Genetic Engineering: Great Hope or Terror? Todd Murchison ski@sover.net Todd Murchison, Genes, genetic engineering, todd, Murchison, Todd, murchison Flashes of lightning crack against rooftop metal, the dark laughing of a lunatic scientist echoes below. An unnatural creature lies twitching and breathing hoarsely in a pool of foul liquid. Technology has created another monster. This is the kind of image the media has long given genetic engineering, a vision worthy of gruesome fantasy or science fiction. Gene manipulation is now real, and we are getting better at it every day. Is this a technology that will lead to our destruction or our salvation? You have eaten food that has been genetically engineered. You may have taken medicines that were created with the help of gene manipulation. You may very well be faced someday with a decision as to whether or not to allow gene manipulation on yourself or an unborn child. If you could become resistant to cancer through an engineered virus that would alter your genetic structure, would you do it? How about if you could live longer? What if you could increase your long term memory, or your vision, or hearing? These are choices you will likely have to make someday, choices that may be commonplace for the next generation. Many people incorrectly believe that the traits that one's genes affect are not central to one's personality or character, that genes only affect things like our skin color and height. Maybe we want to believe we have full control over our behavior and capabilities. It can be a real blow to the ego to consider that much of our destiny is determined by our genes. Dr. John Hughes from the University of Chicago, a leading researcher in this field, sums up the shift in thought from environmental to genetic determinism: "the last of us who clung to the idea that environment played at least as large a factor in behavior as genetics . . . have given up the ghost. The evidence has become overwhelming that genes have powerful effect on almost all aspects of life." The most compelling evidence of the effect of genetics on personality traits has come out of the study of identical twins reared in separate homes. Twins that have been separated at birth still show fantastic correlation of behavior. Substantial inheritability has been shown for activity level, addiction, anxiety, criminality, extroversion, intelligence, sociability, values, vocational interest and disease. In fact in the study of twins the genetic influence on personality traits is so strong that researchers can hardly pick out any environmental influence at all! Even though some scientists have suspected for many decades that genes outweigh environment in their influence, we have not been in a position before to actually manipulate these genes. Nor did we understand what each piece of our genetic code controls. Now the human race is gaining more knowledge every day about our own genetic structure. The Human Genome Project is a well funded, nationwide project designed to map and understand our genetic code. Not only the United States government, but governments around the world are racing to map out our genes and the genes of other species. Billions of dollars are being devoted to the effort, and significant discoveries of the locations of behavior and disease causing genes are happening weekly. With each new discovery we gain more power over what we are. The Human Genome Project is in its sixth year, and is actually ahead of schedule. At this rate the entire human genome will be mapped by 1998, two years from now. And once that has happened, the hard choices begin. Where will we draw the line? Cures for everything from diabetes to AIDS are likely to be forthcoming eventually. And even with something that seems on the surface to be straight forward, curing sick people, we will run into problems with definitions: What constitutes a disease? If a gene is found that gives a predisposition toward violence is found, what do we do? There is evidence that sexual habits are highly genetic in origin. How do we define what a disorder is? We are learning the locations of hundreds of subtle genetic defects which prevent or destroy normal intelligence. Along with this knowledge we are finding the trail of genes and gene markers for greater intelligence. So how do we define "normal" intelligence? Where is the line between allowing for normal intelligence and actually enhancing intelligence? And is it in fact wrong to enhance intelligence? How about vision? 20/20 vision is considered "perfect" vision, but in fact there are many individuals with even better eyesight. If we are trying to get rid of inherited vision problems, what standard to we shoot for? How about hearing disorders? What is "perfect" hearing? Where do we draw the line? These issues are far too important to let any single group make the decisions. Any changes we make to our genetic makeup will be passed down through the generations, although arguably they could change anything we do. It is said by some that genetic alteration is "playing God" or interfering with Nature. However, this new technology is really only a refinement of the genetic changes that have been happening for centuries. Every time we come up with a cure that keeps a certain segment of the population alive that would have died otherwise, we bring more of those genes into the gene pool. Viruses and bacteria infect the human line and insert their DNA into ours. The natural background radiation of the planet is often causing random mutations in our genetic makeup. We have been creating whole new life forms for much of our history. The controlled breeding of animals is a slow form of