|
|
LITR 4632: Literature of
the Future Sandy Murphy Genetic Engineering: Improvement or
Annihilation? Primary Text: Time, Love, Memory by Jonathan Weiner Secondary Texts: The Time Machine by H.G. Wells The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien Internet Source: http//www.accessexcellence.org The National Health Museum The
Site for Health and Bioscience Teachers and Learners Primary Objective: To identify concerns, visions, or possible scenarios stemming from the highly technical and largely unsupervised scientific experimentation and/or alteration of genetic material. Secondary Objective:
To determine if our genetic make-up determines our future or if there are
other more open ended aspects of our evolution. Introduction The book, Time, Love, Memory by
Jonathan Weiner is a difficult, but worthwhile, read.
Time, Love, Memory won the National Book Critics Circle Award for
Non Fiction in 1999. In Time,
Love, Memory, Jonathan Weiner chronicles the work of Dr. Seymour Benzer and
his associates as they study and manipulate the genetic make up of fruit flies,
mice, and ants in an attempt to unlock the connection between DNA and behavior.
Many genetic studies have attempted to uncover the causes of genetic
diseases and disabilities, but the research of Benzer and other molecular
biologists focuses on the genetic basis of personality and behavior.
It is difficult for most people to argue against the validity of research
that may one day eliminate such problems as Down’s Syndrome, Huntington’s
Chorea, Tay Sachs Disease, or Alzheimer’s.
However, do we really want to have the scientific ability to identify and
eradicate genetic markers for homosexuality, shyness, forgetfulness, or even
procrastination? Are we ready to
wield that kind of power over our own creation? Thanks to the work of Benzer and
others that day is close at hand. It
is time to consider the consequences. An excerpt from Time, Love,
Memory by Jonathan Weiner-page 244-5 It is already possible—in fertility
clinics it is done every day—to screen the DNA of a set of eight embryos at
the eight-cell stage and let the parents pick the one they want to implant in
the mother’s womb. The more genes
there are to screen and the better these gene complexes are understood, the more
wealthy parents will select not only the healthiest but also the best and
brightest embryo they can, designing the genes of their children.
With the same tools that Hall used to inject the first instinct into an
animal, it may someday be possible for people in fertility clinics to inject a
wide selection of human instincts and traits as well. As these choices are made more and more often, the old dream
of Galton and the eugenicists who followed him will be fulfilled willy-nilly
over the next few centuries whether governments legislate for it or against it.
The rich will pick and choose the genes of their children: the poor will
not. The gap between rich and poor
may widen so far in the third millennium that before the end of it there will be
not only two classes of human beings but two species, or a whole Galapagos of
different human species. The human species could be prevented from interbreeding by
the genetic engineering of chemical incompatibility, so that the egg of one
would reject the sperm of the other. Silver
is thrilled by the power of his science and by the vision of barriers falling
away, and yet looking into the far future he sometimes thinks he sees disaster,
a Darwinian nightmare; out of utopian eugenics, a dystopian origin of species.
“We have reached this point down a long road of travail and
self-deception.” E.O. Wilson wrote recently.
“Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to
become. Our childhood having ended, we will hear the true voice of
Mephistopheles.” He is sure we
will not want to turn ourselves into protein-based computers; we will not want
to lose what makes us human. Wilson’s
ants, for instance, never play. We
will not want to give up what we have evolved over billions of years, going back
to the very origin of life. But
what changes will we make in our natures—deliberately or casually and without
plan—beginning in the next few years? “What
lifts this question above mere futurism,” Wilson writes, “is that it reveals
so clearly our ignorance of the meaning of human existence in the first
place.” Commentary History and literature each echo the
warnings found in this excerpt from Time, Love, Memory. Sir Francis Galton’s enthusiastic
promotion of eugenics, or the study of human improvement by genetic means, paved
the way for the horrifying abuses of Hitler’s Third Reich. However, even in
the United States eugenics had a loyal following.
In the early 1900s U.S. eugenicists lobbied for strict immigration
restrictions on so called “undesirable” races such as Italians, Greeks, and
Eastern Europeans. Furthermore,
involuntary sterilizations of mentally deficient, insane, and epileptic
individuals continued until the 1970s. Are
we so certain that we have overcome our prejudices and ignorance? H.G. Wells in The Time Machine
writes of a future world not unlike the one mentioned in Time, Love, Memory.
In H.G. Wells future world there are not one but two races of human
beings: the pretty but useless Eloi who have descended from the upper class, and
the violent, cave-dwelling Morlocks who have descended from the working class
and now feed on the flesh of the Eloi. Similarly, J.R.R. Tolkien warns of the
dangers of genetic tampering in his trilogy, The Lord of the Rings.
Sauron’s creation of the fighting Uruk Hai, a cross breed of orcs and
men, unleashed terror upon Middle Earth. What
is to stop an angry, or fearful, government from attempting to breed just such a
military force? There are undoubtedly many more examples
in history and literature that could be examined.
Perhaps, though, these few examples are enough to serve as our warning. Questions
Discussion – Recorded by Kathy
Martin Jonathan questioned if improvements are
realistic because changing genes is harder than it might seem. Sandy agrees stating that the only case
known is one of injecting the behavior gene in fruit flies.
Scientists injected the “period” gene and induced the change in two
species of flies. Dr. White said that there would be a
demand for altering genes in our capitalist society.
He agreed that it would be hard, but with the demand, there would be
progress. Sandy agreed stating that fifty years
ago we would have never thought that we could clone a sheep, but there are rapid
advances. Sara Sills stated that she has a moral
problem with some of the genetic advances because the gap between rich and poor
makes more of an unbalanced society and she doesn’t see the improvements. Sandy said that she also had a problem
with the gap between the rich and poor. Susie suggested that if the advances
fell into the hands of some, evil people could control the world. Kim said that she has a concern about
advances getting into the hands of the evil – wrong people for wrong reasons. Jennifer also brought up the point that
we cannot dismiss the chance for mistakes.
How do we discard the mistakes? Dolly
the sheep had many problems. People
will use the platform of advancement to push research forward and we know that
there will be mistakes. Sandy stated that even Galton had noble
aims. He was not trying to create a
dual society, but wanted perfection for everyone. Susie also stated that the mistakes would be a big concern, especially since abortion now is a big concern. Jennifer said that in parts of Europe,
abortion is allowed up to two years of age for children with terrible handicaps.
Dr. White said that infanticide is not unknown in human history. Dr. White said the issue then becomes a
cost-benefit calculation. It may be
helpful to society but dangerous to individuals. Jonathan said that the rich would always
continue to fund projects. Dr. White suggested that the concern
then arises that research gets out of the hands of being a monitored science and
it could become criminal and controlled only by criminals, as with recreational
drugs. Sara Sills also questioned how a person
can say that one particular trait is better to have than another. Corrie said that we think that we can
predict how people will become, but we don’t know that.
We don’t know what the smallest building block is in our genes. Sandy agreed stating that we just don’t know.
|