I do not agree with the language the authors use early on in the article about how this has been done in mice and “farm critters”: “the amazing breakthroughs…will eventually be applied to the animals at the top of the food chain”. First, the accepted paradigm has shifted from a food chain to a food web and, second, this suggests a progress to our evolutionary development, when in fact all life forms can be considered equivalent from an evolutionary point-of-view. In other words, there is nothing that makes us higher up or more advanced compared to an organism like a mouse. This is a slight and only tangential criticism but it does belie a very common misconception about evolution. Another point that I want to make if that it is impossible to be immune to AIDS, as this is merely a condition and not an infection. The correct language would be immune to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. I know that is nitpicky as well, but it is another common misconception.
Furthermore, the authors are overly optimistic about how soon such engineering will be possible and how helpful it will be for the individual. This article was published more than fourteen years ago and we have yet to see any of the developments they prognosticated will come about within a score of years. I want to underscore first how incredibly difficult it would be to introduce genes into the germ line cells. Such DNA would have to be incorporated into the genome to be replicated faithfully, where it could potentially disrupt normal gene function, become lost, or get rejected out of the genome. Obviously, it has been done in mice—and as the authors mention, these model organisms are incredibly similar to humans—and so is possible in humans, but if ever possible, it would be incredibly expensive and difficult to perform. Moreover, I want to comment that, while not having CCR5 renders one immune to HIV infection, this is not necessarily a good thing. CCR5 is a chemokine receptor on the surface of T cells: In other words, this protein (CCR5) is involved in drawing good immune cells (the T cells) to the site of infection. Without CCR5, HIV would not be able to enter the cells, but the individual would also have a degree of immunosuppression, as such cells would not be as attracted to other bacterial and viral infections. There is a give and take that was not addressed in the article.
Likewise, another issue is even identifying these genes. They may have identified genetic mechanisms for high cholesterol and even some genes implicated in height. Nevertheless, the scientific community is still decently far from determining which genes contribute personality or intellectual, athletic, or artistic ability. Furthermore, the heritability of these traits—how much genetics is able to determine a trait—is exceptionally low (I do not know h established that fifty percent figure is—think of how different identical twins can be from a personality perspective). In other words, you could have all of the genes to grow to be 6’6”, but never drink milk as a child and only grow to 5’3”. While the Human Genome Project was able to sequence our genetic information, it has actually revealed more mysteries than it has solved. Almost all of our DNA is considered “junk” (though scientists are identifying that it is essential for some unknown reason and now call it “noncoding”).
The bottom line is that there is still considerable time before this could happen and that just because we could do such does not mean that we will or ethically should.
I believe the option to pick your child's genes is completely unethical, having babies isn't supposed to be like build-a-bear. If everyone chooses to have extremely athletic kids then the athletes might be better, but they would still be competing against athletes that have still been made better... Which would even everything out, which in my perspective would ultimately mean altering your child's genes were pointless because other parents did it too and your children would still be on the same level. Or what if you chose to make your kid exceptionally athletic and they grew up hating sports and wanting to play the piano. You can choose to give your child brown hair but when they grow up and evolve into their own person they may still decide they want blonde hair. So, not only would altering every child's gene continue to make everyone even, simply on a higher playing field, but it is also making a huge assumption as to what kind of person and what interests your child will have. If you and your spouse love basketball but have average heights of 5'2 so you decide to alter your childs genes to make them 6'5 hoping they'll make it big in the sport and they grow up to love horses and want to be a jockey you have now as a parent taken your interests and put them in front of your child's natural potential and their natural height which would have been perfect for jockeying. Ultimately you do not know what your child's interests will be therefor you do not know the best way to alter their genes. I find this whole research to honestly be scary and I hope it does not become the latest fad in the future.
