The primary manifestations of eugenics one hears about these days is racism, abortion and euthanasia. Eugenics is a key component in anthropology, psychology, sociology, and all the social sciences. Furthermore, it is reflected in literature, especially science fiction. So don’t you think it is worth some study?
Way back in the 4th century BCE, the Greek philosopher Plato, the founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world, set forth a practical utopian image of what a Greek city should be in his Republic. He said that an intelligent council of rulers should have power over the reproductive practices of the people, deciding who would be allowed to copulate and how frequently. He went on to suggest that the elite class of citizens who showed Greek virtues let say, by fighting bravely, athletic prowess should be those allowed to have children most often, so that their qualities become more prevalent in the cities. He also went on to say in his book that children of the inferior members of the Elite Class, and any flawed offspring of lower ranking people, should be disposed of by methods including exposure, a common practice in his times which meant leaving a infant in the elements until it depart this life. What Plato was suggestive of, is the theory of change or improving humans by controlling their reproduction, this is known as eugenics, (The word eugenics derives from the Greek word eu (good or well) and the suffix -genēs (born), so as to promote the spread genes of those people with qualities seen as favourable this is known as positive eugenics, and to discourage or stop the continuation of those with qualities (faults) seen as undesirable is known as negative eugenics, but negative eugenics today is also the term used for acts of forced eugenics and pre WW2 American and European type eugenics.
These days, most people are sickened by the negative side of eugenics, since the infanticide of Plato to the policies of many modern eugenicists, but positive eugenics is perhaps less looked down upon, but not all aspects of “negative” eugenics are wrong in my view. On the positive side of eugenics, sperm banks are willing to fire out, large sums for the DNA of brilliant minds, scientists or top sports talents (it's been said that if human cloning ever came about which it will, Einstein would show up second behind Michael Jordan go figure sport over brains), this is suggesting that people would rather have the heritable qualities of these individuals passed on than those of nobodies. Its definitely not being socially pushed yet, but positive eugenics seems to have a better status than negative eugenics.
On the other hand, is negative eugenics in reality out of the picture? It has of late become possible for doctors to identify severe and incapacitating handicaps in fetuses still in the womb, and it has becoming extremely common for such fetuses to be aborted we before they come to term, so as to avoid giving birth to an infant that would spend its life tormented and dependent. This practice is unquestionably far from public policy - and therefore it differs fundamentally from the conducts of the historical Eugenics Movement - but it shows a definite public willingness to minimise the number of children born that have certain undesirable traits, in this case for the potential child's benefit, rather than out of ulterior motivations, as with some historical eugenicists.
When you put this information and the progress made within the science of genetics, now and in the near future together, this will bring up some key questions no doubt. In the 1997 movie Gattaca, Directed by Andrew Niccola he describes in the not so distant future a society that has developed a system which permits parents to select the characteristics and traits of their offspring, including the removal of disease to heightened intelligence. The film investigates the probable problems that the kids who weren't 'altered' by this procedure will be potentially discriminated against: the title character is apparently unable to partake in space flight because of a genetic heart problem, which the character had since he wasn't altered by his parents, even though he does better than his altered others in all examinations.
Do you not imagine a similar problem might occur in our society when (eugenics) gene therapy expands to the point where we can change our child's attributes prenatally, or perhaps pre-conception. I think at first we would probably try to remove things, such as structural birth defects which are fatal, then probably sicknesses such as Alzheimer's disease that cause unspeakable mental decay and diseases cancer. Can you think of any person objecting to removing such pains and suffering, I can only imagine hearing large pharmaceutical companies crying on the news claiming it’s unethical, along with the Christian Right on God Channel.
Eugenics becomes shady perhaps for some people when eugenicists talk about conditions like mental retardation, Down’s syndrome for example. Some so called “smart” (PC) people have asked to stop condemning mental retardation as a 'negative trait' which it clearly is, well what do you think, in my opinion of course it is. Would you choose to have your child born with Down’s syndrome?
What are these people trying to say, and ask for then, that we should not attempt to remove mental retardation in our future generations? There is no point trying to deny that these conditions leaves the afflicted and there families with only anguish and suffering. I have difficulty imagining that anybody would choose willingly to have such a devastating mental disability, over not having it. Let me put it this way instead then, if a person was born with serious mental or physical disability and is given a choice at a certain age, to be able to flick a little switch, which will decides if they remain disabled or not, would that person really choose anything else but to flick it in favour or a clean bill of health? Would you not choose the same option for yourself, or for your children, it looks as if to me like there is no satisfactory explanation why we would choose to have severe mental handicaps by choice within mankind. The fact is as we advance in technology and these, present, and near future medical options become viable medical realities, these medical procedures are and will become an easy and safe alternative. So it appears to me that humanity will eventually, embrace and choose to eradicate these diseases and sicknesses from our genetic makeup as these sciences advance, and remove the ethical, religious blocks we have at present on certain medical research, like stem cell.
