Genetics

Quite some time back I wrote an article about genetic research which was unpublished due to it's very long length. So, after considerable editing...

I’ve noticed that there’s still a lot of ongoing public comment about genetic and stem cell research currently being conducted in the US and several other countries. And that many people get quite verbal in their opposition to this ongoing research, with arguments ranging from honest concerns to the downright ludicrous. For the most part, the loudest opposition appears to come from the “Right to Life” folks who oppose research utilizing aborted fetal stem cells. I can certainly understand their opposition to abortion, and to the experimental use of aborted cellular tissue, but an aborted fetus is not the only source of stem cells! Over the last couple of years, researchers have discovered numerous alternative sources of stem cells, nowadays they can be acquired from just about any part of the adult body, not just from a fetus. So, with that fact in mind, consider me to be a voice in the wilderness, crying “Yes, we do need that research!” I’m not opposed to genetic research, stem cell research, or even cloning research, if accomplished for ethical purposes. I firmly believe that these investigations have the possibility of being one of the greatest boons to humanity in medical history.

Cloning people is pretty much a waste of time as far as I’m concerned. First of all, don’t we already have more than enough people in this world? And secondly, a clone isn’t, and can’t be, an exact copy of the original. Physically, yes, it may well appear to be a copy, but the physical body isn’t everything. We’re all aware that the person is the sum total of the physical being, and the mental state of that persons upbringing, education, and past experiences. A lifetime of those mental processes can’t be duplicated, and thus a clone can’t be a duplicate of the original. Even if we did manage to clone Albert Einstein, how could we possibly repeat the unique set of circumstances that made him the worlds premier theoretical physicist? Besides, I rather doubt that very many of us would wish our entire past history on our worst enemies, much less on a copy of ourselves! Then to, if human cloning became a common technology, there’s always some idiot that would want to steal the Shroud of Turin, gather some DNA from it, and attempt to clone Jesus of Nazareth. Someone else would want to clone Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, or Attila the Hun, and turn them loose on an unsuspecting world!

Even if such duplication were possible, can you imagine the flurry of clones we’d see of so many super rich personages in Hollywood!? Or do we really want duplicates of our rich politicians telling us that they know “so much better” than anyone else? Really, if there’s something that the world doesn’t need, it’s even more highly placed, power hungry, and unstable egotists running around loose! Then of course we’ve all seen the fictional movie “Jurassic Park”, with an island full of “cloned” dinosaurs. While that’s extremely unlikely to actually happen, does anyone really want a twelve ton carnivorous lizard with a bad attitude running the city streets? I rather doubt the animal control people would be looking forward to that. If, and when, we can clone individual body parts, we’d be looking at an entirely different situation. “What if” we could readily grow a replacement heart, liver, lung or kidney for those who need one? Perhaps this would bring an end to transplant rejection problems? Come to think of it, there are a few people in this world that I’d nominate for a brain transplant as well. An even better option to cloning would be the possibility of repairing physical damages through stem cell technology. I rather doubt that, by themselves, stem cells could defeat old age, but how about non-intrusive repairs for severe accident injuries? Could we perhaps grow a new leg for a soldier maimed in combat? Could we repair a child’s disease ravaged nervous system? Or provide new skin for burn victims? I also understand that there are aspects of stem cell research indicating possible cures for Alzheimer’s, and even cancer. Here I think the possibilities are endless, if we don’t ban all research.

“Non-human” genetic research and engineering raise a number of other possibilities. Improved crop yields, and/or pest resistance would be a boon to people in many third world countries, IF those agricultural products can be proven environmentally safe, and safe for very long term human consumption. How about engineering a microbe that specifically attacks the AIDS virus? Here again we have a long list of possibilities. What I do vehemently oppose is the seriously proposed hybridization of various animal species, and particularly that of human/animal hybrids. The concept of “Humanzees”, genetically engineered, intelligent, human/chimp “servants”, bring forth visions of Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory, and smacks of a return to slavery in my mind. Perhaps in our playing God, we actually will have a master race, and our very own home brewed “Untermenschen". It’s not a concept I particularly care for, and fortunately it’s a long way in the future. But what bothers me is that it was a serious proposal, and is being seriously investigated! As I understand the proposal, a “Humanzee” is supposed to be a multi-purpose “aid” for people with severe disabilities, sort of a hi-tech seeing-eye dog. In itself not a bad idea, but not this way! Robotics are a lot further along than genetics, and if we could show the Japanese a viable market for robots, they’d have a “robot personal assistant” for sale, probably by the middle of next week!

We also have the possibility of “designer babies”, another idea with both good and bad points. It’s been pretty well accepted that a tendency toward cancer and heart disease are genetically linked. If science can tinker with the parents genes, it may then be possible to eliminate those tendencies in their children, and in following generations. Once the genetic causes of birth defects are identified, it may well become a regular procedure to repair those defects in utero. The downside is that so many people would decide that they want the “perfect baby” with a physical appearance “just like my favorite rock star”. Prospective stage mothers could get together and compare notes about designing the ideal beauty queen, while football fathers can start seriously thinking about the Super Bowl. Life is going to be rough on those kids.

There seems to be no particular medical reason why the human body can’t repair itself as needed, if we could just find the triggering mechanism, and of course understand why this capability doesn’t naturally work all the time for us. On occasion we see reports of an individual whose body apparently regenerated severely damaged tissue. Might these incidents be cases of latent stem cell regeneration, brought about by… something? Personally I think it’s a phenomena well worth investigation, and only ongoing cellular research will tell the tale.

The technology of bio-engineering will be developed, someplace, by somebody. It might be banned in Boston, or even all across the United States, but a complete ban on such research won’t stop it in the rest of the world. Wouldn’t we be much better off if we accept that fact, and approach this knowledge with a well considered set of moral and ethical guidelines already in place? Perhaps it’s time for the social and religious leaders of the world to quit arguing about their differences, sit down with the leaders of the medical profession, and establish those moral guidelines.