The fact that we are talking about altering the genetic makeup of a person is incredible and shows how far we have come technologically and what we known about biology in general. The idea that we can one day alter the genetic makeup of a person to the extent that they will be almost 'man-made' is quite scary and seemingly unrealistic but I believe this will happen eventually. Maybe not in the next 100 years but I can see it happening. New methods and incredible breakthroughs are happening more and more often is science. The fact that we can insert certain, turn off or enhance certain genes in a mouse genome is incredible because a human's genome is quite similar but obviously different in certain ways.Yes the enthusiasts who see this technology being available within the next 5-10 years have underestimated the complexity to the operation but their excitement is backed by up by revealing evidence we have now. While we dont know how to do this now many scientists are working on it everyday. It seems as only a matter of time. At the same time it also seems unethical to perform.
Agreeing with Henderson it is out of this world to think that our technology has come this far in the past 50 years. With all of these technological advancements happening it is hard to think that anything is impossible. Now returning to the topic at hand, I believe altering the genome of humans is highly immoral. We are taking the power of God in our own hands and we have no idea of the side effects this could unfurl. While scientist may not be able to see them now it could happen two or three generations down the road where we start to see side effects. We do not and should not have the power of God to decide who is who and what they shall become.
I agree with Kohrs, that it is highly immoral and is letting the doctor's play God. I think it is just wrong to try and pick out what genes a child should have. It is just not fair to pick and choose the genes a child receives. Also like Kohrs said that we do not know if there will be side effects down the road because of this. It is a cool idea but it will get out of hand people will try to make the smartest or the most athletic kid.
I agree with Kohrs, that it shouldn't be in our hands to determine who a person is. I feel as if this were to happen, that people would start questioning faith and religion. Looking at it longterm, would people start wanting the same genes as other people would want, making everyone the same? I'm sure people like the same type of genes and if they all what that for their kid, there will be multiple kids that look and act exactly the same. I feel that this is immoral also and that everyone should be their own person, not being what someone wants you to be.
I think that genetically enhancing kids is wrong but at the same time if someone else wanted to put create their child that way they can. At the same time, it is unfair for others because not everyone will have the money to genetically enhance their kids. Also, the kids who will be genetically enhance will have a better adapt to a specific sport than a child who was not genetically enhanced. I think it would be unfair for them to compete against each other. This is different from the gene factor because they did not choose that it just how they were born. If parents choose to genetically enhance their child makes these automatically on a different level than everyone else.
Casey makes some great points here. In my opinion, genetically enhancing kids should not be allowed at all. I think this would ruin sports on so many levels. If people started to genetically enhance their kids just so they could be better at a certain sport or just be given that extra advantage in everyday life it would cause chaos everywhere. Wouldn't this be considered cheating also? Casey makes a very good point when she says that if this were to start happening then certain kids would have that extra advantage than other kids at a specific sport. Professional sports might as well legalize steroids then because couldn't you put that in the same category as genetically enhancing somebody? Both are giving the athlete an extra edge on all of the other players.
It's amazing science has come this far in changing the genetic make up of an animal like a mouse, yet we are humans not animals. I understand that science and all of us want to cure diseases like cancer, but changing a baby's DNA before they are born is unethical. If everyone did this there would be no sickness in the world which sounds great, but no one would die and before you know it there would not be enough food and other things as humans we need to live. So in the end everyone would die. As far as changing their looks and athletic ability's everyone would look and act the same, then what would happen? Life would be boring and plane. The way it sounds it's only a matter of time before this happens, but i hope they change their minds and realize this is not a good idea. How many lives will be lost before they get it right? We are not mice we are humans.
I think that we are actually talking about humans and the ability to change their genes is just unethical. If you have a baby with someone that isn't athletic, creative, etc then that is the consequence you have to pay for having a kid with them. You shouldn't have the ability to chose what your kid is like. it is unfair to people that actually want to have a kid without "cheating". you should have to deal with your kid the way it is, it takes the fun out of having kids or having a family if you get to pick how your kid is.
