Genetically Enhanced Humans — When Science Fiction Becomes Reality
The dawn of a prosperous era or sterile lights of a Brave New World?
The age we live in is undoubtedly that of scientific and technological progress. In a short span of a hundred years or so, our knowledge and comprehension of the world have soared, reaching heights previously unimaginable.
Inventions that make our lives easier, gadgets that provide entertainment, archives of all the knowledge and experience known to man that are at the tip of our fingers on stand-by are just some of the achievements of the human mind that are nothing short of remarkable, making many a man feel thankful — and rightfully so — for having been born in this day and age.
Not all, however, is as picture-perfect and rosy as it may seem. The past century was not solely that of triumphs and breakthroughs. It was also one of ghastly defeats, death, terror, mass destruction.
Scientific progress is sadly not always accompanied by ethical progress. It often seems the two are mutually exclusive.
The first genetically modified babies were born in China in 2018. stand as living proof of what happens when scientists forego morality for the sake of innovation.
The CRISPR babies
He Jiankui, a Chinese biophysicist, was first to use the CRISPR gene-modification method — a method far more refined than any of its predecessors, allowing for more complicated and precise modifications of particular genes — on human embryos which were allowed to be born. Chinese scientists have dabbled before in the arcane art of human genome modification, but those embryos were never implanted in the womb; they were mere experiments that were destroyed afterwards.
He, however, decided to proceed to the bitter end. Namely, he fully intended for the modified babies to be born, which happened in 2018, when the twin girls known as Lulu and Nana first saw the light of day. His narrative was that the babies had a modified gene that gave them immunity from HIV. As the babies’ father was HIV positive, it is clear why the parents in question were interested in going along with the procedure.
As laudable as He causes may sound at first, things were not as simple as that — they rarely are when it comes to human life. In actuality, the gene connected to the supposed immunity from HIV — known as CCR5 — turned out not to be modified in Lulu, while Nana ended up having both the modified and the unmodified version of the gene.
Simply put, that meant that the first twin had no immunity to HIV whatsoever, whereas the other twin’s immunity was dubious as well.
To make matters worse, it’s impossible to know what negative effects such as harmful mutations and other possible unintended changes resulting in various health risks could arise due to this incautious playing God.
Because one gene could affect multiple traits, and because, depending on the environment, the effects of a mutation could be quite different, I think there can be many uncertainties and unknown effects in any germline editing.
In addition to all that, the modification performed by He and his team was not the so-called somatic modification that influences solely the individual in whom the changes were made, but a full-on germline modification. That essentially means that the alterations made were not only permanent in the baby girls, but hereditary as well — they could pass it on to their progeny.
If you thought it couldn’t get any more horrendous, boy oh boy, were you wrong — there’s more where this came from.
Recent studies have proven a connection between the modified gene and increased intelligence, meaning that there’s an ominous possibility looming over. It seems that He was well aware of this connection, which leads to a conclusion that his primary goal was the enhancement of these babies’ intelligence, rather than making them immune to HIV.
Fast-forward to today and He’s been sentenced to 3 years in prison in 2019, and we don’t yet know what’s to become of Lulu and Nana as there’s a conspicuous lack of info on the twins.
But, are we safe to assume that this is a single aberration, something that’s not to happen again, or not so soon in the very least?
Or is this but the beginning?
Seems like a Huxleyesque plot thickens.
A future dystopia?
The first thing that comes to mind when one speaks of genetic modification that doesn’t have as its primary goal the prevention or treatment of an illness, are, inevitably ‘designer-babies’.
The possibility of Huxley’s grimmest predictions of the future coming to life is terrifying as it is. A world where people are created artificially, with a given set of traits and predetermined intelligence, which by default makes them pertain to a caste, and in effect decides their entire fate at the moment of their conception could easily seep from the safety of fiction to the reality of a very near future.
