(Random Thoughts) Genetic Engineering...and Life, and Death

[terpkristin]

While I was at the gym today, a story came on the news about genetic engineering. I'll confess, I haven't listened to the story yet, as it was muted while I was at the gym, but the topic was "Clinic Says They Are Not Designer Babies," subtitled "The clinic that says it can select embryos that fit certain criteria defends the ethics of selective reproduction." (Story here) It got me thinking about genetic engineering. Further ruminations on that made me think about life...and death.

As you may know from previous threads or my blog, I do have a genetic disorder, called Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. Since I have it, chances are 50-50 that I'll pass it along to each of my kids, if I have kids at all (in the form I have, pregnancies can terminate owing to issues with the uterus). In talking to other people with EDS, and reading things online, I think I'm lucky in the way it has impacted me so far. I was already an adult when we figured out that I have it, and my biggest problem so far has been the looseness of my joints more than the pain in my joints. I've been told that as I get older, the pain will become much more of a problem, but also that since I exercise regularly and lift for toning (rather than brute strength), I'm doing the 2 best things I can for the disorder. The genetic doc I saw said that the pain issues and the further deteroiriation of my joints may be less pronounced because of it, long-term. Even still, it's a nusiance, and when things go bad, they go bad quickly for me (see: my ankle and not being able to walk for ~2 years).

So, I started thinking, if I could use genetic engineering to ensure that my kids don't get EDS, would I? After thinking about it for the last few hours, I think the answer is no. It's not that I would wish a craptastic genetic disorder on someone, but I firmly believe that you're dealt the cards you're dealt for a reason, and that there's some bigger plan involved, even if it makes no sense for us (for the record, I'm Catholic and do believe in God and a "plan" he has for each of us, though I have not gone to church regularly since my brother went missing--temporarily--in 1999).

So then I thought about people whose genetic disorders are significantly...more difficult than mine. Things like Downs Syndrome, hemophilia, Neurofibromatosis, Tay-Sachs, Sickle Cell, etc. I can't imagine what it's like to be a parent of somebody with a disorder like Downs Syndrome, so maybe it'd be different if I was in that position...I just don't know.

But, at the end of the day, in addition to the greater plan I believe is out there, the reason we get the cards we're dealt, I think I have problems with genetic modification/engineering. I like the idea of using it in a noble way, to ensure that parents don't have to suffer watching their children suffer...but what happens when it's used for purposes other than noble? What if beauty (or, intelligence? though I don't know how much genetics plays into that) could be custom-ordered? Where would we be as a society?

I guess I believe there's a reason we're all different, that you shouldn't mess with the greater plan. Although I have no proof, my experiences with death in the past few years have kind of re-inforced the idea that there is a bigger...being or purpose to the way things happen, and why would we want to change that path? Of course, my only "proof" of that is in death. I've watched my aunt finally get released from the pain she was in, I've watched my grandfather hang on until just after his wedding anniversary to pass on (and to tell my grandmother when it was time to go to the hospital), and I've watched my grandmother decide--more or less on her own terms--when she was ready to go. And I can't believe that can happen without a greater plan.

So that's what's on my mind right now. What do you guys think? Would you modify the genetics of your unborn child, if you could? Do you think there's a reason for the way things turn out?

Sorry for the randomness.

/tk

[Poli]

I'm with you, TK.

[JediKooter]

Yes, I would modify the genetics of an unborn child of mine if I could, IF there was something already diagnosed with the kid. No need to let a kid suffer if that suffering can be prevented.

I do not believe there is any reason why we are they way we are. The human body really is a piss poor design. We have eyes that go bad, cells that can mutiny on us (cancer), only two sets of teeth, organs that die too early or malfuntion, an exterior that is not very protective, a brain that can malfunction, bones that go brittle, can only breath a certain mixture of gasses without dying, hair that falls out, over time or bodies deteriorate to a point of being almost useless, and the list goes on and on and on.

If we were cars, we would have been recalled a long long time ago or a very successful Microsoft product.

[Marc Vaughan]

I don't see this as any different from allowing myself to undertake surgery or be treated against a disease which might otherwise kill you.

That is I've always viewed that yes God may have a plan - but part of that plan might be us using our abilities and opportunities to our best advantage ... so yes I'd modify the genetics of an unborn child to help them.

