Genetic Engineering and Ethics

[Ximea]

Why? The only problem is that if it doesn't exist in nature, it could be subject to intellectual property claims and cause a whole mess of problems for people having their genes owned by someone else under US intellectual property law.

Other than that, you don't really have a firm brightline. Does this mean a completely new protein coding (gene) that hadn't existed before? Or would you prohibit introducing mutations to existing genes?

As I said before, the line is arbitrary, but where else is the line to be drawn?

I have to admit, that's an interesting question - but it's the only thing that makes humans unique, and it's the only thing that will allow our survival when atmospheric CO₂ drops below the threshold at which photosynthesis is sustainable on Earth.

That would assume human survival as a worthwhile value, as well as uniqueness/novelty. At some point, all values are revealed to be arbitrary, or, rather, born from the vagaries of the human mind.

All values do ultimately derive from personal preference, but I would imagine that the preference for existence is nearly universal.

Well. Unless you're these guys.

[Great Nepal]

Why? The only problem is that if it doesn't exist in nature, it could be subject to intellectual property claims and cause a whole mess of problems for people having their genes owned by someone else under US intellectual property law.

Other than that, you don't really have a firm brightline. Does this mean a completely new protein coding (gene) that hadn't existed before? Or would you prohibit introducing mutations to existing genes?

As I said before, the line is arbitrary, but where else is the line to be drawn?

Why must there be a line? As long as it is scientifically sound (ie. no removing genetic variations), doesn't cause harm to humans (ie. no killing people) then full steam ahead.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

If the profit motive was removed from human genetic engineering, it would be a great thing. If the technology was retained firmly in the hands of a national government rather than some biotech corporation and made widely or at least reasonably-widely available, the possibilities are huge.

Unfortunately, practically all genetic engineering research is conducted either by private corporations for the purpose of profiteering, or by the military-industrial complex, of whose purposes we can only guess but which certainly don't involve making life of the general population better.

[Trotskylvania]

Why? The only problem is that if it doesn't exist in nature, it could be subject to intellectual property claims and cause a whole mess of problems for people having their genes owned by someone else under US intellectual property law.

Other than that, you don't really have a firm brightline. Does this mean a completely new protein coding (gene) that hadn't existed before? Or would you prohibit introducing mutations to existing genes?

As I said before, the line is arbitrary, but where else is the line to be drawn?

I have to admit, that's an interesting question - but it's the only thing that makes humans unique, and it's the only thing that will allow our survival when atmospheric CO₂ drops below the threshold at which photosynthesis is sustainable on Earth.

That would assume human survival as a worthwhile value, as well as uniqueness/novelty. At some point, all values are revealed to be arbitrary, or, rather, born from the vagaries of the human mind.

My objection was not that it was arbitrary, but rather that the distinction is so fuzzy as to be meaningless.

[Shaggai]

So anything that isn't human has lesser value, no matter what its achievements, its thoughts, its consciousness?

Considering we haven't found a creature worth more than a human(Besides choosing between a dog and a serial killer), then that's true.

I'm talking about hypotheticals here. This is a thread about genetic engineering, in case you didn't notice.

[
So anything that isn't human has lesser value, no matter what its achievements, its thoughts, its consciousness? I thought that idea had been eradicated even longer ago than mind/body dualism.

I could say that I thought that the idea that other creatures have equal value to human beings died with animism, but the fact is, while mind-body dualism is outright false, a judgement of what gives value cannot be true or false.

So, to you, being created by a human gives value? If an alien painted the Mona Lisa, it would have less value?

[Northwest Slobovia]

Well, that's a little better, I guess, but not much. I mean, suppose we had Einstein's genes in good shape; I think we do, since we've got his brain in a jar, or somesuch. You'd be OK with people making themselves or their kids smarter using his genes -- assuming this works; we don't know -- but not small variations on those genes (or others) produced in the lab? That still sounds entirely arbitrary: the end point is the same, the drive to do it is the same, and the risks are the same: everybody who wants ends up with the same genes because they're "better", and if there are any drawbacks, we find out about it the hard way.

(One would hope we would have the sense to archive existing human genetic variability, but that's another story...)

Afraid not.

Sorry, I'm not sure which of my comments this goes with.

