Consequences of the Human Genome Project

[Confused]

In the Feb 2007 issue of National Geographic, an article was written about a conversation between Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome project, author of "The Language of God", and a Christian) and John Horgan (Science writer and author of "The End of Science" and "Rational Mysticism", and an Agnostic). One issue posed went like this:

Horgan: Some scientists have predicted that genetic engineering may give us superhuman intelligence and greatly extended life spans, perhaps even immortality. These are all possible long term consequences of the Human Genome Project and other lines of research. If these thing happen, what do you think would be the consequences for religious traditions?

Collins: That outcome would trouble me. But we're so far away from that reality that it's hard to spend a lot of time worrying about it, when you consider all the truly benevolent things we could do in the near term.

Is this not what Einstein might have thought when he learned what his famous contributions to science led to?

http://www.answers.com/topic/albert-einstein
Einstein played a key role (1939) in mobilizing the resources necessary to construct the atomic bomb by signing a famous letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt which had been drafted by Leo Szilard and E.P. Wigner. When Einstein's famous equation E mc2 was finally demonstrated in the most awesome and terrifying way by using the bomb to destroy Hiroshima in 1945, Einstein, the pacifist and humanitarian, was deeply shocked and distressed; for a long time he could only utter "Horrible, horrible." On April 18, 1955, Einstein died in Princeton.

For debate:
In the explosion of genetic research now being done, the immediate and future ramifications of such research, is it justifiable to think that the position Collins takes in that the immediate benefits are what is important, not the possible future disasters that could result, such as with Einstein?

If genetic engineering does reach the potentials that some scientists currently believe it could, what would be the ramifications for religious ideology? If science can find a way to alter genetics that may be found to play roles in behavior so as to eliminate the negative traits and enhance the positive traits, it would illustrate the effects of morality as physiological as opposed to theological thereby negating religious morality. Would faith disappear into the night, or would we still find a way to evolve God/religion to fit this new issue to still make Him the reason for it?

[Greatest I Am]

I've always believed the only future choice for humankind is genetic engineering. It is unlikely that we will be able to develop in time before a disaster, lets say mars, enough for human life. If we could engineer humans that need less oxygen and are better adapted to extreme temperatures then we could save the human race. That's a far flung example but you get the idea. The fact that insulin (sp) is usually made from altered bacteria is another example. I see problems but the benefits by far outweigh them.

Given the nature of our society to take positive advances in science and technology and turn them into negatives that are used against humanity, can we really say that the positives will far outweigh the negatives in the future. Did the positives outweigh the negatives for the discovery of splitting atoms that led to the atomic bomb. How about the alternate fuel sources discovered leading to the nuclear warheads or nuclear reactor disasters that have occurred?

I would say that even the splitting of the atom has saved more lives over all, than what the a bombs has taken. Yes a lot of lives were lost but who knows what wars we would have fought without the threat of mutual destruction.

Further, x-rays have saved how many. Irradiated food will feed how many, etc.

Regards
DL

So the ends justifies the means?

You cannot stop progress in one field without affecting many other variables.

What end? What means?

In a free world, how do you enforce the prohibition of science?

Regards
DL

[ST88]

In the explosion of genetic research now being done, the immediate and future ramifications of such research, is it justifiable to think that the position Collins takes in that the immediate benefits are what is important, not the possible future disasters that could result, such as with Einstein?

Every scientific discovery has the potential for good and bad, and both are usually explored -- and even the good/bad paradigm is usually muddled enough that all we can say is "progress". There's the nuclear stand-off argument. There's also the potential genetically-based insurance policy argument. As genetic screening plays more and more of a role in healthcare decisions, insurers might decide to charge more for premiums if you have markers for certain genetic diseases -- or even certain "genetic profiles", tendencies for addiction, e.g. That, we might say, is a bad thing. However, because of this there might be enough outrage and free-market insurance dilemmas that we might possibly get single-payer healthcare. That, we might say, is a good thing.

