonde hair is recessive, for instance, so blondes are becoming endangered as populations mingle.

 

Can we take that recessive gene and make it dominant?

 

What about engineering for intelligence or artistic inclinations? Do you think that kind of thing is generally upped, or are there specific genes? I know we don't know which genes do what, but how specific is it likely to be?

 

Like blonde hair, blue eyes are recessive as well, so why, if all blued eyed people have a common ancestor, are blue eyes so successful in parts of Europe?

 

Blue-eyed Humans Have A Single, Common Ancestor

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

 

 

I’d think genes will only take us so far with intelligence and artistic ability. The rest would be damn good nurturing. And I don’t think there are genes for good nurturing? Good nurturing is learned, over generations, over time.

[Rev Blair]

I’d think genes will only take us so far with intelligence and artistic ability. The rest would be damn good nurturing. And I don’t think there are genes for good nurturing? Good nurturing is learned, over generations, over time.

______________

 

Oh, I fully agree that it isn't just genetics. What I was getting at is can you genetically bias somebody towards painting over music or mathematics over writing? Is there a genetic difference between Jimi Hendrix brand of genius, Hunter Thompson's brand of genius, and Albert Einstein's brand of genius, or is each a different expression of the same disposition?

[Mr Skeptic]

Something I was wondering about genetic engineering is how specific it can get. We know that the gene for blonde hair is recessive, for instance, so blondes are becoming endangered as populations mingle.

 

No, that's not how recessive traits work. The gene will remain, but will not be visible unless there are two recessive genes.

 

Can we take that recessive gene and make it dominant?

 

If you have two copies of the recessive gene, it will be used instead of the dominant gene (which won't be there). No, you can't as a rule make recessive genes dominant, because of how the dominant genes work. For example, if a dominant gene makes a pigment, whereas the recessive gene doesn't, then the pigment will be visible even with just one copy of the dominant gene -- the only way to not have the pigment would be to deactivate the dominant gene that makes it.

 

What about engineering for intelligence or artistic inclinations? Do you think that kind of thing is generally upped, or are there specific genes? I know we don't know which genes do what, but how specific is it likely to be?

 

Well, there are genes that code for various attributes, but for something complicated like intelligence, there are many many genes, and some combinations of them work better than others. Animal studies show that intelligence comes as a tradeoff, eg with higher energy requirements. It's not like there is an intelligence gene, many factors work together for that. It may eventually be possible to make a gene that increases intelligence with little or no drawback, but we are not close to there yet.

[dichotomy]

Oh, I fully agree that it isn't just genetics. What I was getting at is can you genetically bias somebody towards painting over music or mathematics over writing? Is there a genetic difference between Jimi Hendrix brand of genius, Hunter Thompson's brand of genius, and Albert Einstein's brand of genius, or is each a different expression of the same disposition?

 

 

Sounds like something for identical twin studies to work out? E.g. You would need to find a mathematically inclined twin and an artistically inclined one, perhaps?

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa

 

I was talking potatoes. Lets not get mixed up between potatoes and bananas.

 

You said "The world moves on, and we learn from our mistakes. There are literally thousands of types of potatoes, and many are now being introduced as breeding stock." My reply was "not always".

 

That meant that we do not always "learn from our mistakes" because we went to a clonal banana after the potato famine. And we are still making the same mistake because, even after that clonal banana was wiped out in the 1930s, we are still dependent on another clonal banana.

 

As for bananas, there are large numbers of varieties there also - just one mutant that is seedless - the Cavendish variety. And even that is under threat from black Sigatoka disease.

 

Thank you for making my point.

 

GM means we are going to have more and more crops that are going to be clonal.

 

Skeptic, my point is that natural selection is a lot smarter than we are. GM tries to have us substitute for natural selection. Since we are dumber than natural selection, I can see several ways for that to end badly.

