The Genetics of Fear

Sci-fi fantasies about the risks of genetic engineering can’t get in the way of life-saving research. A response to Jamie Metzl.

Jamie Metzl takes the title of his article, “Brave New World War” [Issue #8], from Shakespeare via Aldous Huxley. In The Tempest, Miranda, on seeing more than a handful of people for the first time in her (literally) insular life, exclaims “O, wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, that has such people in’t!” Her father, the once and future Duke of Milan, responds simply, “’Tis new to thee.”

Metzl sees genetic technology as threatening, among others things, “Frankenpeople,” an international arms (and legs) race, and gene wars. This makes for great science fiction. But reality is, as usual, both less novel and more complicated, and the international treaty Metzl proposes is unnecessary and potentially dangerous to human well-being and freedom. Metzl overestimates the power of genetic engineering in humans while ignoring the many other more immediate and beneficial ways of human biological enhancement. His solution is, happily, impracticable, as it could lead to an internationalized version of the Bush Administration’s war on science, a result neither progressive nor wise.

There are two fundamentally flawed assumptions in Metzl’s argument that genetic engineering poses a revolutionary national security problem. First, Metzl greatly overestimates the practical power of genetic engineering. To do successful genetic engineering for a trait–say, protection against malaria or unusual height–we need to know how to insert genes successfully into the developing organism, which genes are responsible for the trait, and whether those genes will have dangerous side effects. We are able to put new or different versions of genes into plants, fruit flies, and rodents only because we are willing to sacrifice thousands of them for each success. In humans, the less complicated task of moving new versions of genes into born people, the hoped-for “gene therapy,” is nearing its 30th anniversary with almost no successes–and with several high-profile, deadly failures.

Even if we could move new genes into people’s DNA safely, we would have to know which versions of genes to move. Which genetic variations give super-vision or constant alertness? We don’t know, and it is hard to see how we could find out, as we cannot find humans now with those traits. We could only, by trial and (dangerous) error, speculate about packages of genetic variations from other animals or from computer-design programs. Not many people are going to sign up to find out.

What about merely giving babies the best traits currently found in humans–the strongest muscles, the highest intelligence? We don’t know the genetic variations responsible for those, either. We know “the genes” (actually, the nonfunctional or dysfunctional genetic variations) that cause about 4,000 genetic diseases, all of them uncommon and most of them vanishingly rare. For common diseases or normal human traits, we know that many of them are affected by genes–as well as by environment and by chance–but the only thing we know with certainty is that untangling the genetics of complex traits is complex. We are likely to be dealing with variations on 40 or 50 genes for many of these traits, none of which contributes, very much, to the result. In short, the idea of genetically engineered super-intelligent people is, for at least the next several decades, clearly fiction.

And even when or if we have untangled that skein, we still would not know what dangers may be caused by a concentration of “good genes.” On their own and in combination, genes have many different and often unpredictable effects. Sticking ten “high intelligence” gene variations into a fertilized egg could produce geniuses–but geniuses who always contract fatal childhood cancers. There is no way to know the effects in humans, good or bad, without trying it out in humans, and we are not good laboratory animals. Even beyond our status as holders of moral and legal rights that must be respected, we have long generation times and complex environmental needs that make truly controlled experiments impossible.

Some will argue that we are only at the beginning of the technology, and who knows what we will be able to do. There is some fairness in that caution; who could have looked at the room-sized basic computers of years ago and seen today’s laptops? But, at the same time, many of the problems discussed above are truly hard. Time may not solve them, and if it does, it will give us plenty of warning.

The second problem with Metzl’s argument is that even if human genetic engineering eventually works, human biological enhancement is not new. Assume genetic engineering can lead to Metzl’s “soldiers who need only an hour of sleep a night, have the eyesight of the best sharpshooter, or possess the endurance of Lance Armstrong.” So what? We already have soldiers who, with no genetic engineering, can fly faster than falcons, see better than eagles, and move heavier weights than elephants–not through genetic engineering, but through airplanes, binoculars, and trucks. Human enhancement in warfare has already swept the battlefield; the genetic possibilities for making war seem small by comparison. No matter what genetic modifications scientists can think up, technology will adapt even faster. Think of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indiana Jones confronts a huge turbaned man, weaving an intricate series of patterns with a massive sword in preparation for carving up our hero. Jones promptly pulls out a revolver and shoots him dead. So much for special human skills. If you want to invest your national security budget in a better military, investing in better weapons makes a lot more sense than highly speculative investments in human genetic engineering.

• 1
• 2
• 3

Post a Comment

Name

Email

Comments (you may use HTML tags for style)

Verification

Note: Several minutes will pass while the system is processing and posting your comment. Do not resubmit during this time or your comment will post multiple times.