|
by Richard
Hayes
We are fast approaching the most consequential technological
threshold in all of human history: the ability to directly manipulate
the genes we pass on to our children.
Development and use
of these technologies would irrevocably change the nature of human life
and human society.
It would destabilize human biological identity and
function. It would put into play a wholly unprecedented set of social,
psychological and political forces that would feed back upon themselves
with impacts quite beyond our ability to imagine, much less control.
These technologies are being developed and promoted
by an influential network of scientists who see themselves ushering in
a new epoch for human life on Earth. They look forward to the day when
parents can quite literally assemble their children from genes listed
in a catalog. They celebrate a future in which our common humanity is
lost as a genetically enhanced elite increasingly acquires the attributes
of a separate species.
There
is little public awareness of the full implications of the
new human genetic engineering (HGE)
technologies or of the campaign to promote them. There are few popular
institutions and no social or political movements critically that are
addressing the immense challenges these technologies pose.
The Science
While some applications of HGE are benign and hold
great potential for preventing disease and alleviating human suffering,
other applications could open the door to a human future more horrific
than our worst nightmares.
Two very different applications
of genetic engineering must be distinguished.
One application changes the genes in cells in your
body other than your egg and sperm cells. Such changes are not passed
to any children you may have.
Applications of this sort are currently in clinical
trials and are generally considered socially acceptable. The technical
term for this application is "somatic" genetic engineering (after
the Greek "soma" for "body").
The other application of genetic engineering changes
the genes in eggs, sperm, or very early embryos. This affects not only
any children you might have, but also all succeeding generations.
It opens the door
to the reconfiguration of the human species.
The technical term for this application is "germline"
genetic engineering (because eggs and sperm are the "germinal"
or "germline" cells).
Many advocates of germline engineering say it is
needed to allow couples to avoid passing on genetic diseases such as cystic
fibrosis or sickle cell anemia. This is simply not true.
Far less consequential methods (such as pre-natal
and pre-implantation screening) already exist to accomplish this same
goal. Germline manipulation is necessary only if you wish to "enhance"
your children with genes they wouldn't be able to get from you or your
partner.
The History
The ability to directly manipulate plant and anihhsmail@os.dhhs.gov
genes was developed during the late 1970's. Proposals to begin human gene
manipulation were put forth in the early 1980's and aroused much controversy.
A small number of researchers argued in favor of
germline manipulation, but the majority of scientists and others opposed
it. In 1983, a letter signed by 53 religious leaders declared that genetic
engineering of the human germline "represents a
fundamental threat to the preservation of the human species as we know
it, and should be opposed with the same courage and conviction
as we now oppose the threat of nuclear extinction."
In 1985, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH)
approved somatic gene therapy trials, but said that it would not accept
proposals for germline manipulation "at present." That ambiguous
decision did little to discourage advocates of germline engineering, who
knew that somatic experiments were the critical first step toward HGE
experiments.
Following the first approved clinical attempts at
somatic gene therapy in 1990, advocates of germline engineering began
writing advocacy pieces in medical, ethical, legal and other journals
to build broader support.
By the mid- and late-1990s, the progress of the
federally funded Human Genome Project in locating all 80,000-plus human
genes fueled speculation about eventual applications, including germline
engineering.
In 1996, scientists
cloned the first genetic duplicate of an adult mammal
(the sheep "Dolly").
In 1999, researchers mastered the techniques for
disassembling human embryos and keeping embryonic cells alive in laboratory
cultures. These developments made it possible, for the first time, to
imagine a procedure whereby the human germline could be engineered in
a commercially practicable manner.
HGE advocates were further encouraged by the social,
cultural and political conditions of the late 1990s -- a period characterized
by technological enthusiasm, distrust of government regulation, the spread
of consumerist/competitive/libertarian values, and the perceived weakened
ability of national governments to enforce laws and treaties, as a result
of globalization.
In March 1998, Gregory Stock, director of the Program
on Medicine, Technology and Society at the University of California at
Los Angeles (UCLA), organized a symposium on "Engineering the Human
Germline." It was attended by nearly 1,000 people and received front-page
coverage in The New York Times and The Washington Post. All the speakers
were avid proponents of germline engineering.
Four months later, one of the symposium's key participants,
HGE pioneer W. French Anderson, submitted a draft proposal to the NIH
to begin somatic gene transfer experiments on human fetuses. He acknowledged
that this procedure would have a "relatively
high" potential for "inadvertent gene transfer to the
germline."
Anderson's proposal was widely acknowledged to be
strategically crafted so that approval could be construed as acceptance
of germline modification, at least in some circumstances. Anderson hopes
to receive permission to begin clinical trials by 2003.
The New Ideology
Advocacy of germline engineering and techno-eugenics
(i.e., technologically enabled human genetic manipulation and selection)
is an integral element of a newly emerging socio-political ideology.
This ideology is gaining acceptance among scientific,
high-tech, media and policy elites. A key foundational text is the book
Remaking Eden: How Cloning and Beyond Will Change the Human Family, by
Princeton University molecular biologist Lee Silver.
Silver looks forward to a future in which the health,
appearance, personality, cognitive ability, sensory capacity and the lifespan
of our children all become artifacts of genetic manipulation. Silver acknowledges
that financial constraints will limit their widespread adoption, so that
over time society will segregate into the
"GenRich" and the
"Naturals".
In Silver's vision of
the future:
"The GenRich -- who account for ten percent
of the American population -- all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of
the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge
industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class ...
Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as
laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become
entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much
romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.
Many think that it is inherently unfair for some
people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while
others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American
society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune
are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able
to do.
Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom
above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting
the use of repro-genetics. I will argue that the use of reprogenetic technologies
is inevitable. Whether we like it or not, the global marketplace will
reign supreme."
The Environment
HGE enthusiasts typically anticipate a future in
which genetic technology permeates, transforms and reconfigures all sectors
of the natural world -- plants, animals, humans and ecosystems. Many look
forward to what they call the "Singularity" -- that point in
the next few decades when any distinction between the natural and the
technological has been completely dissolved.
Many couple their enthusiasm for genetic engineering
with an explicit disparagement of environmentalist values. Nobel Laureate
James Watson, for example, has complained that "ever since we achieved
a breakthrough in the area of recombinant DNA in 1973, left-wing nuts
and environmental kooks have been screaming that we will create some kind
of Frankenstein bug or Andromeda strain that will destroy us all."
Gregory Stock has stated: "Even if half the
world's species were lost, enormous diversity would still remain. When
those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they
will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished,
but as the age when a plethora of new forms -- some biological, some technological,
some a combination of the two -- burst onto the scene.
We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations,
by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than
our vague notions about the needs of the distant future."
It is difficult to see how a society that accepts
the techno-eugenic re-engineering of the human species will maintain any
sense of humility, reverence and respect regarding the rest of the natural
world.
Promoting the 'Post-Human'
Future
Supporters of human germline engineering and cloning
have established institutes to spread their vision. In addition to Stock's
program at UCLA, the Los Angeles-based Extropy Institute holds workshops
on how to organize politically to advance the "post-human" agenda,
including sessions on how to talk to the press and public about human
genetic modification in ways that build support and diffuse opposition.
In 1999, the Maryland-based Human Biodiversity Institute
presented a seminar on the prospects for genetically modified humans at
a Hudson Institute retreat attended by former British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher.
Meanwhile, the biotech
industry is actively developing the technologies that would make it possible
to offer human germline engineering on a commercial basis.
This work is almost completely
unregulated. Geron Corporation of Menlo Park, California holds
patents on human embryo manipulation and cloning techniques.
Advanced Cell Technologies of Worcester, Massachusetts,
announced in 1999 that it had created a human/bovine embryo by implanting
the nucleus of a human cell into the egg of a cow. No laws exist that
would have prevented this trans-species embryo from being implanted in
a woman's uterus in an attempt to bring a baby to term. Such a child would
have contained a small but significant proportion of cow genes.
Chromos Molecular Systems, Inc., in British Columbia,
is developing artificial human chromosomes that would enable the engineering
of multiple complex traits. People whose germlines were engineered with
artificial chromosomes, and who wanted to pass complete sets of these
to their children intact, would only be able to mate with others carrying
the same artificial chromosomes.
This condition, called "reproductive isolation,"
is the primary criteria that biologists use to classify a population as
a separate species.
Where is the Opposition?
Given the enormity of what is at stake and the fact
that advocates of the new techno-eugenics are hardly coy about their intentions,
it is remarkable that organized opposition has been all but absent. Why
is this?
One reason is that the
most critical technologies have been developed only within the last three
years or so -- there simply hasn't been time for people to fully understand
their implications and respond.
Further, the prospect
of re-designing the human species is beyond anything that humanity has
ever before had to confront.
People have trouble taking this seriously -- it
seems fantastical and beyond the limits of what anyone would actually
do or that society would allow.
In addition, attitudes concerning human genetic
engineering don't fit neatly along the familiar ideological axes of right/left
or conservative/liberal. The additional axis of libertarian/communitarian
attitudes is needed to fully categorize currently contending socio-politico
commitments.
The libertarian right and libertarian left tend
to consider human genetic modification as a property right or as an individual
right, respectively. By contrast, the communitarian right and communitarian
left tend to be strongly opposed -- the former typically for reasons grounded
in religious beliefs and the latter out of concern for human dignity,
social equity and solidarity.
Finally, although people sense that the new genetic
technologies are likely to introduce profound social and political challenges,
they also associate these technologies with the promise of miracle cures.
Before any sentiment in favor of banning certain uses of genetic technology
can take root, people will have to understand that this would not foreclose
means of preventing or curing genetic diseases.
What Is to be Done?
The core policies that humanity will need to adopt
are straightforward: we will need global
bans on altering the genes we pass to our children and on creating human
clones.
We'll also need effective, accountable systems for
regulating those HGE technologies (such as somatic genetic manipulation)
that have desirable applications but could be dangerously abused.
Many countries, including France, Germany and India,
already have banned both germline engineering and cloning. The Council
of Europe is working to have these banned in all 41 of its member countries.
The
United Nations and UNESCO have called for a global ban on human cloning
and a World Health Organization study has called for a global ban on germline
engineering.
The base of any effective global movement to bring
the new human genetic technologies under societal control will, as always,
be strong activist civil society organizations. Among the most important
of these are the environmental and Green organizations.
In 1999, Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder
and Physicians for Social Responsibility Executive Director Robert Musil
circulated a statement that declared:
"We believe that certain activities in the
area of genetics and cloning should be prohibited because they violate
basic environmental and ethical principles.
We believe that germline manipulations, for their
ability to change whole generations, not just individuals, go far beyond
the boundaries of human scientific and ethical understanding and are too
dangerous for human civilization to pursue.
Being a product of scientific design and manipulation
as opposed to natural chance will fundamentally change the place of the
individual in society and would profoundly alter the relationship of human
beings to the natural world."
The next few years will be critical. Advocates of
the techno-eugenic future are racing to create designer babies and human
clones before people realize what is happening and what is at stake. They
believe that once humanity is presented with such fait accompli, resistance
will crumble and the new epoch will have been launched.
It is imperative that those who value the beauty,
vitality and wonder of the natural world begin organizing now to ensure
that human beings do not become technological artifacts.
Earth
Island Journal - Spring 2001
| 