David King

The main debate around human genetics currently centres on theethics of genetic testing, and possibilities for geneticdiscrimination and selective eugenics. But while ethicists andthe media constantly re-hash these issues, a small group ofscientists and publicists are working towards an even morefrightening prospect: the intentional genetic engineering ofhuman beings. Just as Ian Wilmut presented us with the firstclone of an adult mammal, Dolly, as a fait accompli, so thesescientists aim to set in place the tools of a newtechno-eugenics, before the public has ever had a chance todecide whether this is the direction we want to go in. Thepublicists, meanwhile are trying to convince us that thesedevelopments are inevitable. The Campaign Against Human GeneticEngineering, has been set up in response to this threat.

Currently, genetic engineering is only applied tonon-reproductive cells (this is known as 'gene therapy') in orderto treat diseases in a single patient, rather than in all theirdescendants. Gene therapy is still very unsuccessful, and we areoften told that the prospect of reproductive genetic engineeringis remote. In fact, the basic technologies for human geneticengineering (HGE) have been available for some time and atpresent are being refined and improved in a number of ways. Weshould not make the same mistake that was made with cloning, andassume that the issue is one for the far future.

In the first instance, the likely justifications of HGE willbe medical. One major step towards reproductive geneticengineering is the proposal by US gene therapy pioneer, FrenchAnderson, to begin doing gene therapy on foetuses, to treatcertain genetic diseases. Although not directly targeted atreproductive cells, Anderson's proposed technique poses arelatively high risk that genes will be 'inadvertently' alteredin the reproductive cells of the foetus, as well as in the bloodcells which he wants to fix. Thus, if he is allowed to go ahead,the descendants of the foetus will be genetically engineered inevery cell of their body. Another scientist, James Grifo of NewYork University is transferring cell nuclei from the eggs ofolder to younger women, using similar techniques to those used incloning. He aims to overcome certain fertility problems, but theresult would be babies with three genetic parents, arguably aform of HGE. In addition to the two normal parents, these babieswill have mitochondria (gene-containing subcellular bodies whichcontrol energy production in cells) from the younger woman.

Anderson is a declared advocate of HGE for medical purposes,and was a speaker at a symposium last year at UCLA, at whichadvocates of HGE set out their stall. At the symposium, which wasattended by nearly 1,000 people, James Watson, of DNA discoveryfame, advocated the use of HGE not merely for medical purposes,but for 'enhancement': 'And the other thing, because no onereally has the guts to say it, I mean, if we could make betterhuman beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we doit?'

In his recent book, Re-Making Eden (1998), Princetonbiologist, Lee Silver celebrates the coming future of human'enhancement', in which the health, appearance, personality,cognitive ability, sensory capacity, and life-span of ourchildren all become artifacts of genetic engineering, literallyselected from a catalog. Silver acknowledges that the costs ofthese technologies will limit their full use to only a small'elite', so that over time society will segregate into the"GenRich" and the "Naturals":

"The GenRich - who account for 10 percent of the Americanpopulation - all carry synthetic genes... that were created inthe laboratory ...All aspects of the economy, the media, theentertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlledby members of the GenRich class...Naturals work as low-paidservice providers or as labourers, and their children go topublic schools... If the accumulation of genetic knowledge andadvances in genetic enhancement technology continue ... theGenRich class and the Natural class will become...entirelyseparate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as muchromantic interest in each other as a current human would have fora chimpanzee."

Silver, another speaker at the UCLA symposium, believes thatthese trends should not and cannot be stopped, because to do sowould infringe on liberty.

Most scientists say that what is preventing them fromembarking on HGE is the risk that the process will itselfgenerate new mutations, which will be passed on to futuregenerations. Official scientific and ethical bodies tend to relyon this as the basis for forbidding attempts at HGE, rather thanany principled opposition to the idea.

