Science

Your Take on the First GM Human Embryo

The genetic modification of a human embryo by scientists at Weill Cornell Medical College has elicited both hope and horror.

Chromosome_humantweak_2

The genetic modification of a human embryo by scientists at Weill Cornell Medical College has elicited both hope and horror.

The tweak itself was small -- a gene that produces glowing proteins, allowing researchers to better observe embryo development -- and the embryo was already defective, incapable of ever developing into a baby. But however incremental in scientific terms, the research is a social milestone.

Gene therapies add new genes to specific cells, but they're not passed to future generations. Assisted reproduction lets people choose high-quality sperm and eggs, or pick disease-free embryos, but actual modification is off-limits. No human embryo -- at least, none that we know of -- has ever been genetically adjusted by human hands.

In the short term, such techniques could be used to study embryo development. In the long term, they could make possible the permanent, inheritable modification of our children.

Is that right? Wrong? Who decides?

Wired Science readers certainly had much to say. Yesterday's post prompted more than 150 responses. Below are a few particularly insightful, representative or otherwise noteworthy comments:

__
Jericho:__ If I could choose that my children would not suffer from
Schizophrenia as I do and maybe never have to worry about Cancer as well then I see it as an advance and preventer of misery.

Seppo: I am legally blind due to a genetic misprint. As a thought experiment: If I had the opportunity to manipulate the embryo that I developed from I would fix the problem - and I would not let anyone tell me that I am not allowed to do that...

Jessica: Another point: I've struggled with severe anxiety and depression all my life. I've been taking medication for it since I was
16, to the point where I really don't know what my "true" personality is and what the medicine is doing. How is that better than being modified at birth so I didn't have those problems in the first place?
At least I would have be able to develop some sense of self. And I wouldn't live or die (literally) on whether I can afford medication.

Job: Where the issue becomes less clear-cut is when the same techniques are used for enhancement instead of medicine.

__Jamiltonio: __... modifying the genome in an attempt to modify who we are is reasonable -- we already do so by training to be athletically fit, studying and taking medicine for intelligence, plastic surgery for cosmetics.

__
iZealot:__ We were meant to one day become like God, mimicry is the most sincere form of flattery. We owe it to God to modify our Genetics to become truly God-like.

__
Someone:__ Ethics get in the way of scientific advancements. [...] So can everyone do humanity a favor and shut the f*** up, and let science advance.

__
Jedo:__ Ethics get in the way of scientific advancements!?!?!?!?! How about having ethical science? Is that so hard? Without ethics, you get
Josef Mengele. You get eugenics. You get people radiating orphans to death to find out what happens. A society not firmly rooted in ethics is a society doomed to implode.

__
Balance:__ I take it all of you in agreement here think unfettered genetic manipulation is cool? I'm not on balance against all GM, BUT it needs to be done with a purpose, and with ethical guidelines in place.
Otherwise the default position is that it's a free for all, and anything goes research is A-OK.

__
Dion:__ Are we forgetting that implementing such a risky procedure will come with its own misery? How many times will they have to genetically
"play with" this embryo to get the end results of a "cancer immune"
human [...] How many babies would be born with repercussions or abnormalities due to this procedure? Would you be willing to risk your baby’s life to spare him/her what you call misery?

BW: There is a lot of interesting ethical questions involved. My favorite one is that of informed consent. We can't get informed consent from the embryo (may we modify you, please?) not due to lack of any ability to communicate, but due to the lack of an ability to think at all (no neurons). Does that mean informed consent isn't needed? What about if I want to modify a brain-dead person? They're pretty much a glorified sack of cells and chemicals at that point... much like an early embryo. Why is it that one is so obviously wrong, while the other seems fine (in my opinion)?

__
Malarkey:__ Those who can't afford it will be left behind ... the human race will split off into two branches, one perfect, the other saddled with all our deficiencies [...] The problem is that the criteria used to decide who gets
"improvement" and who doesn't will be based on the socio-economic status of the parents. What if there's a way to ensure that people from all levels of society can get this? We might have to handle this like the atom bomb - with international treaties to try and bring the whole race along.

__
Ward:__ [That] is the exact reason I believe we should develop this technology as swiftly as we can, subject to the afore mentioned guidelines. Since we can't put the genie back in the bottle then it necessarily follows that those who don't follow the guidelines will abuse the technology. This then leads to the necessity of society being capable of handling the problems such will create.
Without serious effort to develop this technology we won't be ready or able to do so.

__
Paul:__ I, for one, welcome our glowing, fluorescent green overlords.

I'm trying to get the researchers themselves to talk. In the meantime,
I've also sent questions to a handful of researchers and bioethicists.
I'll be publishing their answers in a panel-discussion format -- but in case you'd like to know what I asked, here you are:

  • What is the status of this sort of research -- genetically modifying a human embryo -- in the United States? In what circumstances it is allowed or prohibited?
  • What do you think of the "slippery slope" argument -- that if genetic modification of embryos is allowed to a certain point, it will inevitably progress beyond that?
  • Are there circumstances in which it would be acceptable to genetically modify an embryo and bring it to term?
  • If it is permitted, how does society avoid creating or exacerbating genetic inequalities?
  • Would it be possible to do so without first conducting experiments on embryos, the outcome of which would not be known until the embryos became people?
  • How does informed consent of a medical subject fit within the scenario of an embryo being modified and brought to term?
  • Even if reproductive modification is outlawed in some countries, won't it happen elsewhere?

Image: Chromosome (minus typography) courtesy of Louisiana State University.

See Also:

WiSci 2.0: Brandon Keim's Twitter and Del.icio.us feeds; Wired Science on Facebook.