Just imagine a set of parents-to-be swiping through lists of physical and psychological traits, choosing whether they’d like their child to be blonde or dark-haired, how intelligent they’d want it to be, whether they’d prefer a girl or a boy, should he/she have a proclivity for music, or art, or science… The options seem countless.
To some, that may not sound that bad. If we could make sure that our children are beautiful, intelligent, athletic, and long-lived, why shouldn’t we go ahead with it?
The thing is there’s more than one issue in question here.
Firstly, there’s a big chance that procedures such as these would, as all the best things often are, available exclusively to the super-rich. Imagine a world where the health and longevity gap which already exists and is quite substantial, only deepens and grows, becoming an unsurpassable chasm for the folks that are not that well-off. Imagine a world where your child would be even more underprivileged and had an even harder time getting by in comparison to their affluent peers. Does it still sound as tempting?
In addition to that, richer nations could gain an even greater upper hand over poorer nations by lavish (ab)use of genetic modification. If you thought colonization and ruthless exploitation of impoverished peoples left a horrid stain on the history of civilization, then this prospect will not fall short in delighting you.
Secondly, think of a child that’s been designed to the most minuscule of detail. All of its traits, talents, possible aspirations and inclinations are predetermined by its parents and their whims. That would open the door for further dehumanization of children, placing an even greater burden in the form of their parents’ expectations upon their feeble strengths. A burden that would be enormously amplified by having the ‘right genes’ for sports, or music, or science, for it becomes almost impossible to say ‘No!’ to doing something you were literally born to do.
Imagine a future mother who always wanted to play the violin, but lacked the talent. The solution? Make her child fulfil all of her dreams in her stead, because why the hell not. And instead of dragging him to endless music lessons which could prove to be as futile as in her case, she could always make sure that the little bugger has the talent worthy of maestro Paganini himself.
And how about a father who happens to nurture somewhat of an aversion to homosexuals? Fancy the utter terror he feels that his child might be corrupted by the toxic wiles of gay people and succumb to the most depraved of sins. Well, gene modification could just as well become a sure fear-be-gone! One could always simply ‘turn off the gene for homosexuality and all the trepidation would go poof into thin air.
The possibilities are quite compelling… To some.
And let’s stop for a moment to consider how that child, that person, would feel knowing that they’ve been but a product fully customized by their makers/parents, like any other commodity allowing personalization to its owners’ taste and wishes. Wouldn’t they be tempted to question who they are as an individual? What makes them? Where do their parent's end and they themselves begin?
Another issue that arises here is the one dilemma that can easily slip our minds but is vital to fully grasp the possible effects of genetically enhanced humans. Namely, who can say what trait is by default ‘good’ and ‘desirable’, and which is to be avoided at all costs?
If we can agree on something as simple as the fact that good looks are a rather coveted commodity, pretty much every agreement can come to a stop right there, as the concepts of beauty and attractiveness are not god-given and unchangeable as such, on the contrary. They are often subject to change as every era witnesses at least a dozen trends that come and go.
And all that notwithstanding the many cultural differences and subjective opinions on beauty. For example, prospective parents from Mauritania, Italy, and the USA might have slightly (or grossly) different ideas on what it means to be beautiful.
It’s clear how allowing individuals to determine their offspring’s physical appearance following their own concepts of what’s desirable, or the current societal trends, could have serious, not to mention permanent, consequences. But hey, at least the beauty industry could make even more profit on those poor unfortunate souls who’d be desperate to ‘fix’ the rather misfortunate choice of their gene combination that’s fallen out of fashion.
And let’s not get in the nitty-gritty of judging other, more subtle traits, such as sexual orientation, kindness, assertiveness, egocentricity… Who can claim with absolute certainty which of these is in and of itself bad and which is good? It all depends on what you consider valuable and important, but it’s not necessarily the best choice for an individual that’s supposed to live in a society that, say, values narcissists over compassionate people.
Arbitrary judgment is simply impermissible here, and yet, it would all come down to exactly that — individual opinions and ideas of the world and its reality that might and might not be true.