I really like what you have here Syd. I completely believe all of what you said. You know, it may be "neat" or a "cool" idea to genetically enhance your child, but then is it really your child. You didn't naturally have this child. It is unfair that people get to "make" their child be what they want. I also, really like how you added at the end that it takes the "fun" out of having kids. I think that if you have genetically enhanced your child to be taller to be a basketball superstar then the time that they are born that's all that you can think about. You raise them up to live, eat, sleep basketball that they may get pushed into doing this and you and the child wind up living a life that neither of you want.
Hopefully scientists aren't trying to genetically enhance humans now, then we would all be screwed. But this just raises the really tough questions of DNA structuring for any reason. Would it be ethical and moral to change the DNA of babies so they would never be at risk for diseases or cancer? so they could live life knowing they could never get a terminal virus or any type of illness? I definitely don't agree with changing a babies genes to make them a better athlete. But honestly wouldn't the only way to actually prevent, and not just have a cure for, illnesses and disease be to make sure our bodies don't have the ability to get these when were born? I don't believe any type of gene play is right, that God decides when its our time, but if we were really trying to stop diseases, this will eventually be the place it happens.
I think that the thought of being able to genetically enhancing a human being may seem far fetched and bizarre now, but I think that it will happen in the next 100 years. Why I think this is the technology and the knowledge of our scientists today is incredible! I like to watch the show Shark Tank and it has inventors on the show that come up with some of the most brilliant inventions and they are just your "everyday people", think about what your scientists could do! This topic may seem weird or go against all of your religious beliefs but you have to accept that this is what our society is coming too. Change is happening in our world everyday and it is something that we are just going to have to adapt to. I like what Phil said when he said we could possibly chang the DNA of our babies so they would never be at risk for diseases or cancer. if we could do this then all of the heartbreak and tears that these diseases cost will be terminated and that would be a wonderful thing. To not see young children suffer through Chemo and have t go through all the pains that they have. This could be the cure for cancer and disease like that!
I have a few comments to make about this article.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the language the authors use early on in the article about how this has been done in mice and “farm critters”: “the amazing breakthroughs…will eventually be applied to the animals at the top of the food chain”. First, the accepted paradigm has shifted from a food chain to a food web and, second, this suggests a progress to our evolutionary development, when in fact all life forms can be considered equivalent from an evolutionary point-of-view. In other words, there is nothing that makes us higher up or more advanced compared to an organism like a mouse. This is a slight and only tangential criticism but it does belie a very common misconception about evolution. Another point that I want to make if that it is impossible to be immune to AIDS, as this is merely a condition and not an infection. The correct language would be immune to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. I know that is nitpicky as well, but it is another common misconception.
Furthermore, the authors are overly optimistic about how soon such engineering will be possible and how helpful it will be for the individual. This article was published more than fourteen years ago and we have yet to see any of the developments they prognosticated will come about within a score of years. I want to underscore first how incredibly difficult it would be to introduce genes into the germ line cells. Such DNA would have to be incorporated into the genome to be replicated faithfully, where it could potentially disrupt normal gene function, become lost, or get rejected out of the genome. Obviously, it has been done in mice—and as the authors mention, these model organisms are incredibly similar to humans—and so is possible in humans, but if ever possible, it would be incredibly expensive and difficult to perform. Moreover, I want to comment that, while not having CCR5 renders one immune to HIV infection, this is not necessarily a good thing. CCR5 is a chemokine receptor on the surface of T cells: In other words, this protein (CCR5) is involved in drawing good immune cells (the T cells) to the site of infection. Without CCR5, HIV would not be able to enter the cells, but the individual would also have a degree of immunosuppression, as such cells would not be as attracted to other bacterial and viral infections. There is a give and take that was not addressed in the article.