genetic engineering. Cows, chickens, dogs and cats are just some of the animals we've altered enormously. We were also hybridizing and crossbreeding plants such as the potato and corn thousands of years ago. As the band Love and Rockets pointed out: "you can't go against nature, 'cause when you go against nature, thats part of nature too." We are already far along this path, as genetic engineering has long been a reality. Genetically designed and modified animals began to be patented in 1987. Congress incidentally has rejected the patentability of human beings, but with the Bush administrations help the Patent Office accepted the principle that parts of the human genome may be patented once their functions have been determined! Many Human Genome Project scientists have already used this protection to enter into lucrative commercial biotechnology ventures, profiting from their publicly-funded research. The question therefore is not one of "should we start genetic engineering" but rather "how far do we go"? It is a science we are suddenly getting much better and more accurate at, and our choices are broadening. Ultimately it may prove to be the most powerful science humanity has ever embarked on. Powerful tools are subject to powerful abuse, but also to powerful use. One of the serious considerations of this technology is that the growing gap between the rich and the poor will not just be economic anymore. If there is unequal access to genetic technology we could end up with virtually two different species. One species of human with longer life spans and enhanced physical and mental capabilities, and another species enjoying none of these benefits. If our society is to remain even remotely one of equal opportunity, we must find ways of sharing this technology. Since the technology is being researched with everybody's tax dollars it would seem especially unfair for genetic medicine to be the exclusive province of the rich. Another issue at stake is personal freedom. A bill guaranteeing the confidentiality of genetic information has been introduced in Congress. The bill is called the Genetic Privacy Act, it is complex piece of legislation, consisting of over 180 sections. Like all law however, this proposed act is still fraught will loopholes. In the future these loopholes could impact your life greatly, genetic information about you is really a blueprint of who you are. Just one example of a potential abuse of genetic information concerns health insurance. Unregulated, the use of genetic risk information would greatly strengthen the ability of insurers to exclude the illness-prone from their risk pools, or charge them premiums equivalent to the costs of their potential treatments. Or perhaps they could make sure that the illnesses your genetic code shows you are likely to get will be excluded from your insurance contract. Simple international competition may force us to genetically enhance our abilities even if it were deemed un-ethical at first. If such a moral stance were taken, how would it be enforced world-wide? The larger countries have had put bans on things such as chemical warfare research and nuclear production before, only to have those bans ignored. Consider what a nation would gain by permitting parents to genetically enhance their children. As those children aged it would represent a quantum leap in education, training, science and engineering for that nation. This would eventually result in large international differences in military power and economic growth. Thus to remain competative, nations would have almost no choice but to defect from any sort of ban on genetic enhancement. Lets not lose sight however of the fruit that gene manipulation brings with it. Many diseases and deformitys will disappear rapidly as our understanding of the human genome increases. Many new cures have already hit the market. Food crops will continue to become more resistant to pests and environmental extremes. Animal species that we are driving to extinction may also be saved as we engineer resistance to industrial poisons into them. Certainly even these positive applications could have potential negative side effects as well: Those frost resistant tomatoes you have already eaten, were any unknown properties of the food altered accidentally? If we simply engineer pollution resistance into animals and/or ourselves - do we then just give free rein to corporations to release poisons at will? Genetic engineering is an extreme example of the dilemma of technology: Technology is itself has no self-will, it is neutral. People must decide whether or not this power will harm or help us, and the decisions will not be black and white. There will be few easy choices, the only easy choice is to not care what decisions are made. Not being a part of the choice is probably a mistake, because the choices are going to affect you and especially your children. If you have strong feelings on this subject, you should contact your congressional representative. If you want more information on this subject, here are some starting points: Health Law Department; Boston University School of Public Health 80 East Concord Street Boston, MA 02118 Human Genome Project, Office of Energy Research U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave. Washington, DC 20585 Human Genome Project Information: Online Government Archieves http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome Electronic Newsgroup Network for Biology http://www.bio.net Todd Murchison lives in Colorado ½ the year and Vermont ½ the year. He does not believe in the genetic selection of superior genes for unborn children, if it was legal he would have never been born.