I've admitted that the line is arbitrary - but it is necessary. If you can think of a better arbitrary line, by all means, tell me.

I don't like arbitrary lines, I like reasoned ones. I look at genetic engineering like any other technology: it has risks and benefits.* We think we know some of each, but based on past experience, we don't know all of either.

So, the way I'd look at what to do with genetic engineering is like this:

We know that loss of genetic diversity is a problem. It's happened to other animals (look at cheetahs; they're almost clones, they have so little variability), and we've done it to our domestic plants a few times. OK, so we need to make sure we build up databases of what variability we have, and ideally save samples of what we've got.

I've also seen people worrying about inherited advantages of being wealthy; that's another potential risk, but I think the solutions are political/social not technical. (There's also the point that we're already doing the same thing with assortative mating: well-educated, well-off people tend to marry each other, and produce "smarter" kids who marry each other.)

As to which specific genes, that's a matter of testing and figuring out the risks and benefits of each.** I see no reason to divide them up into naturally occuring and synthetic; that's just repeating the silliness with "natural is good". I've seen the catchphrase, "Arsenic is natural and strychnine is organic"; that expresses my feeling on the matter. I think that we'll find that some old, naturally occurring genes in the human germline aren't the best, and we'll want to use better synthetic variations on them.

**: There's a related issue about risks and benefits, already mentioned up-thread: modifying the human germ line. I wouldn't do that, at least until our methods improve. I think we're barely in the stone age with genetic engineering, but there's at least one fancy new method I need to read up on to be sure.

So, no arbitrary lines, but some general rules and lots of case-by-case thinking. How's that sound to you?

*: ObSF:
Rachael: It seems you feel our work is not a benefit to the public.
Deckard: Replicants are like any other machine - they're either a benefit or a hazard. If they're a benefit, it's not my problem.
--Blade Runner

[Conserative Morality]

Humanity is just population of intelligent apes that can interbreed and produce viable offspring. It cannot and will not last forever, and indeed anthropologists are finding our previous conception of Homo sapiens increasingly problematic. There is evidence to suggest that our cladograms of human evolution have been entirely arbitrary, and that humanity has been a single species for approximately two million years, and attempts to distinguish between H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. neanderthalis and H. sapiens are based on superficial morphological differences no more fundamental than the differences between breeds of dogs, and that it is highly likely that a specimen of H. erectus from East Africa 1.8 millions years ago and specimen of H. sapiens from right now could interbreed and produce viable offspring.

We'll change more in the future, and likely one day there will be different human population groups, genetic engineering or no, that will no longer be capable of interbreeding with each other and producing viable offspring. Your notion of human is far too restrictive, and is too fuzzy to be of any use.

Oh, of course. I understand that completely. One day I will be a relic, a fossil of ages past. But at the same time, I doubt I'll live long enough to see the day when humanity itself will pass me by. Only society.

Why must there be a line? As long as it is scientifically sound (ie. no removing genetic variations), doesn't cause harm to humans (ie. no killing people) then full steam ahead.

Putting down the line at 'causing harm to humans' is just as arbitrary. My position just hides behind fewer layers of internal rationalization.

[Cerillium]

If the profit motive was removed from human genetic engineering, it would be a great thing. If the technology was retained firmly in the hands of a national government rather than some biotech corporation and made widely or at least reasonably-widely available, the possibilities are huge.

Unfortunately, practically all genetic engineering research is conducted either by private corporations for the purpose of profiteering, or by the military-industrial complex, of whose purposes we can only guess but which certainly don't involve making life of the general population better.

You've been misinformed.

The majority of it is conducted by private organizations for the purpose of discovering cures for diseases, vaccines for things such as ovarian cancer, or for studying past diseases in order to ascertain mutation and, if found, what the possible catalysts are.

[Conserative Morality]

My objection was not that it was arbitrary, but rather that the distinction is so fuzzy as to be meaningless.

Could you explain it, then? I'm not entirely sure why the distinction is fuzzy.

So, to you, being created by a human gives value? If an alien painted the Mona Lisa, it would have less value?

Yes.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Also, does this mean you oppose creating human-animal chimeras or are simply opposed to "adding" stuff that does not yet exist in nature?

Both.

Why though?

Because there has to be a line drawn where we differentiate between human and non-human, and I choose to place my distinction there.