The fact that people might choose not to have a baby with Down’s syndrome, e.g., does not mean that they are denying the right to life to people who have Downs Syndrome. There is a significant difference between a potential human and a living individual. If a hypothetical person who was created in a lab by some guy who had combined the sperm from his latest date with Ms Palmer to the egg from some woman's latest red week. And this being was to come about – he/she would undeniably deserve the same rights as us, in theory right? Why should we care about the near infinite's that might have come about if, hypothetically, any little one sperm, out of how many from any one guy, combined with any singular egg, out of how many from any one female in the world? Surely every period or 'wet dream', not to mention fun in the hay which doesn't result with a bun in the oven would become a reason for incredible ethical concern.
So assuming the media, science and social reality can show politically correct “people” and “state” that potential future babies born with Down’s syndrome or any severe mental sickness are a financial, social problem and a drain on resources, which the world is finding increasingly difficult to supply, and start classifying Down’s syndrome/Severe mental sickness as something to be avoided if possible. Not until then can concerns of how this sort of gene therapy could be put into practice become very real options, I think it is best to keep them in mind and spend big on while technology brings those possibilities closer; but I think the immense advantages outweigh the possible damage and misuse, and medical or religious ethics should not be a factor.
The other area we must look at is physical handicaps. To simplify, let's say there’s a, inherited condition somewhere out there that makes you unable to use your arms and legs. Ok let´ compare this to someone who has an accident that makes them incapable of using their arms and legs. You can imagine this would most definitely cause the two individuals much suffering. You would think most rational people would not choose to have such an accident right, for themselves or let’s say their kids or anybody they know. So you ask how it is different from the inherited genetic instance, whether the disability comes from a physical accident like a car crash, or by the genetic path seems to factor very little. The real question is: physical disabilities, regardless of their cause are considered bad traits by those who live with it day in day out, and by those who are able bodied. There are hazy areas which I will get to later; however none the less I think it’s normal that most people will agree that physical disabilities are dreadful and hard for all involved especially the sufferer. Let’s keep in mind that this is an independent issue from the problem of discrimination, discrimination against those who have what we consider in general undesirable traits. Although of course, this is something I suppose in principle is avoidable, so thus in theory can be separated from the issue, even if it is a major concern in everyday life at present, when we look at the amazing possibilities of the new technologies coming our way.
When looking at all the possibilities, one might begin to see possible dodgy areas. If we can potentially avoid severe mental and physical handicaps, and incurable conditions such as Alzheimer's, is it not possibly to improve our minor imperfections? I think none but the most insecure (created from the MTV culture) would consider changing there eye or hair colour, but I would find it hard to envisage parents not considering giving their offspring the greatest possible beginning in life by possibly, increasing ones intelligence capacity, physical strength, metabolism and perhaps even imaginative abilities and so forth.
Sorry we have migrated from the question of deadly conditions such as Alzheimer's, one has a difficult time rationalising the decision to change a future child's attribute, traits which creates more questions. Lets look at some, what traits are considered the finest, most desirable or perfect, traits; is there even such a quality to aspire too? Come to think of it, does mankind need some defects so as to remain individuals, I mean is overcoming such complications indispensable for growth and contentment? Should we be allowed to weld so much, influence and power over our offspring's future?
The final question there I think is the easiest to respond to, even if a totally satisfactory response is unavailable, I will try. We already hold a sort of haphazard power over our kid's futures because we choose to combine and spread our genes through reproduction. We may not have much control over any of the child’s individual characteristic besides a very few basic ones like, skin colour, but we are in control of our kid's genetic destiny purely by passing those on our own limited set of genes. Come to think of it, one day in the future science will probably be able to allow humans to design their own superficial characteristics, why not is sounds logical, maybe upon reaching adulthood, basically the same way we can today decide to change are names if we so choose. But this does not address the would-be problems that might arise from suddenly allowing a nation of people, with whatever their inborn biases might be to choose the next generation's biological, genetic characteristics, but it would I suppose perhaps decrease the ethical quandary of parents deciding over their offspring's genes.
The couple of questions earlier I asked about, the ones about perfect traits and do we want defects are considerably more complex, however. Unquestionably many cultures have convinced their populations that there is a kind of ideal human model, be it Plato's philosopher ruler, warrior or Nietzsche´s and Hitler’s Übermensch, or the early America Eugenics program which many scientists and learned people have look back upon and observed, and seen the follies of some of their ways, follies which sometimes led to meaningless suffering. The possible thought that there are a perfect set of genetic traits is a hazardous one, maybe there is, or maybe there is not such a collection, only because people might believe they have succeeded when they truly have not. And this certainness among some will certainly create all kinds of potential problems while trying to bring about this ideal vision. But I think the more deep-seated question is maybe it’s a possible mistake to take for granted that there is a possible selection of best characteristics although it seems likely to me that there is something better that what we are at present.
