A rchive Date
[ 02-07-2000 ]
Category
[ Science ]
sub-Categoy
[ Biotechnology ]
|
[
Making waves in gene pool
Brilliant new achievement casts some dark shadows
By ROY CLANCY -- Calgary Sun
June 28, 2000
It was a momentous moment.
The world gasped Monday when researchers announced they'd completed the genetic blueprint that defines humankind. But this indisputable proof of man's brilliance also casts dark shadows of uncertainty.
No sooner had the announcement been made than a blast of hyperbole swept around the globe.
"Today we are learning the language in which God created life," said Bill Clinton, who called it a day for the ages.
"Almost too awesome to comprehend," added Tony Blair, who took part in the announcement via video satellite link.
The breakthrough made by teams of scientists from around the world was the culmination of a decade-long, billion-dollar project that was likened to landing on the moon. Even to a layman with little understanding of the science involved, the benefits seem limitless.
Individual genetic profiles will permit more precise diagnosis of disease and determine the most effective medicines. In five to 10 years, it will even be possible to anticipate who will be afflicted by certain diseases before they occur. Ultimately, finding genetic causes for disease will allow new treatments -- even though this probably won't happen for a decade.
Francis Collins of the U.S. Genome Project said the breakthrough allows humans for the first time to "read our human instruction book."
But even as scientists and politicians competed for superlatives, others attempted to read between the lines of this "book of life," as Collins calls it.
While there is potential in this research for a huge amount of good, there is also room for unlimited abuse.
Once we've begun deciphering the recipes for God's cookbook, where do we stop?
What ingredients do we eliminate and what do we keep? Dreaded diseases are an easy call, but what about physical and mental abnormalities? What about genes that make people function better or look more "normal?" Say a gene that makes athletes run faster, or gives people facial features considered attractive.
Scientists believe there are genes for obesity and homosexuality. Do we want to rid our society of gays and fat people?
It's not that this tinkering with humanity is a new concept.
For centuries, mankind left those who couldn't take care of themselves to perish. More recently, we saw the rise and fall of eugenics policies in which governments (evensome in Canada) attempted to cleanse societies of "undesirable characteristics," by such means as sterilization, or in the case of the Nazis, mass murder.
Even without human tinkering, the process of natural selection -- survival of the fittest -- determined the characteristics of humanity. Now we face the possibility of unnatural selection.
We will soon possess the ability to tear apart the awesomely beautiful fabric of life and reweave it into a pattern of our own choosing.
To anyone who is fascinated by the miracles and imperfections that make up humankind, this is a disturbing prospect. As ethicists point out, preventing unwanted traits would often necessitate preventing the person.
Aside from the risk of creating a perfectly boring world, who can anticipate the long-term impact of this on our species? We would never know the impact those who were eliminated might have made.
What, for instance, would the world be like without the contributions of a Stephen Hawking, the renowned theoretical physicist whose body has been ravaged by Lou Gehrig's disease.
I personally have a vested interest in this issue. My older brother was born with Down's syndrome. When I was a toddler, he rescued me from the brink of a fall that likely would have proven fatal.
If he were not here, I would not be here.
Certainly, my brother provided challenges for my family and for society. But his determination, good humour and compassion have served as an inspiration for countless people who've crossed his path.
Would the world have been a better place without my brother?
I don't think so, but perhaps others would disagree.
It is an argument that must rage as intensely as the scientific developments that will lead us into this brave new world. The very fate of humanity depends upon it.
Letters to the editor should be sent to callet@sunpub.com |
|