 

We started the problem because we went to a clonal Cavendish variety. You want to "solve" the problem by going to another clonal variety -- a GM one. But don't you see? What other disease is out there waiting to hit the GM variety? GM is running the Red Queen's race.

 

i dunno i don't think theres anything wrong with determining physical appearance or physical strength, this would maojorly change the rules of sports, but appearance would only change the people that they are attracted too. so your're right i don't fully support genetic engineering because i think that determining the sex of a person could dramatically change the ratio of different sexuality(not that its necesarily a bad thing)

 

Changing the ratio of sexes would have social consequences -- China is facing some of that right now. You don't think that the process of GM to get what you consider "beautiful" people is also going to have social consequences? Some people have already brought those up: at first only the rich will have the opportunity. SkepticLance thinks the cost will come down. How long? If it is a generation, what is the social disruption as the have nots look at what the have's are getting for their children (especially if it is health) and their kids are not. People have started revolutions for less. So, Halogirl, how many killed in social unrest do you consider worth GM for "healthier" and more "beautiful"?

 

The problem I have is that "better, faster, stronger" assumes that those are always good things. What about intelligence or situational awareness or even resistance to disease?

 

Most traits are polygenic and most genes contribute to more than one trait. I said above to Skeptic that natural selection is a lot smarter than we are. And both of you want to chuck out natural selection and use us instead? Does that make sense? Say you have a genius designing an airplane. You fire him and put the village idiot on the job. Do you really want to fly in that plane? That's that analogy I see in genetic engineering. Humans are the village idiots compared to natural selection.

 

Interesting statement about health and beauty, because they ARE linked. The same characteristics we see as beauty are indicators of good health and fertility.

 

This point is essential to your argument. You need to document this. What are the scientific papers that back this claim.

 

I ask especially because what we consider beauty now in females would have been unhealthy for 99.99% of human history.

 

What harm would it do for a parent to arrange for their offspring to be born bilaterally symmetrical, and with a physiology that kept them slim?

 

Quite a bit possibly for the human race. Halogirl, this gets to the heart of your desire to GM people: you can't read the future. Look at artists in the past and see what their ideal of female beauty was. It was a plump female. Think about the "why" of that for a minute, because it gets back to SkepticLance's point about linking health and beauty.

 

For our current high fat, high calorie diet, what would we have to do to physiology to keep people slim? Make them very high metabolism so that they burn off all the calories they are taking in. Remember, we are altering people by GM, not altering their eating behavior by sociology.

 

So, suppose we do this for everyone. Now we have a population of slim people that can eat whatever they want in whatever quantities they want and they stay slim because their metabolism will burn it all off. There are such people today. A few. But now everyone will be this way.

 

And then an asteroid or comet hits the earth, changing the climate and making food a lot scarcer. What happens to everyone with high metabolism that require 5,000 to 10,000 calories per day? They have no reserves of body fat -- we've eliminated that. You can see what happens: they all starve. There simply isn't enough food for them to keep going. Congrats, your GM to have people more "beautiful" and "healthier" in our current environment has ensured that the human species becomes extinct when the environment changes. Are you sure you want to play with the survival of the human species this way?

[Reaper]

I don't know, after reading all of lucaspa's posts (and not just on this thread), I'm beginning to agree with him that GM humans are probably not a good idea (except for maybe screening for terminal illnesses, but that's not really genetic engineering though...) , at least on this planet. The problem with the other side on this issue, as I see it, is that it is plagued with the "you can have your cake and eat it too" mentality; that there is nothing wrong with our lifestyles/habitats, we just need better drugs, more "advanced" food, or even better humans....

[lucaspa]

I don't know, after reading all of lucaspa's posts (and not just on this thread), I'm beginning to agree with him that GM humans are probably not a good idea (except for maybe screening for terminal illnesses, but that's not really genetic engineering though...)

 

Yes, it does depend on what the hypothesis is, doesn't it? And yes, eliminating genetic diseases such as Tay Sach's or Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy would be genetic engineering.