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Not to ridicule your decision or belief - but how do you see this as any different from allowing yourself to undertake surgery or be treated against a disease which might otherwise kill you?

I've always viewed that yes God may have a plan - but part of that plan might be us using our abilities and opportunities to our best advantage ...

With every decision, it's been my decision for myself, not my decision for someone else (and I recognize how fully this falls apart if when/if I have kids they need treatment and I have to decide for them). I realize that a lot of what I've said is based on nothing but faith/belief, which is probably more emotional than factual. But...once we're here, I think there is some sort of plan. I don't know how I can really say that, aside from faith, but (and this goes back to the death aspects of it), I think there's a time when we'll each go, whether we go as a part of the "initial" plan or the way the plan developed as we live.

I hate having an answer that's that...unsatisfactory. It drives me nuts when people play the faith card, and I haven't been in many situations that have tested that faith (thank goodness), like having a child die shortly after birth. But so far, it's all I got. Sorry for that.

/tk

[cthomer5000]

I would certainly do everything possible to avoid passing on something like that. A personal no-brainer.

[King of New York]

Personally, I would modify the genetics of my child to avoid a disease that would threaten the quality or duration or her/his life. I wouldn't modify the genetics just to optimize a trait such as eyesight or hair color.

On the other hand, I expect that genetic modification will be a routine matter in another 100-200 years or so. We are hardwired to want the best for our offspring, the carriers of our DNA and the guarantors of our immortality (such as it is)--once genetic engineering becomes easy, few parents are going to be able to say know as their neighbors pump out uberchildren. We are also hardwired to push the boundaries of science and technology as far as they will go, as one of our evolutionary advantages is the ability to figure out how to do stuff. I cannot think of an example of humans developing a technology and then agreeing to forgo its use, even when that technology (such as nuclear weapons) could well lead to the extinction of the species, aka epic evolutionary fail.

[terpkristin]

The scientist in me really hates making an "argument" without fact.

But, on the other hand, I don't really see this as an argument, nor am I trying to persuade anybody to my side, so I guess there's that--I really am curious what people think on the matter, not so much of whether or not they agree with me.

In having every surgery I've had, in now knowing why I've needed so many surgeries, I've usually ended up learning something deeper about myself, and how I handle things, which I guess I've always attributed to "part of the purpose." But then, if I didn't have that view on the "purpose," would I see things differently? Probably.

I love technology. And on the one hand, taking away genetic disorders makes it better...but, what if it's not a genetic disorder? What if it's something as simple as having naturally curly hair vs. straight? Blue eyes vs. brown? Is there a line? If there is, what is it?

/tk

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by King of New York

On the other hand, I expect that genetic modification will be a routine matter in another 100-200 years or so. We are hardwired to want the best for our offspring, the carriers of our DNA and the guarantors of our immortality (such as it is)--once genetic engineering becomes easy, few parents are going to be able to say know as their neighbors pump out uberchildren. We are also hardwired to push the boundaries of science and technology as far as they will go, as one of our evolutionary advantages is the ability to figure out how to do stuff. I cannot think of an example of humans developing a technology and then agreeing to forgo its use, even when that technology (such as nuclear weapons) could well lead to the extinction of the species, aka epic evolutionary fail.

I completely agree with this. Maybe even closer to the 100 than 200 years timeframe.

/tk

[Mustang]

No genetic engineering.... I don't want to give Ethan Hawke more reasons to make movies.

If I could engineer my child to take out potentially anything life threatening or items that would impair their quality of life, I would do it in a heartbeat. I'd rather think that if there is a God, he gave us the smarts on how to figure this stuff out and the ability to do something about it.

[Groundhog]

I believe if it can be done and people want to do it, let them. If they don't want to, don't force them.

If we are going to say no to it, I'd want a reason other than it's interferring with some kind of grand plan (not directing this at you TK, if that's how it sounds). I'd be open to criticisms and listening to why folks think it's a bad idea, as long as they can back this up with some real-world facts, especially of a medical kind.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I don't see this as any different from allowing myself to undertake surgery or be treated against a disease which might otherwise kill you. That is I've always viewed that yes God may have a plan - but part of that plan might be us using our abilities and opportunities to our best advantage ... so yes I'd modify the genetics of an unborn child to help them.