Why? The mind and what goes on in it is more important than a gene one person has that another doesn't. It's perfectly possible at some point in the distant future humans would be naturally genetically different to those in existence today anyway, if you had the chance to meet them would you want to discriminate against them (or them us), simply because of minor genetic differences?

Why? Why is that line neccessary?

I suspect this might be in regards to attributing rights? If so, why can't sapience (and not racial classification) be the line?

What is the value of sapience as opposed to the value of humankind? Why do you suggest sapience be the line as opposed to being human?

Because without sapience we really wouldn't be in a position to be deciding what it is to be human, and arguing ethics and all the rest? Because genetically we are capable of changing vastly whether we are responsible or not?

Because theoretically other sentient, sapient life exists, or will exist, and humans are not superior or inferior to it simply for being humans? Doing it on a species level is just as silly as the racism people engage in towards humans with different coloured skin.

Genetic engineering will not make your kids crazy mutants. That's the first thing you think of? Mutants? Not curing cancer or something?

We have no idea what could happen.

Actually we do, and could. Scientists generally don't operate by a "lets do this to just see what happens" - research would be long, in depth and aimed at working out exactly what could and would happen, and ensuring there are as few risks as possible.

You know, like most medicines that have spent years in development. Or most medical procedures that has spent years in development.

The destiny of our evolution is not ours to decide.

We should tell farmers to stop with the selective breeding and line breeding and all that as well, then.

Anyway - why shouldn't it be ours, we who have to live with it? Evolution has no brain in it's non-existent head - it's really not going to care if we do things to our genes. Heck, the way we live our lives as a species now is having a passive effect on evolution that is occurring to it. We're already changing ourselves, and have been for some time, simply by not living like our other hominid ancestors.

No, it's not because I'm religious I had this belief when I was an atheist. Nature should run it's course.

Nature has no course to run. and no plan for us. We decide to prevent nature running it's course when we take a pill for an illness, or invented agriculture, or built dykes to stop it cities being flooded.

People really need to stop anthropomorphizing nature.

Fun fact: Biological weapons of mass destruction are already feasible.

Sure. But not to just anyone, and they're significantly less effective than they would be if a terrorist genetically engineered them for destruction.

Genetically engineering something isn't (and likely never will be) especially easy, and tends to require specialized skills and equipment (and even then there is no certainty of achieving the results you're seeking, it's why there'll always be competition in the biotech industry).

If we get to the point where terrorists have sufficiently capable geneticists in the ranks and are willing to spend the time and money needed to cook up a biological weapon that will probably kill them as well, and we don't catch them in that time it's taking them to do it... well, the world would clearly have bigger problems then genetic engineering.

I think it would generally be helpful, as it could help eliminate genetic diseases and disabilities, as well as possibly lower cancer rates.

I agree, but it just goes too far. Make it like a vaccine, we are not created/evolved to be modified like that and adding it to the human genome could will make people in 3rd world nations without genes like us rich westerners suffer because they do not have the proper genes against these disabilities. It's like smallpox and Native Americans.

Prevention is better than cure. I think it would make more sense to ensure everyone has access to it, by going "lets work towards solving poverty and technological inequality, then say "I'm scared it'll be unequally distributed, so we should only aim for a toothless version of it".

Since, you know, what you're suggesting is no different to the way things are now, which is people in 3rd world nations still suffering and dying since they don't have the same access to the medical sciences (or quality of life improving factors) as us "rich westerners". Making it "like a vaccine" (?) would just reaffirm that as a status quo.

We already genetically modify our crops and (if you call it genetic engineering) we selectively breed our livestock.

If the effects are purely beneficial, what would the harm be if said technology was available to everyone?

Because someone in a remote African village will totally have access too it.

So work to ensure they will have access to it - don't go "no one gets it because some people will miss out at first".

[Great Nepal]

Putting down the line at 'causing harm to humans' is just as arbitrary. My position just hides behind fewer layers of internal rationalization.

Yes, it is arbitrary but it is based on principles we use to create most of our modern laws and base our modern ethics on; harming another indivudal of human species is wrong.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Unfortunately, practically all genetic engineering research is conducted either by private corporations for the purpose of profiteering, or by the military-industrial complex, of whose purposes we can only guess but which certainly don't involve making life of the general population better.