Finally, it’s imperative to note that we are still a long way from knowing everything there is about the human genome and the way it actually works. Some diseases, conditions as well as predispositions for certain illnesses are indeed determined by single genes and/or their mutation.
However, the idea that there’s a single gene corresponding to each trait is, simply put, a fallacy, a gross misunderstanding leading to dubious conclusions and ideas that if our destiny isn’t written in the stars, it must be written in our DNA.
Moreover, we cannot definitely exclude the possibility of later health issues in people who’ve been modified this way, as we don’t yet know for sure whether the modified genes play some other important role in the lottery of human life. A gene that was ‘switched-off’ might turn out to be crucial for preventing an illness or a modification of a single gene might lead to unwanted alterations triggering a condition that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred.
Beyond the many ethical issues involved with the CRISPR babies, the fact is that, right now, with current knowledge, it is still very dangerous to try to introduce mutations without knowing the full effect of what those mutations do.
We simply do not know enough to allow ourselves the freedom to mix’n’match our genes so recklessly.
Parting thoughts
The many possibilities in terms of treatment and prevention of serious illness via genetic engineering are more than tempting for anyone in their right mind. After all, who doesn’t dream of a world where pain and disease are eradicated utterly and completely? If that possibility ever becomes reality — a reality available to everyone equally rather than to a select few — it would lead humanity into an altogether happier era, devoid of physical suffering.
One must keep in mind though that vanquishing illness is one thing and enhancing humans something entirely different. Treating and preventing serious medical conditions is by no means to be mixed with creating super-humans.
The concept of genetically perfect super-race eerily reeks of Hitler’s wet dreams of Arian Übermensch. And I somehow strongly doubt that anything that could have seemed like a good idea to old Adolf would be a future we as a civilization would much appreciate.
So, what are we to do?
For starters, medical and legal experts must stand strong in the very first lines of defense, which is, of course, education. Only a well-informed and educated public can hope to fully understand all the upsides and downsides of genetic modification. Simply treating it as a dangerous taboo or a magical cure for every ailment won’t do anyone any good. Public debates and well-founded research conducted by experts — whose results would of course be available to public scrutiny — is the right way to go.
It goes without saying that the experts are obliged to remain unbiased, meaning that ‘experts’ funded by corporations who are interested in providing human germline modification services should be excluded by all means from any ongoing debate.
Adequate legal regulation is another key point here. Regulations that are clear, distinct, and leave no wiggle room for dubious misinterpretations are a decent start in preventing any future bioethical disaster. The Oviedo Convention (The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine) opened for signature in 1997. is so far the only global legal framework considering bioethics and its implications. As such, it strictly prohibits the making of any changes in the human germline. In fact, The Convention only allows gene-tempering when it’s done for therapeutic, preventative, or diagnostic purposes (Article 13).
As there is no doubt that the progress of science and medicine will only continue to move forward, it is clear that there’s a growing need for tackling this issue head-on, both nationally, as every state should make a priority of regulating human germline modification, and globally, to set some other, updated universal guidelines which individual states could follow.
In the end, it all comes to this:
In a day and age in which yesterday’s sci-fi becomes a future reality, we cannot shrink away in fear from addressing these issues, as human genetic modification is surely not the last, nor the toughest adversity with which humanity will be faced at a certain point.
We must keep our moral apparatus sharp and keen, we must put to work every bit of critical thinking we have left so we could confront this — and every other challenge these ever-changing times bring along — courageously and to the best of our abilities. We must stand in defense of our dignity, humanity, and all the values we hold dear, not later, not tomorrow, but right now.
We can’t allow ourselves the freedom to burden the generations that are yet to come with the problems and dilemmas that are ours to solve. I have a feeling that those who’ll tread the Earth after us will surely not lack in their own problems to address.
So let’s at least give it a try to make it just a little easier for them. We owe our children that much.