Pretty much what MV said.

[Easy Mac]

As long as we avoid human animal hybrids, we should be good... Bush made sure to snuff out that burgeoning problem in the State of the Union years ago

[CU Tiger]

TK, you mirror my thoughts pretty closely.
But I am torn, I wouldd give my life for my kids as would any good parent....having said that I would want to do anything possible to protect them, though I am not sure how I would handle that situation....

I have thought for sometime that genetic modification and it impact on our diverse, adaptive growth process (evolution?) would be the ruin of our species, not the atomic bomb.

"End not with a bang; but with a whimper"

[Ajaxab]

Is there any way to ultimately avoid eugenics based discrimination given this option? I don't see any possibility that could prevent this kind of research from moving forward, but it does seem hard not to foresee the day when some twisted national leader will decide to mandate that every child born in the nation be modified to his/her political liking. It may not be blond hair and blue eyes, but it could be some other conceivably desirable combination.

As King of NY alluded, science has little tolerance for being held back, side effects be damned. Science doesn't have the greatest track record when it comes to caring about the consequences of its experimentation. Progress is the be all end all no matter what the outcomes.

I do appreciate MV's point, but there does seem to be a qualitative difference between a hip replacement and modifying genes.

[Groundhog]

As much as I say I'd like to keep any arguments on topics like this in the "real world" category, I can't help but get a little metaphysical and think that if we can do something like this, maybe that makes it natural. There are so many imperfections in our genes that we carry over from days long gone by, and that number only figures to increase with the more "global" the world's population becomes.

Maybe this is a natural evolution towards cleaning some of this harmful junk out of our gene pool?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mustang

No genetic engineering.... I don't want to give Ethan Hawke more reasons to make movies.

If I could engineer my child to take out potentially anything life threatening or items that would impair their quality of life, I would do it in a heartbeat. I'd rather think that if there is a God, he gave us the smarts on how to figure this stuff out and the ability to do something about it.

That's where I'm at. I wouldn't think of refusing medical for my daughter if it would improve her life and I don't think I could live with myself knowing that I could have eased her pain, but chose not to.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

As King of NY alluded, science has little tolerance for being held back, side effects be damned. Science doesn't have the greatest track record when it comes to caring about the consequences of its experimentation. Progress is the be all end all no matter what the outcomes.

The problem lies with the folks using the science for shady means, rather than the science itself. I'm all for scientists discovering all they can about our genes.

Obviously it can lead - probably will lead, in one way or another - to these discoveries being used dangerously or controversially. That's just human nature. I don't think the Chinese should have been thinking about the kind of horrors that have come about thanks to their fireworks invention.

[like a dog]

As others have pointed out, your argument is fundamentally inconsistent without an explanation of why a genetic intervention is of a different class then other techniques of modern medicine (assuming you are willing to accept benevolent medical intervention as a good thing).

It seems to me that in your initial post and in many of the subsequent posts there is a feeling that genetic intervention is of a different class because it is not "natural" in a way that other medical interventions are. But this argument does not stand up to a rigorous examination. There is no way to define what is "natural" - by which I take most people to mean something along the lines of physically possible for technologically naive human beings - such that it excludes genetic engineering but includes, say, surgery. Ligature, aseptic technique, general anesthesia, and mechanical ventilation are no more or less "natural" then genetic manipulation and artificial insemination. They are equally the products of human innovation that promote the evolutionary fitness of humans (by either keeping them alive so that they might be reproduce, or by allowing infertile humans to reproduce) and to attempt to differentiate between the two based upon their "naturalness" to human beings unsound.

Appeals to a deterministic "plan" are of no use for a different reason; they render the entire discussion moot. If God's (or the unknowable vector sum of all string's vibratory pattern at any given instant depending on your preferred brand of determinism) plan is for you to pass your disease on to your children you either or will or you won't. You, by definition, have no agency and therefore there is no moral decision involved. By appealing to the concept of a deterministic universe as a guide to your decision you are appealing to the notion that there is actually no decision at all, in which case the entire discussion is non-sensical.