Uh, what? Evidence please... because other than agriculture, AFAIK, it's mostly academic work paid for by governments. The methods are too new and too unreliable -- and thus their use is too covered in red tape -- for industry to touch, at least so far.

For example, there's a hot, new gene-bending technique called CRISPR/Cas-9. Note who owns that site: an academic group at a research hospital, and they say where to find copies of how their methods work. (I need to read those papers; I'm a little behind the bleeding edge.)

[Conserative Morality]

Why? The mind and what goes on in it is more important than a gene one person has that another doesn't. It's perfectly possible at some point in the distant future humans would be naturally genetically different to those in existence today anyway, if you had the chance to meet them would you want to discriminate against them (or them us), simply because of minor genetic differences?

That would depend on how I perceived them.

Because without sapience we really wouldn't be in a position to be deciding what it is to be human, and arguing ethics and all the rest? Because genetically we are capable of changing vastly whether we are responsible or not?

Without our sense of humanity, would the question of what it is to be human even come up? Would ethics as we understand it exist?

[Imperium Sidhicum]

If the profit motive was removed from human genetic engineering, it would be a great thing. If the technology was retained firmly in the hands of a national government rather than some biotech corporation and made widely or at least reasonably-widely available, the possibilities are huge.

Unfortunately, practically all genetic engineering research is conducted either by private corporations for the purpose of profiteering, or by the military-industrial complex, of whose purposes we can only guess but which certainly don't involve making life of the general population better.

You've been misinformed.

The majority of it is conducted by private organizations for the purpose of discovering cures for diseases, vaccines for things such as ovarian cancer, or for studying past diseases in order to ascertain mutation and, if found, what the possibly catalysts are.

And for the purpose of making money. The customers of these companies are also quite obviously not your average working men, but folks with six-figure salaries. And it's going to stay that way unless national governments seize control of all research in genetic engineering to make the results available to everyone, not just a small circle of Western yuppies. Something like that should be sponsored primarily by tax money rather than private investment, since that makes every person within the nation an investor who expects tangible results, not just the rich customers seeking to buy an extended lifespan, a baby free of genetic corruption or an enhanced crop that will yield their company extra millions of annual income.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, it is arbitrary but it is based on principles we use to create most of our modern laws and base our modern ethics on; harming another indivudal of human species is wrong.

Ah, but then the question arises - who is part of the human species? Right now, we both base our views off of this same view, but the challenge to our courts and ethics in the form of a near-divergent human has not yet arisen. I offer an answer, if an irrational one. What's your's?

[Transhuman Proteus]

No, the brain is what makes us human. That's the be all and end all.

Mind-Body Duallism died with the 19th century. Get with the times.

Why?

Drawing a line on the calendar and saying "any gene before now but nothing after" seems odd. In any case, what people are playing with now -- treating genetic diseases -- replaces defective alleles (gene variations) with working ones already found in people. I don't know of anybody proposing to add entirely new genes; it's not like we're all that good at designing them.

I'm speaking from a purely hypothetical point of view. Perhaps I should have said 'any gene designed with the use of genetic engineering' or somesuch.

Why is there a mystical difference between a gene created with the use of genetic engineering and one that pops up at some point in the future due to evolution?

Either way by your measure the new gened individuals will somehow be less "human" for it.

[Northwest Slobovia]

You've been misinformed.

The majority of it is conducted by private organizations for the purpose of discovering cures for diseases, vaccines for things such as ovarian cancer, or for studying past diseases in order to ascertain mutation and, if found, what the possibly catalysts are.

And for the purpose of making money. The customers of these companies are also quite obviously not your average working men, but folks with six-figure salaries.

Evidence, please. Cerillium is right AFAIK: other than ag work, it's all charitable organizations as yet, and they don't have customers per se.

[Great Nepal]

Yes, it is arbitrary but it is based on principles we use to create most of our modern laws and base our modern ethics on; harming another indivudal of human species is wrong.

Ah, but then the question arises - who is part of the human species? Right now, we both base our views off of this same view, but the challenge to our courts and ethics in the form of a near-divergent human has not yet arisen. I offer an answer, if an irrational one. What's your's?

Anyone who is human by our current definition, has had their genes altered or is offspring of someone who has their genes altered. Basically anyone is is currently considered human or has been derived from thereof.