Likewise, another issue is even identifying these genes. They may have identified genetic mechanisms for high cholesterol and even some genes implicated in height. Nevertheless, the scientific community is still decently far from determining which genes contribute personality or intellectual, athletic, or artistic ability. Furthermore, the heritability of these traits—how much genetics is able to determine a trait—is exceptionally low (I do not know h established that fifty percent figure is—think of how different identical twins can be from a personality perspective). In other words, you could have all of the genes to grow to be 6’6”, but never drink milk as a child and only grow to 5’3”. While the Human Genome Project was able to sequence our genetic information, it has actually revealed more mysteries than it has solved. Almost all of our DNA is considered “junk” (though scientists are identifying that it is essential for some unknown reason and now call it “noncoding”).
The bottom line is that there is still considerable time before this could happen and that just because we could do such does not mean that we will or ethically should.
I believe the option to pick your child's genes is completely unethical, having babies isn't supposed to be like build-a-bear. If everyone chooses to have extremely athletic kids then the athletes might be better, but they would still be competing against athletes that have still been made better... Which would even everything out, which in my perspective would ultimately mean altering your child's genes were pointless because other parents did it too and your children would still be on the same level. Or what if you chose to make your kid exceptionally athletic and they grew up hating sports and wanting to play the piano. You can choose to give your child brown hair but when they grow up and evolve into their own person they may still decide they want blonde hair. So, not only would altering every child's gene continue to make everyone even, simply on a higher playing field, but it is also making a huge assumption as to what kind of person and what interests your child will have. If you and your spouse love basketball but have average heights of 5'2 so you decide to alter your childs genes to make them 6'5 hoping they'll make it big in the sport and they grow up to love horses and want to be a jockey you have now as a parent taken your interests and put them in front of your child's natural potential and their natural height which would have been perfect for jockeying. Ultimately you do not know what your child's interests will be therefor you do not know the best way to alter their genes. I find this whole research to honestly be scary and I hope it does not become the latest fad in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that we are talking about altering the genetic makeup of a person is incredible and shows how far we have come technologically and what we known about biology in general. The idea that we can one day alter the genetic makeup of a person to the extent that they will be almost 'man-made' is quite scary and seemingly unrealistic but I believe this will happen eventually. Maybe not in the next 100 years but I can see it happening. New methods and incredible breakthroughs are happening more and more often is science. The fact that we can insert certain, turn off or enhance certain genes in a mouse genome is incredible because a human's genome is quite similar but obviously different in certain ways.Yes the enthusiasts who see this technology being available within the next 5-10 years have underestimated the complexity to the operation but their excitement is backed by up by revealing evidence we have now. While we dont know how to do this now many scientists are working on it everyday. It seems as only a matter of time. At the same time it also seems unethical to perform.
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with Henderson it is out of this world to think that our technology has come this far in the past 50 years. With all of these technological advancements happening it is hard to think that anything is impossible. Now returning to the topic at hand, I believe altering the genome of humans is highly immoral. We are taking the power of God in our own hands and we have no idea of the side effects this could unfurl. While scientist may not be able to see them now it could happen two or three generations down the road where we start to see side effects. We do not and should not have the power of God to decide who is who and what they shall become.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kohrs, that it is highly immoral and is letting the doctor's play God. I think it is just wrong to try and pick out what genes a child should have. It is just not fair to pick and choose the genes a child receives. Also like Kohrs said that we do not know if there will be side effects down the road because of this. It is a cool idea but it will get out of hand people will try to make the smartest or the most athletic kid.
DeleteI agree with Kohrs, that it shouldn't be in our hands to determine who a person is. I feel as if this were to happen, that people would start questioning faith and religion. Looking at it longterm, would people start wanting the same genes as other people would want, making everyone the same? I'm sure people like the same type of genes and if they all what that for their kid, there will be multiple kids that look and act exactly the same. I feel that this is immoral also and that everyone should be their own person, not being what someone wants you to be.