In my view, we should not allow ourselves to be lulled into afalse sense of security by this argument. Experience withgenetically engineered crops, for example, shows that we areunlikely ever to arrive at a situation when we can be sure thatthe risks are zero. Instead, when scientists are ready toproceed, we will be told that the risks are 'acceptable',compared to the benefits. Meanwhile, there will be people tellingus loudly that since they are taking the risks with theirchildren, we have no right to interfere.

One of the flaws in the argument of those who support thepossibility of HGE for medical purposes is that there seem to bevery few good examples where it is the only solution to themedical problem of genetic disease. The main advantage of HGE issaid to be the elimination of disease genes from a family. Yet innearly all cases, existing technologies of prenatal andpreimplantation genetic testing of embryos allow the avoidance ofactual disease. There are only a few very rare cases where HGE isthe only option.

Furthermore, there is always another solution for thosecouples who are certain to produce a genetically disabled childand cannot, or do not want to deal with this possibility. Theycan choose not to have children, to adopt a child, or to usedonor eggs or sperm. Parenthood is not the only way to createfulfilment through close, intimate and long lasting relationshipswith children. The question we have to ask is whether we shoulddevelop the technology for HGE, in order to satisfy a very smallnumber of people.

Although the arguments for the first uses of HGE will bemedical, in fact the main market for the technology will be'enhancement'. Once it was available, how would it be possible toensure that HGE was used for purely medical purposes? The sameproblem applies to prenatal genetic screening and to somatic genetherapy, and not only are there no accepted criteria for decidingwhat constitutes a medical condition, but in a free marketsociety there seems to be no convincing mechanism for arriving atsuch decision. The best answer that conventional medical ethicsseems to have is to `leave it up to the parents', ie. to marketforces.

Existing trends leave little doubt about what to expect.Sophisticated medical technology and medical personnel arealready employed in increasingly fashionable cosmetic surgery.Another example is the use of genetically engineered human growthhormone (HGH), developed to remedy the medical condition ofgrowth hormone deficiency. Because of aggressive marketing by itsmanufacturers, HGH is routinely prescribed in the USA to normalshort children with no hormone deficiency. If these pressuresalready exist, how much stronger will they be for a technologywith as great a power to manipulate human life as HGE?

Germ line manipulation opens up, for the first time in humanhistory, the possibility of consciously designing human beings,in a myriad of different ways. I am not generally happy aboutusing the concept of playing God, but it is difficult to avoid inthis case. The advocates of genetic engineering point out thathumans constantly 'play God', in a sense, by interfering withnature. Yet the environmental crisis has forced us to realisethat many of the ways we already do this are not wise, destroythe environment and cannot be sustained. Furthermore, HGE is notjust a continuation of
existing trends. Once we begin toconsciously design ourselves, we will have entered a completelynew era of human history, in which human subjects, rather thanbeing accepted as they are will become just another kind ofobject, shaped according to parental whims and market forces.

In essence, the vision of the advocates of HGE is a sanitisedversion of the old eugenics doctrines, updated for the 1990s.Instead of 'elimination of the unfit', HGE is presented as a toolto end, once and for all, the suffering associated with geneticdiseases. And in place of 'improving the race', the 1990semphasis is on freedom of choice, where 'reproductive rights'become consumer rights to choose the characteristics of yourchild. No doubt the resulting eugenic society would be a littleless brutal than those of earlier this century. On the other handthe capabilities of geneticists are much greater now than theywere then. Unrestrained, HGE is perfectly capable of producingLee Silver's dystopia.

In most cases, the public's function with respect to scienceis to consume its products, or to pay to clean up the mess. Butwith HGE, there is still time to prevent it, before it becomesreality. We need an international ban on HGE and cloning. Thereis a good chance this can be achieved, since both are alreadyillegal in many countries. Of course it may be impossible toprevent a scientist, somewhere, from attempting to clone orgenetically engineer humans. But there is a great differencebetween a society which would jail such a scientist and one whichwould permit HGE to become widespread and respectable. If we failto act now, we will only have ourselves to blame.

Read more:
The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering - hgalert.org