Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Genetic tinkering can cause social, health problems
By Maxwell J. Mehlman |
April 22, 2013, Monday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
FOR thousands of years, humans have used genetic engineering to control the evolution of plants and animals.
So it is inevitable that we will use it to shape our own evolution. Our efforts so far have been modest.
Full-scale human evolutionary engineering is still far off, but, at some point in the future, it may well become routine.
The challenge for humanity is twofold: to survive long enough to reach that point, and to cause the least amount of harm while getting there.
On a societal level, genetic engineering that only the wealthy can afford would threaten social cohesion by ruling out equality of opportunity.
Genetic haves and have-nots could form separate castes, with reproductive isolation possibly producing physical changes that would make inter-caste procreation impossible.
Given that no human species other than our own survives (Homo floresiensis disappeared about 18,000 years ago), the prospects for harmonious coexistence among future human species are not reassuring.
In the worst case, the human genetic lineage itself could be wiped out by inter-species conflict. Even without speciation, the same outcome could occur through a loss of genetic diversity: If everyone selected the same traits for their offspring, their descendants would be incapable of surviving a sudden, unexpected environmental challenge.
Geneticists often express skepticism about such predictions.
For example, a reviewer of my recent book, writing in Science, pointed out how little impact "a few genetically engineered individuals" will have on the human gene pool.
Species-wide threats
But, while it is true that a genetic-engineering catastrophe will not overtake the entire human species anytime soon, existing genetic-engineering technologies already can harm individual children: witness the increase in premature births and low birth weights associated with in vitro fertilization.
Simply put, in the absence of unknown and unforeseeable technical impediments, human evolutionary engineering is likely to become sufficiently widespread in the future to pose species-wide threats.
So, while it may not be necessary to employ measures now to prevent harm in the future, it makes sense to identify which measures might be needed, together with the changes in social norms and behaviors that might be required to implement them.
Many of the risks from evolutionary engineering are triggered by bad parental decision-making. Eager to give their children social advantages, parents may make reproductive decisions based on faulty or incomplete genetic information, or seek genetic alteration of their offspring before adequate safety testing has been carried out.
Determining when it is permissible to interfere with parental choices is challenging, given the deference that parents typically receive. Most countries have laws aimed at protecting children from abuse and neglect. But legislation to safeguard children's welfare does not adequately address harms produced or set in motion before birth.
Regulating physicians
Most of the reproductive decisions parents make cannot be carried out without the aid of professionals such as physicians, so it might be necessary to regulate professional behavior as well.
While some of the infrastructure, such as licensure laws for physicians, is already in place, additional steps may be needed, such as heightened regulation of infertility clinics, where many genetic-engineering interventions will take place.
Some forms of evolutionary engineering that do not directly harm individuals, and therefore would not be subject to such regulations, such as decisions by all parents to make the same genetic changes in their offspring, could threaten the survival of the human lineage.
Public-health systems could respond to this concern. Yet, in view of past efforts by officials to employ genetics to improve public health, it is important to ensure that such power is wielded judiciously.
Finally, if too few members of society enjoy too great a genetic advantage, social cohesion and democratic institutions could be threatened even in the absence of any direct physical harm. If the genetic engineering that we allow is to benefit our descendants, it must be as widely available as possible.
Maxwell J. Mehlman is a professor of law and director of the Law-Medicine Center at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and Professor of Biomedical Ethics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2013. www.project-syndicate.org
So it is inevitable that we will use it to shape our own evolution. Our efforts so far have been modest.
Full-scale human evolutionary engineering is still far off, but, at some point in the future, it may well become routine.
The challenge for humanity is twofold: to survive long enough to reach that point, and to cause the least amount of harm while getting there.
On a societal level, genetic engineering that only the wealthy can afford would threaten social cohesion by ruling out equality of opportunity.
Genetic haves and have-nots could form separate castes, with reproductive isolation possibly producing physical changes that would make inter-caste procreation impossible.
Given that no human species other than our own survives (Homo floresiensis disappeared about 18,000 years ago), the prospects for harmonious coexistence among future human species are not reassuring.
In the worst case, the human genetic lineage itself could be wiped out by inter-species conflict. Even without speciation, the same outcome could occur through a loss of genetic diversity: If everyone selected the same traits for their offspring, their descendants would be incapable of surviving a sudden, unexpected environmental challenge.
Geneticists often express skepticism about such predictions.
For example, a reviewer of my recent book, writing in Science, pointed out how little impact "a few genetically engineered individuals" will have on the human gene pool.
Species-wide threats
But, while it is true that a genetic-engineering catastrophe will not overtake the entire human species anytime soon, existing genetic-engineering technologies already can harm individual children: witness the increase in premature births and low birth weights associated with in vitro fertilization.
Simply put, in the absence of unknown and unforeseeable technical impediments, human evolutionary engineering is likely to become sufficiently widespread in the future to pose species-wide threats.
So, while it may not be necessary to employ measures now to prevent harm in the future, it makes sense to identify which measures might be needed, together with the changes in social norms and behaviors that might be required to implement them.
Many of the risks from evolutionary engineering are triggered by bad parental decision-making. Eager to give their children social advantages, parents may make reproductive decisions based on faulty or incomplete genetic information, or seek genetic alteration of their offspring before adequate safety testing has been carried out.
Determining when it is permissible to interfere with parental choices is challenging, given the deference that parents typically receive. Most countries have laws aimed at protecting children from abuse and neglect. But legislation to safeguard children's welfare does not adequately address harms produced or set in motion before birth.
Regulating physicians
Most of the reproductive decisions parents make cannot be carried out without the aid of professionals such as physicians, so it might be necessary to regulate professional behavior as well.
While some of the infrastructure, such as licensure laws for physicians, is already in place, additional steps may be needed, such as heightened regulation of infertility clinics, where many genetic-engineering interventions will take place.
Some forms of evolutionary engineering that do not directly harm individuals, and therefore would not be subject to such regulations, such as decisions by all parents to make the same genetic changes in their offspring, could threaten the survival of the human lineage.
Public-health systems could respond to this concern. Yet, in view of past efforts by officials to employ genetics to improve public health, it is important to ensure that such power is wielded judiciously.
Finally, if too few members of society enjoy too great a genetic advantage, social cohesion and democratic institutions could be threatened even in the absence of any direct physical harm. If the genetic engineering that we allow is to benefit our descendants, it must be as widely available as possible.
Maxwell J. Mehlman is a professor of law and director of the Law-Medicine Center at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and Professor of Biomedical Ethics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2013. www.project-syndicate.org
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