[Conserative Morality]

Why is there a mystical difference between a gene created with the use of genetic engineering and one that pops up at some point in the future due to evolution?

Nothing mystical about it. In fact, there really is no difference, save that one can be stopped, and the other cannot be stopped. Not that I advocate an evolutionary dead-end, mind you.

Either way by your measure the new gened individuals will somehow be less "human" for it.

At some point, certainly.

[Ximea]

You've been misinformed.

The majority of it is conducted by private organizations for the purpose of discovering cures for diseases, vaccines for things such as ovarian cancer, or for studying past diseases in order to ascertain mutation and, if found, what the possibly catalysts are.

And for the purpose of making money. The customers of these companies are also quite obviously not your average working men, but folks with six-figure salaries. And it's going to stay that way unless national governments seize control of all research in genetic engineering to make the results available to everyone, not just a small circle of Western yuppies. Something like that should be sponsored primarily by tax money rather than private investment, since that makes every person within the nation an investor who expects tangible results, not just the rich customers seeking to buy an extended lifespan, a baby free of genetic corruption or an enhanced crop that will yield their company extra millions of annual income.

You know, there was a time when only big organizations could afford computers.

[Conserative Morality]

Anyone who is human by our current definition, has had their genes altered or is offspring of someone who has their genes altered. Basically anyone is is currently considered human or has been derived from thereof.

Appropriate enough.

[Shaggai]

My objection was not that it was arbitrary, but rather that the distinction is so fuzzy as to be meaningless.

Could you explain it, then? I'm not entirely sure why the distinction is fuzzy.

So, to you, being created by a human gives value? If an alien painted the Mona Lisa, it would have less value?

Yes.

Ah. Well, I disagree, but my position is just as arbitrary as yours.

[Utceforp]

Why? The mind and what goes on in it is more important than a gene one person has that another doesn't. It's perfectly possible at some point in the distant future humans would be naturally genetically different to those in existence today anyway, if you had the chance to meet them would you want to discriminate against them (or them us), simply because of minor genetic differences?

That would depend on how I perceived them.

Because without sapience we really wouldn't be in a position to be deciding what it is to be human, and arguing ethics and all the rest? Because genetically we are capable of changing vastly whether we are responsible or not?

Without our sense of humanity, would the question of what it is to be human even come up? Would ethics as we understand it exist?

"sense of humanity" is a subset of self-awareness, and thus Is required for both sapience and sentience.

[Transhuman Proteus]

No, the brain is what makes us human. That's the be all and end all.

Mind-Body Duallism died with the 19th century. Get with the times.

Why?

Drawing a line on the calendar and saying "any gene before now but nothing after" seems odd. In any case, what people are playing with now -- treating genetic diseases -- replaces defective alleles (gene variations) with working ones already found in people. I don't know of anybody proposing to add entirely new genes; it's not like we're all that good at designing them.

I'm speaking from a purely hypothetical point of view. Perhaps I should have said 'any gene designed with the use of genetic engineering' or somesuch.

Why is there a mystical difference between a gene created with the use of genetic engineering and one that pops up at some point in the future due to evolution?

Either way by your measure the new gened individuals will somehow be less "human" for it.

[Cerillium]

And for the purpose of making money. The customers of these companies are also quite obviously not your average working men, but folks with six-figure salaries. And it's going to stay that way unless national governments seize control of all research in genetic engineering to make the results available to everyone, not just a small circle of Western yuppies. Something like that should be sponsored primarily by tax money rather than private investment, since that makes every person within the nation an investor who expects tangible results, not just the rich customers seeking to buy an extended lifespan, a baby free of genetic corruption or an enhanced crop that will yield their company extra millions of annual income.

Cite your sources.

The women who benefit from our study (which is affiliated with two major universities, one being The Penn Ovarian Cancer Research Immunotherapy Program) are from all income levels and walks in life.

Where on earth are you pulling your ideas from? Genetic research and engineering isn't about some fantasy Biopunk 'human ideal' where everyone walks around free of disease and blemish. It's about curing cancer. It's about curing genetic diseases such as Trisomy 13 or Downs Syndrome. Please stop assuming that the work we do is akin to the shit Monsanto pulls.