 

OK, people, I'm not objecting to genetic engineering just because it is genetic engineering. What I'm trying to do is get you to start critically evaluating hypotheses and reasoning about them. Sorry, I am a teacher and can't help but do that here, too.

 

The hypothesis was: all genetic engineering in humans or plants (except determining sex) is good.

 

In science, when you have a hypothesis, the procedure is to try to falsify the hypothesis: to show it to be wrong. For SkepticLance and Halogirl (sorry to single you out, but you have been the most vocal cheerleaders), this meant that they should have been critically looking for cases and reasons why and how GM could have negative consequences. Instead, all they have been looking at (with the notable exception of Halogirl on GM the sex of the person) is positive effects. So I come along and try to do the falsifying. In the hopes that they will learn that this is the method to employ and, in the future, apply it to other ideas both before and after they post them.

 

Now, everyone, if the hypothesis had been: all genetic engineering is bad. Then I would have been trying to falsify that! And using the examples of genetic diseases and some crops to say that there were some cases where GM would be, and has been, beneficial.

 

If that confuses people, remember that it all depends on the hypothesis! And the hypotheses we've been working with have that "all" in them.

 

If instead you break this up into many hypotheses for individual cases, then I would be evaluating possible consequences for each individual case.

 

For those who like to hear personal opinions, my personal opinion (hypothesis) here is that GM has some potential for benefit in some very limited cases. Cases where we can definitely identify a deleterious genetic trait in either humans or species that we are exploiting and then correct it.

 

BUT, in general, I hold to the position that natural selection is much smarter than we are and it is impossible to predict future environments. Therefore we mostly let natural selection do its work and keep as much variation in the population as possible so that, if the environment changes, at least some individuals will have variations that will work in the change. We do as much as possible with other technology instead of GM. In particular, no tinkering based on our present idea of what is "beautiful" and recognizing that other traits, such as physical strength or athletic prowess, is not always what is needed.

[iNow]

One point on which I want to challenge you somewhat, lucaspa, is that "natural selection does it better than GM." When I read your comment, I get the sense that you are implying that GM will be done in a vacuum, as if when doing GM natural selection will be surpassed, pushed aside, and non-relevant (not necessarily your stance, just what I read into it).

 

I ask, would not natural selection still occur? Despite the use of GM, those modifications themselves would still be subject to some sort of selection, would they not?

 

Your own example of how "what is beautiful now would have been unhealthy in a vast majority of the past" seems to bear this point out. If we start GMing humans now, and the decisions we make are short-sighted or even detrimental, then they too will be selected against.

 

Perhaps I'm misframing this as "natural" instead of "artificial" selection? I'm not sure, but I wanted to hear your thoughts (and the thoughts of others) on this.

 

Cheers.

[foodchain]

Lots of things in America could be looked upon unfair if you just go from the money angle and overall thats not my point. Simply because someone can afford better healthcare or a better car is hardly the same as being genetically modified. The point is such already has huge costs and the related to make genetically modifying traits and people would cost a small fortune. Heck it would only be a percent of the rich that could probably afford it. The problem I see with such is that again its hardly like a car. If you could give a person a trait to have say a 50% better then anyone else ability to simply memorize anything really that’s a superior advantage in so many respects its not even funny. The person could become a great musician by simply that aspect alone.

 

The problem comes in just that, you could modify people to have traits that would simply allow them to out perform normies in any giving task over time. The problem I see with that is not so much in the GE itself it would be the kickback culturally as I do not see how people in a competitive society would tolerate such, simply put it would remove by in large competition for people that were giving "superior" traits.

 

Science does have to have a balance, for instance with cfc's. No one cared until cancer from holes in the ozone became apparent. It might be nice to think of making some kind of a genetic utopia but in reality its hardly feasible. I could easier see say a very small percent of the population using it to basically give themselves very unfair advantages over everyone else. Which on it own would create a vacuum effect of a arms race, its pretty much common sense to as it occurs with anything really.