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?

[Confused]

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.

True, but lets look at a different scenario. My Leukemia is CML and is directly related to the Philadelphia Gene. Now, had we had the technology long ago to screen for this, do you think I would have the medical coverage I have today? My Gleevac alone is almost 1,000 a month out of pocket (that is after both my insurance companies plans, yes I have double coverage). As the technology deveolps, we can screen infants for things like the philadelphia gene, austism, childhood onset schizophrenia, etc.... These may be great in terms of early treatment, but tell me, when does the insurance company say we can't cover you? Heck, just getting homeowners insurance here in Florida is outrageous, our deductibles are through the roof and our annual costs have skyrocketed, so much so that the government had to cap the companies to stop it. Can you imagine health insurance with the advancements? One genetically altered child will be worth 10 unaltered infants because those 10 carry the potential for illness, disease, etc.... When do we say enough? Can we say enough? Will it be too late?

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.

Tell me, did anyone ever think of the implications of splitting the first atom? Did they worry about the long term effects? Nuclear power, did anyone consider the ramifications before the nuclear meltdowns? Granted, I am not one to jump on the wagon and say stop technology because X, Y, and Z could happen. However, I am one who says before we go off making half baked discoveries, limitations need to be set clearly in stone.

[Jose]

Despite your moniker here, Confused, you're right in all you say. Genetic information should be hidden from insurance companies, as I believe it supposedly is, by law. I fear that the power of Money will sway Congress to allow use of genetic information, but with any luck, we'll get the moneybags out of office and stave off that outcome.

Fortunately, from what I said before, it's going to be a long, long time before there is such a thing as a risk-free child for the insurance companies to drool over. For one thing, there are too many genes. For another, mutations happen--at a rate of roughly 200 per person per generation. Lastly, there are lots of plain old ordinary diseases, and with our stupid policies, we're making more and more of those resistant to treatment.

It is the hope of the genome jocks that genomic information will give us handles on disease targets--both human genes gone awry and pathogen's genes working well. There are some candidates, but not many. The big worry is whether the Big Companies will decide the market is strong enough to support the development costs.

I feel differently about homes along the beach, though. Your comment on homeowner's insurance in Florida made me think of this...and I hope yours is one of the sensible houses (which I suspect it is from what you've said here). If people build houses on stilts on barrier islands, on in the Mississippi floodplain, or anywhere it's certain that there will be problems eventually, it would make sense for the insurance companies to figure the likelihood into their risk assessments. Hurricanes and tornados are so unpredictable, they are hard to figure in, but building on sand that we already know is eroding is, well, kinda silly. Now, I say this from having grown up in Southern California, where people always build new houses in the chapparal, and they always burn up; they build houses on steep hillsides, and they always slip downhill. In San Francisco, there are houses built directly on top of the San Andreas fault! These seem to me to be unwise building locations--and that it is, or should be, obvious to everyone.

But, that's all off topic. The summary, perhaps, might be that we ran into the genetics vs insurance already. It's been to court. The people won. The people I know who were in the genetics business at the time didn't foresee it. They were trying to help people. But, when the money-grabbers showed how they could mis-use the information, the legal process went to work.

This suggests that we can't foresee every contingency. Some things are cannot be imagined until the raw materials exist. For example, when we discovered antibiotics and started using them to cure diseases, it was probably impossible to predict that this would lead to world overpopulation, global warming, and environmental catastrophe. But, there it is.

As for splitting the atom, I fear that they really did know the consequences. They purposely sought weapons of mass destruction. Splitting atoms seemed like a good way to make them. So did poison gas, infectious disease, etc. Oddly, the unforseen consequences of the War Machine are things like laptops, which aren't so bad.

It's a weird world.

[Confused]

Despite your moniker here, Confused, you're right in all you say. Genetic information should be hidden from insurance companies, as I believe it supposedly is, by law. I fear that the power of Money will sway Congress to allow use of genetic information, but with any luck, we'll get the moneybags out of office and stave off that outcome.

Fortunately, from what I said before, it's going to be a long, long time before there is such a thing as a risk-free child for the insurance companies to drool over. For one thing, there are too many genes. For another, mutations happen--at a rate of roughly 200 per person per generation. Lastly, there are lots of plain old ordinary diseases, and with our stupid policies, we're making more and more of those resistant to treatment.

It is the hope of the genome jocks that genomic information will give us handles on disease targets--both human genes gone awry and pathogen's genes working well. There are some candidates, but not many. The big worry is whether the Big Companies will decide the market is strong enough to support the development costs.

