Silver: Doubling not necessarily troubling
Steven Schultz
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Silver
|
In 1997, shortly after Scottish scientists announced the cloning of Dolly the sheep, Silver published the book "Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in the Brave New World," which has since been translated into 14 languages.
In the book, Silver shows how advanced techniques of molecular biology combined with reproductive technologies such as cloning could have a staggering effect on the way people reproduce.
As he notes in the text of his University Web site, "Prospective parents will soon be able to choose which of their genes to give to their children, and whether to add in genes they don't even carry, in order to provide them with increased chances for health, longevity, happiness and success."
He suggests that over many generations, the differences between genetically enhanced people and "naturals" may grow so great that the species could divide and the two groups would no longer be able to mate.
He explores these and other bioethical issues in his undergraduate class "Human Genetics, Reproduction and Public Policy" in the Woodrow Wilson School.
In recent weeks, questions related to cloning have returned to public discussion. Congress held hearings in March on potential anti-cloning legislation. Recent reports have shown that cloned animals suffer a number of birth defects, some of which do not manifest themselves until later in life.
|
|
|
|
"If people understood what the actual technology could accomplish -- and more importantly, what it couldn't accomplish -- most of the hysteria associated with the various notions of a 'clone' would die away." |
|
|
|
In the four years since Dolly and "Remaking Eden," what have
been some of the most tantalizing or discouraging scientific
developments related to reprogenetics?
The most tantalizing development has been the decipherment of the human genome, both ahead of schedule and under-cost. We now have a nearly-complete catalog of the 30,000 or so genes present in every human cell. This catalog provides an incredibly powerful tool for working out the genetic influences on all the diseases that people get. In turn, this information will lead to the development of new therapies and drugs that will continue to extend both lifespan and quality of life. Biotechnology has become more powerful and sophisticated (much more quickly than I expected) with the integration of tools from the computational sciences and engineering. The genomes of many other organisms of value to humankind are also under analysis to develop new products and therapies.
The most discouraging development is not a scientific one, but a social one. Unfortunately, as the promise of biotechnology has grown ever greater, many people around the world have become more and more fearful of the technology, in large part because they don't understand it. Of course, all new biotech protocols must be properly vetted in terms of safety to human health and the environment. But the wholesale rejection of biotechnology is shortsighted and self-defeating.
What are the biggest hurdles in the way of human cloning and
human genetic engineering? How long will it be -- five years
or 50 -- before they are cleared away?
My feeling is (and always has been) that cloning is highly over-rated. If people understood what the actual technology could accomplish -- and more importantly, what it couldn't accomplish -- most of the hysteria associated with the various notions of a "clone" would die away. Recent data from animal experiments indicate a high rate of birth defects associated with the process, and a continued low rate of efficiency. Thus, for these reasons alone, I believe it is unethical for clinics to offer this procedure to their clients at the present time. With enough time and effort, I suspect that the technical problems could be overcome (although I could certainly be wrong about this). Nevertheless, there are some clinics that are going ahead anyway, and thus, I expect that we will see "monoparental children" born in the next decade.
What diseases would be the simplest, most obvious candidates
for genetic engineering? Assuming such early attempts go
well, what further "enhancements" are likely to come
next?
There are many small changes that could be imagined right now, like providing resistance to infection by HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), or decreased susceptibility to some forms of cancer, obesity, heart disease and Alzheimer's disease (to name a few such diseases). However, I don't think that genetic engineering of embryos will be practiced until a certain threshold is reached where the advantages provided by the technology are large enough (and safe enough) to overcome the disadvantages of using a radical new technology in the process of reproduction. The threshold could be crossed when genetic engineering provides safe and strong protection against all of the common diseases that people get as they age, as well as a generalized increase in lifespan. In the beginning, I think that all "enhancements" of embryos would be based on people giving their own children the genes that some lucky other children get naturally.
In "Remaking Eden," you argue that the widespread use of
human cloning and genetic engineering is inevitable.
Nonetheless, are there any federal laws or other safeguards
you would advocate right now to minimize abuse and
inequity?
The main abuse of the technology that I could imagine is to use it before validating its safety. Normal parents want to help their children, not hurt them. At the outset, they will simply be able to provide their children with health advantages found naturally elsewhere in the human population. The more serious problem is one of inequity. In a country that has rejected universal healthcare (and where many poor women do not receive any kind of prenatal care), it seems unlikely that genetic engineering of health enhancements will be state-funded. Thus, the situation already in existence today -- where wealth correlates with good health -- could be amplified. The only way to stop genetic inequity is to ban the use of the technology throughout the world or to mandate its financing by some worldwide agency. Both of these political solutions seem extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future.
When you consider the future of your own children growing up
in an age of reprogenetics, what is your biggest source of
worry and optimism?
The optimism is that my daughter will be able to have
children who do not suffer from asthma like she and her
father do, and that my grandchildren will be protected from
the ravages of many other diseases. The fear is that
existing disparities between rich and poor will be
exacerbated and genetically ingrained. However, my
colleagues in the economics department assure me that my
fears are unfounded, and that free markets and free trade
will bring people together rather than pull them apart.
top
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |