After an announcement last year that a series of experiments
in the United States had resulted in the birth of 30 healthy genetically
modified babies, genetics experts are now debating whether or not further
development of designer offspring should be banned.
Just 16 years ago, the concept of genetic perfection was the
stuff of Hollywood movies like "Gattaca." Fast forward to just over a
month ago, however, and experts were busy debating over whether genetically
engineered babies should be prohibited in a session hosted in New York City by
Intelligence Squared U.S.
Arguing for prohibition were Professor Sheldon Krimsky of
Tufts University and chair of the Council for Responsible Genetics, and Lord
Robert Winston, professor of Science and Society and emeritus professor of
Fertility Studies at Imperial College.
Arguing against prohibition was Nita Farahany, professor of
Law and Philosophy and professor of Genome Sciences & Policy at Duke
University. Filling out her team was Princeton University professor and author
Lee Silver.
Among the audience who were asked to vote on the debate
question before and after the presentations was Jim Watson, one of the
discoverers of the structure of the double helix DNA.
In his opening arguments, Krimsky told the audience:
"Enhancement through genetic engineering of human germ plasm is a fool's
paradise and will lead to no good."
His first objection to the research was the fact that it
would require clinical trials. "No set of animal studies can ensure the
safety and efficacy of human prenatal genetic modification. It is unimaginable
that any humane, democratic society would permit such a trial with public or private
funds; the risk would so outweigh the societal benefits," argued Krimsky.
He further argued that traits being considered for genetic
modification could not be simply enhanced by a modification of one or two
genes. "Traits like intelligence, personality, muscle tone, musicianship …
are complex and not only involve dozens if not hundreds of genes but are the
result of nutrition, social and environmental factors, genetic switches that
are outside of the DNA and the gene-gene interactions that occur in human cells,"
said Krimsky. "Scientists and the so-called transhumanists who believe
that it is possible think of the human genome as a Lego set, where pieces of
DNA can be plugged in or out without interfering with the other parts of the
system. Actually, the human genome is more like an ecosystem where all the
parts interrelate and are in mutual balance."
He also contended: "The idea of genetic enhancement
grows out of a eugenic ideology that human perfection can be directed by
genetics.
"The danger is not so much that it will work, but as a
myth, it will have social power that can be used by those who have wealth and
resources to make others believe that to be prenatally genetically modified
makes you better."
In her opening remarks, Farahany asked the audience to vote
against a complete ban on the genetic engineering of babies and argued that
there are many instances where genetic engineering is legitimately necessary,
saying it "is no different in kind from the many ways that we already engineer
our children, from the partners we choose to prenatal screening to the
supplements we take that impact our children and their fates."
She highlighted new research showing that administering
folate to women during pregnancy reduces the incidence of autism in children
but no one wanted to ban folate. "… I want to convince you that we already
can and have taken the next step of genetic engineering of babies and that we
would take a drastic step backwards to ban outright that technology," argued
Farahany.
Mitochondria provides energy for the proper functioning of
human cells and about two percent of human DNA is mitochondrial. "About
one in 5,000 babies born have problems with their mitochondrial DNA that cause
rare but incredibly serious disease, including heart failure, dementia,
blindness, severe suffering and death," said Farahany.
The 30 healthy genetically modified children noted at the
beginning of this story, she noted, were treated through mitochondrial transfer
and they were all born free of mitochondrial disease as a result.
A complete ban on the science that could help babies in this
case would only serve to drive the science into dangerous underground
conditions that wouldn't be as helpful if people are allowed to seek private
help, Farahany further explained.
At the end of the debate which lasted for approximately two
hours, the audience voted against prohibition.
The whole 1 hour plus debate if you want to watch it.
The final votes after the entire debate, extracted from the video at 1:42:39.
No comments:
Post a Comment