I feel differently about homes along the beach, though. Your comment on homeowner's insurance in Florida made me think of this...and I hope yours is one of the sensible houses (which I suspect it is from what you've said here). If people build houses on stilts on barrier islands, on in the Mississippi floodplain, or anywhere it's certain that there will be problems eventually, it would make sense for the insurance companies to figure the likelihood into their risk assessments. Hurricanes and tornados are so unpredictable, they are hard to figure in, but building on sand that we already know is eroding is, well, kinda silly. Now, I say this from having grown up in Southern California, where people always build new houses in the chapparal, and they always burn up; they build houses on steep hillsides, and they always slip downhill. In San Francisco, there are houses built directly on top of the San Andreas fault! These seem to me to be unwise building locations--and that it is, or should be, obvious to everyone.

But, that's all off topic. The summary, perhaps, might be that we ran into the genetics vs insurance already. It's been to court. The people won. The people I know who were in the genetics business at the time didn't foresee it. They were trying to help people. But, when the money-grabbers showed how they could mis-use the information, the legal process went to work.

This suggests that we can't foresee every contingency. Some things are cannot be imagined until the raw materials exist. For example, when we discovered antibiotics and started using them to cure diseases, it was probably impossible to predict that this would lead to world overpopulation, global warming, and environmental catastrophe. But, there it is.

As for splitting the atom, I fear that they really did know the consequences. They purposely sought weapons of mass destruction. Splitting atoms seemed like a good way to make them. So did poison gas, infectious disease, etc. Oddly, the unforseen consequences of the War Machine are things like laptops, which aren't so bad.

It's a weird world.

Yes, I had my house built outside the mandatory evacuation zone for a category 5 hurricane. But insurance still sucks.

I think we are agreeing, but I still fear the future. The fact is, as resources become more scarce, it will be the wealthy who get first dibbs (is that a word?) and the healthy who get second. The human genome project could easily determine who lives and who dies.

[Metatron]

Despite your moniker here, Confused, you're right in all you say. Genetic information should be hidden from insurance companies, as I believe it supposedly is, by law. I fear that the power of Money will sway Congress to allow use of genetic information, but with any luck, we'll get the moneybags out of office and stave off that outcome.

Fortunately, from what I said before, it's going to be a long, long time before there is such a thing as a risk-free child for the insurance companies to drool over. For one thing, there are too many genes. For another, mutations happen--at a rate of roughly 200 per person per generation. Lastly, there are lots of plain old ordinary diseases, and with our stupid policies, we're making more and more of those resistant to treatment.

It is the hope of the genome jocks that genomic information will give us handles on disease targets--both human genes gone awry and pathogen's genes working well. There are some candidates, but not many. The big worry is whether the Big Companies will decide the market is strong enough to support the development costs.

I feel differently about homes along the beach, though. Your comment on homeowner's insurance in Florida made me think of this...and I hope yours is one of the sensible houses (which I suspect it is from what you've said here). If people build houses on stilts on barrier islands, on in the Mississippi floodplain, or anywhere it's certain that there will be problems eventually, it would make sense for the insurance companies to figure the likelihood into their risk assessments. Hurricanes and tornados are so unpredictable, they are hard to figure in, but building on sand that we already know is eroding is, well, kinda silly. Now, I say this from having grown up in Southern California, where people always build new houses in the chapparal, and they always burn up; they build houses on steep hillsides, and they always slip downhill. In San Francisco, there are houses built directly on top of the San Andreas fault! These seem to me to be unwise building locations--and that it is, or should be, obvious to everyone.

But, that's all off topic. The summary, perhaps, might be that we ran into the genetics vs insurance already. It's been to court. The people won. The people I know who were in the genetics business at the time didn't foresee it. They were trying to help people. But, when the money-grabbers showed how they could mis-use the information, the legal process went to work.

This suggests that we can't foresee every contingency. Some things are cannot be imagined until the raw materials exist. For example, when we discovered antibiotics and started using them to cure diseases, it was probably impossible to predict that this would lead to world overpopulation, global warming, and environmental catastrophe. But, there it is.

As for splitting the atom, I fear that they really did know the consequences. They purposely sought weapons of mass destruction. Splitting atoms seemed like a good way to make them. So did poison gas, infectious disease, etc. Oddly, the unforseen consequences of the War Machine are things like laptops, which aren't so bad.

It's a weird world.

Yes, I had my house built outside the mandatory evacuation zone for a category 5 hurricane. But insurance still sucks.