In order to make your argument that it is wrong to pursue genetic intervention to improve the fitness of your offspring sound you have to show that there is something fundamentally different about technological intervention before fusion/fertilization as opposed to after it. That is, you have to begin with your argument with the assertion that future beings are a different class then actual beings (a plausible one to be sure) and that characteristics of the class future beings makes it wrong to use medical technology to improve their fitness. No sound argument on the subject is possible unless this distinction is fully fleshed out.

[Raiders Army]

I can agree with lag that genetic intervention is no different than other techniques of modern medicine...however, just like other techniques there are definite "rights" and "wrongs" to genetic engineering. I think that's what tk is saying.

[Kodos]

I would not hesitate to modify out some sort of disease for my children if they were at risk for it. How could I let my child suffer when I could do something to prevent it?

Or, if the passed on disease was bad enough, I would opt not to have children at all, and adopt instead. I don't believe in allowing suffering through inaction, especially if the only reason not to take action was that it was "meant to be".

[sterlingice]

Interesting thread- just caught up to it a week later (maybe I need a better time management gene).

SI

[Chief Rum]

I missed this the first time, too.

I am more in the camp that God helps those who help themselves. If we have the ability to cure diseases using genetics, then I think we have the right, perhaps even the obligation, to use those cures. It's one of the ways in which I break sharply from normal conservative, Republican ideology (and, yes, I applauded Obama's reversal of Bush's restrictions on stem cell research).

Now, where it gets tricky is where we go from cures to luxury aids, as it were, engineering for beauty, for instance. I think there's a baseline healthy human that we all have the right to be. Beyond that, I'm much more resistant.

BTW, it's funny that just a week ago, I was thinking of Gattaca, and realized that the movie title was spelled out completely by the four DNA base molecule designations, G, A, T and C. Surprisingly deft touch there.

[SackAttack]

For me, it's a matter of hypocrisy.

Not to echo tk too closely, but some of you may know that I've got a near-total loss of hearing in my right ear, and have been that way since birth.

With that caveat out there, the most infuriated I can remember ever being was reading a news story about deaf couples who wanted to select embryos that had the highest likelihood of yielding deaf offspring. Along the same line, I've seen similar stories about midget couples who wanted to ensure children "like them."

The idea that somebody would deliberately inflict a condition on their children because they themselves have that condition is something that is simply beyond comprehension or compassion for me.

Even though I abhor that idea, it would feel hypocritical to say "what *you* guys want to do with this is repulsive to me, but that group over there, I understand what *they* want enough to allow *them* to have it."

It ends up being a matter of sympathy or a lack thereof, and it just seems easier to not open Pandora's Box than to make like Solomon and try to decide whose case for gene therapy is and is not valid.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

BTW, it's funny that just a week ago, I was thinking of Gattaca, and realized that the movie title was spelled out completely by the four DNA base molecule designations, G, A, T and C. Surprisingly deft touch there.

o.O

I think that was the point of the title, CR.

edit: the sequence GATTACA is one of the most common ones in the human genome.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

o.O

I think that was the point of the title, CR.

edit: the sequence GATTACA is one of the most common ones in the human genome.

Did I miss something? The thread title doesn't mention Gattaca at all.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Did I miss something? The thread title doesn't mention Gattaca at all.

The movie title I meant.

[Mac Howard]

Tk, would you deny a child a life saving blood transfusion because it is "god's plan". If not, I wonder what you see is the difference.

What I'm trying to get at is this : I assume that there are unpleasant occurrences in your life which you do fix. At what point does an unpleasant occurrence become "god's plan" and escape action ?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

As long as we avoid human animal hybrids, we should be good... Bush made sure to snuff out that burgeoning problem in the State of the Union years ago

I am still pissed-off about Bush's proclomation in the State of the Union against human animal hybrids. I found it both very offensive and incredibly short sighted.

History is chalk FULL of great and wonderful human-animal hybrid heroes. From the likes of Leonardo, Raphael, Michaelangelo, Donatello, and Master Splinter; to Lion-O, Jaga, Tygro, Pantrho, Cheetara, and Wilykat and Wilykit. There are centaurs, satyrs, Chewbacca and Vincent from Beauty and the Beast. We owe it to ourselves, nay, we owe it to AMERICA to start breeding a new generation anthropomorphic heroes!

Shame on you, President Bush. Shame on you...