ReplyDeleteditto
DeleteI think that genetically enhancing kids is wrong but at the same time if someone else wanted to put create their child that way they can. At the same time, it is unfair for others because not everyone will have the money to genetically enhance their kids. Also, the kids who will be genetically enhance will have a better adapt to a specific sport than a child who was not genetically enhanced. I think it would be unfair for them to compete against each other. This is different from the gene factor because they did not choose that it just how they were born. If parents choose to genetically enhance their child makes these automatically on a different level than everyone else.
ReplyDeleteCasey makes some great points here. In my opinion, genetically enhancing kids should not be allowed at all. I think this would ruin sports on so many levels. If people started to genetically enhance their kids just so they could be better at a certain sport or just be given that extra advantage in everyday life it would cause chaos everywhere. Wouldn't this be considered cheating also? Casey makes a very good point when she says that if this were to start happening then certain kids would have that extra advantage than other kids at a specific sport. Professional sports might as well legalize steroids then because couldn't you put that in the same category as genetically enhancing somebody? Both are giving the athlete an extra edge on all of the other players.
DeleteIt's amazing science has come this far in changing the genetic make up of an animal like a mouse, yet we are humans not animals. I understand that science and all of us want to cure diseases like cancer, but changing a baby's DNA before they are born is unethical. If everyone did this there would be no sickness in the world which sounds great, but no one would die and before you know it there would not be enough food and other things as humans we need to live. So in the end everyone would die. As far as changing their looks and athletic ability's everyone would look and act the same, then what would happen? Life would be boring and plane. The way it sounds it's only a matter of time before this happens, but i hope they change their minds and realize this is not a good idea. How many lives will be lost before they get it right? We are not mice we are humans.
ReplyDeleteI think that we are actually talking about humans and the ability to change their genes is just unethical. If you have a baby with someone that isn't athletic, creative, etc then that is the consequence you have to pay for having a kid with them. You shouldn't have the ability to chose what your kid is like. it is unfair to people that actually want to have a kid without "cheating". you should have to deal with your kid the way it is, it takes the fun out of having kids or having a family if you get to pick how your kid is.
ReplyDeleteI really like what you have here Syd. I completely believe all of what you said. You know, it may be "neat" or a "cool" idea to genetically enhance your child, but then is it really your child. You didn't naturally have this child. It is unfair that people get to "make" their child be what they want. I also, really like how you added at the end that it takes the "fun" out of having kids. I think that if you have genetically enhanced your child to be taller to be a basketball superstar then the time that they are born that's all that you can think about. You raise them up to live, eat, sleep basketball that they may get pushed into doing this and you and the child wind up living a life that neither of you want.
DeleteHopefully scientists aren't trying to genetically enhance humans now, then we would all be screwed. But this just raises the really tough questions of DNA structuring for any reason. Would it be ethical and moral to change the DNA of babies so they would never be at risk for diseases or cancer? so they could live life knowing they could never get a terminal virus or any type of illness? I definitely don't agree with changing a babies genes to make them a better athlete. But honestly wouldn't the only way to actually prevent, and not just have a cure for, illnesses and disease be to make sure our bodies don't have the ability to get these when were born? I don't believe any type of gene play is right, that God decides when its our time, but if we were really trying to stop diseases, this will eventually be the place it happens.
ReplyDeleteI think that the thought of being able to genetically enhancing a human being may seem far fetched and bizarre now, but I think that it will happen in the next 100 years. Why I think this is the technology and the knowledge of our scientists today is incredible! I like to watch the show Shark Tank and it has inventors on the show that come up with some of the most brilliant inventions and they are just your "everyday people", think about what your scientists could do! This topic may seem weird or go against all of your religious beliefs but you have to accept that this is what our society is coming too. Change is happening in our world everyday and it is something that we are just going to have to adapt to. I like what Phil said when he said we could possibly chang the DNA of our babies so they would never be at risk for diseases or cancer. if we could do this then all of the heartbreak and tears that these diseases cost will be terminated and that would be a wonderful thing. To not see young children suffer through Chemo and have t go through all the pains that they have. This could be the cure for cancer and disease like that!
ReplyDelete