If genetic engineering does reach the potentials that some scientists currently believe it could, what would be the ramifications for religious ideology? If science can find a way to alter genetics that may be found to play roles in behavior so as to eliminate the negative traits and enhance the positive traits, it would illustrate the effects of morality as physiological as opposed to theological thereby negating religious morality. Would faith disappear into the night, or would we still find a way to evolve God/religion to fit this new issue to still make Him the reason for it?

I don't see any particular dangers to religious ideology. History is filled with religious goalpost shifting and dogma adjustments. Apart from the initial gnashing of teeth, people will find a way to rationalize just about anything.

[Ncik666]

To your question if the end justifies the means. Yes it does. I hate to sound callous but thats just how I see the world. Most ends justify the means.

[Confused]

To your question if the end justifies the means. Yes it does. I hate to sound callous but thats just how I see the world. Most ends justify the means.

I can't share that belief. I know that in many cases one might be able to justify this in their minds looking back on it. But in many cases, there are alternative means that could yield the same end. Society is always looking for the fastest results at the cheapest cost. Why? We trample humanity in an attempt to advance humanity. Does this not sound wrong? ST88 brought up a good example, as the human genome project progresses, it is entirely plausible in the future we will be able to identify genetic factors that are linked with many diseases. If such occurs, insurance companies may find ways to avoid coverage for them or charge higher premiums etc.... It is entirely plausible that the results of the human genome project could lead to genetic manipulation that might create a super race of soldiers that are created in a lab and considered subhuman due to the lack of a conventional mother and father. They would be expendable. Warfare would take on a whole new meaning.

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating the prevention of advancing technology. But I am wondering if humanity is in such a hurry to advance that we have forgotten the lessons learned in the past. The fastest way or the most efficient way shouldn't override the most humane way. If we allow such to happen, we are no better than Hitler.

[Cmass]

First, to part of your OP,

If science can find a way to alter genetics that may be found to play roles in behavior so as to eliminate the negative traits and enhance the positive traits, it would illustrate the effects of morality as physiological as opposed to theological thereby negating religious morality. Would faith disappear into the night, or would we still find a way to evolve God/religion to fit this new issue to still make Him the reason for it?

This is an important question. I brought it up last year with few intriguing responses. The fact is, I could radically alter your personality right now with some relatively simple surgical instruments. People involved in accidents with brain trauma can turn into very different people - not just in terms of motor skills but in terms of personality. As I recall, I asked if a person whom I made into a truly "evil" person via surgery was indeed evil or a victim of the cranial environment I created. If the basic roots of a personality can be altered via human intervention then this does indeed present some serious challenges to the notion of a "soul" that misbehaves and thus suffers the pits of hell for eternity. It goes right the heart of the debate over self determination.

Society is always looking for the fastest results at the cheapest cost. Why? We trample humanity in an attempt to advance humanity.

I think you have to clarify who "society" is and what "humanity" means. Is society me? You? Merck Inc.? Seeking "cheapest cost" often has more to do with advancing corporate profit or political power rather than advancing "humanity". Einstein was interested in advancing math & physics but it took human conflict - which is at it's base a political power issue - to turn his interest and genius into the horrors of "the bomb".

ST88 brought up a good example, as the human genome project progresses, it is entirely plausible in the future we will be able to identify genetic factors that are linked with many diseases. If such occurs, insurance companies may find ways to avoid coverage for them or charge higher premiums etc....

This is corporate greed.

It is entirely plausible that the results of the human genome project could lead to genetic manipulation that might create a super race of soldiers that are created in a lab and considered subhuman due to the lack of a conventional mother and father. They would be expendable. Warfare would take on a whole new meaning.

Again, political power & corporate greed. (Lots of great movies have touched on the subject of superhuman and cyborg soldiers)

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating the prevention of advancing technology. But I am wondering if humanity is in such a hurry to advance that we have forgotten the lessons learned in the past. The fastest way or the most efficient way shouldn't override the most humane way. If we allow such to happen, we are no better than Hitler.

Once again, it is all about power and greed - not science.
Do we forget lessons of the past? You betcha. Speaking from an American perspective, we have exceptionally poor memories and lack historical context for nearly everything. Our own GW is a perfect example and scares the crap out of me. We need to create and nurture mechanisms to reign in powerful people so they don't exploit science in the quest for more power and control. Hitler was an uncontained power freak (as well as a self-professed Christian ).

[Confused]

I think you have to clarify who "society" is and what "humanity" means. Is society me? You? Merck Inc.? Seeking "cheapest cost" often has more to do with advancing corporate profit or political power rather than advancing "humanity". Einstein was interested in advancing math & physics but it took human conflict - which is at it's base a political power issue - to turn his interest and genius into the horrors of "the bomb".

I should have defined this better. The proper way to say it should have been:
Mankind is always looking for the fastest results at the cheapest cost.

Humanity is in reference to almost all mankind. We search for the quick cure without really knowing the consequences of it beforehand. How many mutated babies were born due to an antiemetic used in the 60's/70's for pregnant mothers suffering from excess vomiting (I forget the name of the drug). Phen Phen has led to how many cardiac arrythmias. We use biological engineering to create biological warfare, in the process we create new strains of viruses/bacteria/fungi/nerve toxins etc.... Sure, a very quick measure of protection, until it is used against us. We enacted child abuse laws in the US. Now you can't spank your child without it being physical abuse, tell your child their weight is unhealthy without it being psychological abuse, all the while courts are imprisoning parents because of failure to control their child or for neglect because their childs weight is unhealthy.

It is entirely plausible that the results of the human genome project could lead to genetic manipulation that might create a super race of soldiers that are created in a lab and considered subhuman due to the lack of a conventional mother and father. They would be expendable. Warfare would take on a whole new meaning.

Again, political power & corporate greed. (Lots of great movies have touched on the subject of superhuman and cyborg soldiers)

While it may be sci-fi now, or political/corporate greed, the fact still remains, it is a very real possibility. The human genome project findings could eventually be used by the same private companies researching embryonic stem cells. Ever see the move "The Island"? If we found the sequence that causes some defects in children, a clone of the child with the corrected genetic sequence could be made, then used to harvest defective organs. If the genetic sequence was fatal, a clone of the child could be made with the corrected sequence. Death of a child would no longer be a worry. We can just create a new and better model.

While these are concepts that aren't occurring now and aren't the intention of the Human Genome Project or embryonic stem cell research, the advances in physics and chemistry weren't intended to make a weapon of mass destruction.

So it make one wonder, what are the benefits of the Human Genome Project. What are the risks of it. Do the benefits outweigh the risks for humanity?

[tentex25]

This may be off topic, but I just read it earlier today on msnbc.com. Scientists have mapped some genomes of different monkeys and msnbc printed an article about how their genomes (since they are closely related) are greatly helping to understand AIDS. I think the genome project could have extreme benefits, but also extreme downsides.

[Jose]

There are probably very few things that do not have the potential for abuse. As goat has said, we can use a hammer for evil if we so desire. The same with a frozen leg of lamb--bean someone, then eat the murder weapon. Even religion has been used for evil, in the sense that people have justified wars and "cleansing" programs through their weird interpretation of their religion.

The genome project has provided information. So far, what has come of it is in three general areas: evolution, regulation of gene expression, and identification of genes involved in genetic "diseases". None of these are bad, and none have any impact on religion or society. There are those who will argue that more proof of evolution is an evil plot by anti-Christians, but that view stems from lack of understanding of evolution and its relationship to theology.

As Collins has said, we're a long way from applying knowledge to the genetic engineering of humans. My view is that such genetic engineering is not a consequence of the genome project; it is possible right now. Well, "possible" in that there are known genes that could be replaced for the betterment of certain families, but we have no knowledge of the technical aspects of how to do it. Learning how to do it is not "the genome project," and is going to take thousands of attempts--and so,is not likely to happen any time soon.

[ST88]

As Collins has said, we're a long way from applying knowledge to the genetic engineering of humans. My view is that such genetic engineering is not a consequence of the genome project; it is possible right now. Well, "possible" in that there are known genes that could be replaced for the betterment of certain families, but we have no knowledge of the technical aspects of how to do it. Learning how to do it is not "the genome project," and is going to take thousands of attempts--and so,is not likely to happen any time soon.

We're a long way from genetic engineering, sure, but the choices we make now will effect future arguments for doing similar things. we can ow provide [prospective] parents with information about such irregularities as Down Syndrome and allow them to decide what they wish to do at that point. By extension, if there were a way to alter the genetic material of a fetus so that Down Syndrome would no longer affect fetal development [young enough, presumably], then we would allow that to happen also. The "genome project" itself is not genetic engineering as per semantic and project management argument, but it has set off these questions and issues because it is a prelimianary inquiry into the process. The fact that such inquiry leads to such consequences is not a "fault", of course, but it is a responsibility. We don't have to look back and say, "We never should have tried to figure this stuff out," but we can look back and say, "When we were figuring this stuff out, we should have done [such and such]."

[Jose]

We're a long way from genetic engineering, sure, but the choices we make now will effect future arguments for doing similar things. we can ow provide [prospective] parents with information about such irregularities as Down Syndrome and allow them to decide what they wish to do at that point. By extension, if there were a way to alter the genetic material of a fetus so that Down Syndrome would no longer affect fetal development [young enough, presumably], then we would allow that to happen also. The "genome project" itself is not genetic engineering as per semantic and project management argument, but it has set off these questions and issues because it is a prelimianary inquiry into the process. The fact that such inquiry leads to such consequences is not a "fault", of course, but it is a responsibility. We don't have to look back and say, "We never should have tried to figure this stuff out," but we can look back and say, "When we were figuring this stuff out, we should have done [such and such]."

Well said, as always, ST88. You're right that we'd much rather say "it's a good thing we thought of this at the beginning."

I will suggest that there are big differences, though, between the genome project and the type of medical interventions characterized by Down's Syndrome. Amniocentesis was developed in the mid 1960's, and has been available ever since. With the advent of gene cloning, and techniques for identifying mutant alleles, the same approach could be used for screening specific alleles--Tay Sachs, for example. In general, these are tests for something threatening to life (or quality of life), with the unpleasant possibility of choosing to terminate a pregnancy.

By the time we have a fetus, even a very small one, it's too late for most genetic interventions. There are no known ways to change the genome of every cell in an embryo--unless that embryo is only one cell. It will be very difficult to get around this problem; the most straightforward solution is to edit the genome of cells in culture, then use one of those cells in a Dolly-the-Sheep kind of cloning effort. Editing the genome of cells in culture is "easy;" the cloning is, as yet, not understood. We can do this sort of thing in mice, but for people....well, we're at the stage of asking whether we should or should not go down that road.

With the genome project, we're kind of at the stage of learning what the letters are in a book, with quite a bit of uncertainty which letters are actually words. There are a lot of studies going on to figure out what the words are, and a lot of studies to figure out which words are spelled wrong in various medical conditions. Even when we know where the words are, we still don't know much about the punctuation. Comparing the human and rat genomes surprised everyone by revealing a lot of evolutionarily conserved sequences that are not protein-coding genes. They're punctuation--apparently, they code for RNA molecules that regulate lots of other genes. At the level of basic biology, we just don't know how to read the book.

The first dilemma, though, is upon us. It was upon us before the genome project, actually, but the genome project makes it more common because we know of more genes. It's the dilemma of whether knowing genetic information about someone should influence their medical insurance coverage. If you carry an allele that makes you very likely to get cancer, is it fair for an insurance company to refuse to cover you if they know, or for you to ask for coverage without telling them? Either one breaks the rules upon which insurance is based: statistical likelihood, as opposed to very high probability.

Anyway...another reason I argue that most worries about genetic manipulation are a long way off is that there are almost no traits that depend on a single gene. Anyone who wants to create a special type of person, based on genome information, has to repeat the basic techniques for every gene relevant to that trait. With each round of manipulation, the likelihood of causing other problems goes up--and based on what we know now, it's really high. And, it's based on biological reasons, not technical reasons, which means there's no simple, technical fix. The anti-cloning crowd expresses this more simply: most cloned embryos are probably going to be abnormal.

What all of this amounts to, I suppose, is agreement with your last sentence. There are so many ways to screw up that we should be really cautious about trying to go forward.