I think we are agreeing, but I still fear the future. The fact is, as resources become more scarce, it will be the wealthy who get first dibbs (is that a word?) and the healthy who get second. The human genome project could easily determine who lives and who dies.

So your concern is for some sort eugenics based distopian future somewhat along the lines of the movie "Gattaca"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

[Confused]

Yes, I had my house built outside the mandatory evacuation zone for a category 5 hurricane. But insurance still sucks.

I think we are agreeing, but I still fear the future. The fact is, as resources become more scarce, it will be the wealthy who get first dibbs (is that a word?) and the healthy who get second. The human genome project could easily determine who lives and who dies.

So your concern is for some sort eugenics based distopian future somewhat along the lines of the movie "Gattaca"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

Not really, but sorta. It isn't the genetic alterations per se that I think would be the most disastrous outcome of the Human Genome Project. Yes, the discrimination is a factor. But I am thinking more in terms of genetic alterations that would be used against mankind. Clones made simply to die at war, it isn't like they are human. Finding biological agents to target specific genetic code sequences in the human body that would render the person immobile, cause immediate death, or worse, alter neurochemicals to turn the soldier against his own troops (such as what was seen in the new Exorcist: The beginning).

I also fear the eventual use of human mapping to impact health insurance and access to health care. Recent developments into the genetic sequence/mutation gene that may contribute to autism could easily be used as a reason for higher health care premiums and as future resources become scarce, the less desirables, the handicapped, the weak, etc... would be seen as a waste of resources (though in some cases I might agree, yes, bad girl).

I am not saying the human genome project is bad. My problem is with Collins (whom I respect highly) saying the ramifications of his research being abused are so far into the future he essentially feels the benefits outweigh the risks. My comparison is the first to split the atom thought the same thing, until he saw the disastrous results of the atomic bomb.

[Metatron]

Yes, I had my house built outside the mandatory evacuation zone for a category 5 hurricane. But insurance still sucks.

I think we are agreeing, but I still fear the future. The fact is, as resources become more scarce, it will be the wealthy who get first dibbs (is that a word?) and the healthy who get second. The human genome project could easily determine who lives and who dies.

So your concern is for some sort eugenics based dystopian future somewhat along the lines of the movie "Gattaca"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

Not really, but sorta. It isn't the genetic alterations per se that I think would be the most disastrous outcome of the Human Genome Project. Yes, the discrimination is a factor. But I am thinking more in terms of genetic alterations that would be used against mankind. Clones made simply to die at war, it isn't like they are human. Finding biological agents to target specific genetic code sequences in the human body that would render the person immobile, cause immediate death, or worse, alter neurochemicals to turn the soldier against his own troops (such as what was seen in the new Exorcist: The beginning).

I also fear the eventual use of human mapping to impact health insurance and access to health care. Recent developments into the genetic sequence/mutation gene that may contribute to autism could easily be used as a reason for higher health care premiums and as future resources become scarce, the less desirables, the handicapped, the weak, etc... would be seen as a waste of resources (though in some cases I might agree, yes, bad girl).

I am not saying the human genome project is bad. My problem is with Collins (whom I respect highly) saying the ramifications of his research being abused are so far into the future he essentially feels the benefits outweigh the risks. My comparison is the first to split the atom thought the same thing, until he saw the disastrous results of the atomic bomb.

These are all good points and there obviously needs to be a process for reviewing the possible negative consequences for new technologies. That said, it's difficult to avoid the risks if you want to harvest the gains from new technologies. The same genetic markers that can be used by unscrupulous insurance companies may turn out to be the keys for eliminating these genetic defects. The same cloning technologies that might be used to create your clone troopers might also be used to create replacement organs without the necessity of cloning replacement people like in "The Island". Well down the road it might even lead to enhancements like accelerated body tissue regeneration or greatly enhanced lifespans. Who knows for sure?

I might add that this double edged sword nature of technology also applies to nuclear energy which you have mentioned as a negative because of the horror of nuclear weapons. Others here have mentioned the somewhat ironic probability that the existence of nuclear weapons has likely prevented the outbreak of new world war scale fighting because of the MAD (mutually assured destruction) setup through out the Cold War. Obviously, it remains to be seen whether this deterrent feature will continue in this new age of nuke proliferation. On a more positive note, nuclear power currently provides over 15% of the world's electricity and this is likely to increase as nations look for alternatives to fossil fuels. In the much longer run is the possibility of developing fusion power generation which could potentially solve much of the world's power needs. So basically the jury is still out on nukes. If we can avoid blowing each other to kingdom come, nukes may eventually solve our energy problems in the future.