So anyway it`s clear to us that there are serious questions about what direction and how far we should take eugenics and gene therapy, sometimes the boundaries seem to smudge the further we move away from conditions that will increase infant death, after all, a sickness that will basically makes us die at an early age, let´s say, like thirty-five is not so straightforward, in view of the fact that we are born doomed to die eventually, and because we know the likelihood of dying before the average life expectancy is pretty slim in the West, besides having any fatal accident. On the other hand, the reality that there are many conditions like Alzheimer's or Down´s syndrome informs us of the upmost importance of gene therapy, medical science and eugenics research. Some may not wish to eliminate all obstacles from their lives, I am not really sure why but it seems completely reasonable to me to remove some, if not all of the worst, much the same way we licked smallpox and basically Polio diseases through science. Five more infectious diseases have been identified as of April 2008 as potentially eradicable with current technology by the Carter Center International Task Force for Disease Eradication - measles, mumps, rubella, lymphatic filariasis and pork tapeworm.
We know that eugenics is today enjoying a well deserved recovery which I hope will only continue to grow, so it´s now more important that it was before, to think about these issues, even if you cant come up with a clear answer, ask yourself when in your life was the answer always clear. We must go forward thoughtfully so that we can avoid the mistakes of the early American eugenics programs of the twenties, and certain ideological tomfoolery of the past.
Hereditary diseases could be eradicated before birth by 'genetically modifying' eggs
Written by Richard Alleyne, Aug 2009
“Many hereditary diseases including cancers and diabetes could eventually be eradicated before birth after scientists found a way to “fix” the DNA of unfertilised eggs.”
In a new technique which will reopen the ethical debate over embryo research, researchers have for the first time found a way to safely remove and replace genetically abnormal parts of an egg. The procedure will remove the risk of diseases being passed from mother to child.
The breakthrough could immediately eradicate rare diseases of the eye, muscle and mind and could eventually lead to cures for more common disorders with a hereditary element such as cancer, diabetes and infertility.
But the technique – which has already been successfully carried out in monkeys – would need a controversial change in the law to be used on humans, as many people think it would be akin to playing God.
Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, this kind of treatment – or any that involves genetically modifying an egg – remains illegal but the government has put in place a framework to relax the rules if and when science shows it can have positive impact on health.
The technique, perfected at the Oregon National Primate Research Center and Oregon Health & Science University, centres on diseases caused by inherited defects in the “power packs” of cells, known as mitochondria.
Most DNA in an egg is contained in its nucleus but there is a tiny amount in the mitochondria, which is only passed on from the mother.
If it is defective then the defect is passed on. A number of rare “mitochondria diseases” are already known and affect roughly one person in every 4,000 or 5,000.
But it is thought these defects also play a role in much more common diseases. In all, one in 200 people could be affected by abnormalities to the mitochondria, it is thought.
The new technique involves using a microscopic syringe to remove the nucleus of an egg from an affected women and transplant it into a healthy donor egg – one that does contain defects to its mitochondria.
The egg is then fertilised in a test tube and transplanted back into the original donor.
The resultant baby remains the woman's biological child but without her inherited defects to the mitochondria.
The US scientists, who reported their breakthrough in the journal Nature, have successfully carried out the technique in macaque monkeys with no signs of complications.
They believe it is so successful that they could begin human trials if the law allowed it.
Shoukhrat Mitalipov, co-author, said: “Assuming that regulation, funding and other logistics are cleared up, clinical trials could begin immediately.”
He said that rare conditions were already known to be caused by the defects but many others may also be effected.
“Mitochondrial DNA mutations are also increasingly implicated in a range of socially recognisable conditions, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson’s and Huntington’s diseases, obesity, diabetes and cancer,” he said.
“It is still unclear whether these mutations were inherited or acquired during lifetime.”
The findings were welcomed as “exciting” and with great potential by the scientific world.
Professor Peter Braude, head of the Department of Women’s Health, King’s College London, said it was “remarkable”.
“This is a meticulously executed series of technically difficult experiments undertaken in the prestigious Oregon primate centre in the USA.
“For the first time, proof of principle has been demonstrated that transmission of mitochondrial disease might be avoided. So far the data are promising.”
Douglas Wallace of the University of California, an authority on mitochondria, said the results were exciting and the technique is “potentially very interesting.”
Dr Duane Alexander, director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, which provided funding for the study, said: “Pending further research, the findings hold the potential of allowing a couple to have a child who is biologically their own, but is free of any conditions associated with defects in maternal mitochondria.”
A spokesman for the HFEA said: "If it looks like a likely candidate for an effective treatment then they could change the regulations."
Around 150 known disorders are directly caused by mitochondrial mutations, some of which cause terrible disabilities or shorten life.
No comments:
Post a Comment