[Confused]

These are all good points and there obviously needs to be a process for reviewing the possible negative consequences for new technologies. That said, it's difficult to avoid the risks if you want to harvest the gains from new technologies. The same genetic markers that can be used by unscrupulous insurance companies may turn out to be the keys for eliminating these genetic defects. The same cloning technologies that might be used to create your clone troopers might also be used to create replacement organs without the necessity of cloning replacement people like in "The Island". Well down the road it might even lead to enhancements like accelerated body tissue regeneration or greatly enhanced lifespans. Who knows for sure?

I might add that this double edged sword nature of technology also applies to nuclear energy which you have mentioned as a negative because of the horror of nuclear weapons. Others here have mentioned the somewhat ironic probability that the existence of nuclear weapons has likely prevented the outbreak of new world war scale fighting because of the MAD (mutually assured destruction) setup through out the Cold War. Obviously, it remains to be seen whether this deterrent feature will continue in this new age of nuke proliferation. On a more positive note, nuclear power currently provides over 15% of the world's electricity and this is likely to increase as nations look for alternatives to fossil fuels. In the much longer run is the possibility of developing fusion power generation which could potentially solve much of the world's power needs. So basically the jury is still out on nukes. If we can avoid blowing each other to kingdom come, nukes may eventually solve our energy problems in the future.

Very true. This is one of the few times I have totally disagreed with Collins. It is hard to not advance technology because of what it may be used for in the future, but Collins essentially blew it off as saying that the negative uses of his project are so far in the future he doesn't consider the factors of them now. Perhaps had someone considered it prior to the splitting of the first atom, limitations could have been placed. Granted, they probably wouldn't have changed anything, but these consequences should never be written off as Collins did in this interview.

[Cathar1950]

Had we not made a nuke some one else would have.
Then we would.

I got to thinking about domestication of animals and grains some 10000 to 5000 years ago or later. This experiment could have placed large populations at risk from disease that effected crops. Of course they may have done because hey were already hungry.
Able: "Hey Cain what are you doing"?
Cain: "Sorting these stupid seeds".
Able: "Want some goat"?
Cain: "Come over here so I can hit you with a rock".
Cain thinking to himself; (I wonder if I plan him if it will help my plants?)

"That didn't work, I guess I will go make swords or spears out of this rock from heaven".
"Any one want my garden?"
The guy next door: "What is a garden"?
I guess I will go watch the daily show I am getting goofy.
Night all.

[Jose]

I think we are agreeing, but I still fear the future. The fact is, as resources become more scarce, it will be the wealthy who get first dibbs (is that a word?) and the healthy who get second. The human genome project could easily determine who lives and who dies.

Yes, I think we are agreeing. Unfortunately, I think that the genome project wll not determine who lives and who dies in the unpleasant future you've described. That future will arrive much too soon.

In the wake of Katrina, when oil prices went up a little bit (yes, a little bit--look at Europe), our city bus system got to the point of having one hour's worth of fuel left before having to shut down. The schools spent their bus money. The hospital almost ran out of money for ambulances. All this stuff made the news. With the next price spike, we could have real trouble. We're not talking about whether to drive to work or ride a bicycle; we're talking about food transportation, pumping water, and stuff like that.

So, with respect to the genome project's possible disasters, look on the bright side. We'll start killing each over water first, and as collateral damage, destory the medical infrastructure necessary to do the science.

[sfs]

A few facts that seem relevant to the discussion:

1) Francis Collins does not just blow off the possibility of negative consequences of the Human Genome Project. On the contrary, the National Human Genome Research Institute (which is the organization he heads) has devoted and continues to devote substantial resources to considering the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of genetic research. Sometimes, in fact, the ELSI people have been so cautious that they have driven the research scientists nuts. Collins believes that we should study the issues carefully before they arise, rather than just letting stuff happen. The dangers of genetic engineering really are decades off, however, and in the meantime millions of people are getting sick and dying of diseases that genetics could help treat.

2) Discrimination on the basis of genetic information, including discrimination by insurance companies and by employers, is legal in the United States. Such discrimination is not a remote possible outcome of genetics, but a very real and pressing danger, and one that is a concern to many geneticists. There has been an effort for quite a few years to get legislation passed that would outlaw it, but it still hasn't passed. (You might note that Francis Collins has been an outspoken advocate of the legislation. When I last heard him speak, a month or so ago, he was shortly to give testimony before congress in favor of it.)

3) The physicists who first split atoms knew perfectly well that their work was going to lead to nuclear weapons. That's why they were doing it.