Recently in 9: Genetic Engineering (Nov 5) Category

After this week's earlier presentation on Genetic Engineering and Patenting, I thought about a movie that I really liked while growing up, Gattaca. It was based on a book called Brave New World by Aldous Huxley which I have yet to read although it is in my book collection. The movie is based on the idea of how liberal eugenics becomes the norm and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class. According to Wikipedia, liberal eugenics is an "ideology which advocates the use of reproductive and genetic technologies where the choice of enhancing human characteristics and capacities is left to the individual preferences of parents acting as consumers, rather than the public health policies of the state". The movie revolves around the character Vincent Freeman played by Ethan Hawke, who is conceived and born without the aid of DNA enhancing technology, which is considered imperfect in the society portrayed in the movie. Vincent's younger brother, Anton, however is conceived with the aid of genetic selection. There is a game between these two brothers called 'chicken' in which they both swim out to the sea and the first to give up and swim back to the shore is the loser. Anton always wins due to his genetic enhancement but one day Vincent ends up swimming out further than his brother. Vincent dreams of becoming an astronaut but is discriminated due to his 'imperfect' DNA. He ends up buying the identity of a 'valid' candidate by using his urine and hair samples to bypass periodic security checks. Without giving too much away, the movie is basically a love letter to the human spirit and how the human heart can thrive over what is perceived to be genetic perfection. Vincent ends beating all odds and becomes the astronaut that he sets out to be in the end.

While stem cell research is still a distant reality at this point, will society one day be judged based on their genetic superiority? Do we allow ourselves to 'enhance' our own offsprings and lead ourselves into a super human race?

Upon hearing the presenter's views from the genetic engineering group, I immediately thought of something I heard from one of my coworkers about scientists creating artificial life in a lab.

Prominent geneticist Craig Venter synthesized life from a mixture of chemicals. The orgamism is indeed simple, but nonetheless alive. The organism is synthesized from a computer program, making its parents software. This is the first time life has been created without any sort of biological parent, and purely from non-living material.

This is the first step towards something big, in my opinion, as science continuously grabs for a larger understanding of existence. If we can create life in the laboratory, what's next?

This weekend, TodayOnline featured an article that drew a connection between genetic engineering and Frankenstein. I've really only read parts of Frankenstein, but from what I can remember, and from what I've heard about it, Dr. Frankenstein creates a monster that ends up killing people...(my sister tells me it was Dr. Frankenstein's lover/adopted sister), and in general, the monster ends up doing more harm than anything else, and Dr. Frankenstein immediately ends up regretting what he has done. This reminded me of an argument that was posed in favor of genetic engineering, and I think it came up during the animal testing discussion as well, the gist of which, as I understood it, was that humans, like all other species, have an instinct for survival, and should/will do anything they can to ensure their survival, and therefore their species continued existence. I thought about this a lot because it is an intriguing argument--one that certainly deserves some thought. What I came up with, is really just more questions, but definitely a clear line of thinking, that I hope to convey in a manner as coherent as possible... . When a lion chases down a kills a gazelle (please forgive me if this is not an accurate pairing...I just mean when any animal harms or kills another in order to survive), this is a natural part of life, and ecologically, is what is supposed to happen. The scale on which other species seem to harm or kill other species seems to be rather small, and evolutionary effect is a desired one, as far as I know. While I completely understand that there are huge groups of people (many people whom I personally know and love) whose lives have been saved by some form or another of "genetic engineering." I also know that there have been some pretty harmful effects, and perhaps more importantly, we don't know what kind of long-term effects could be brought about by any number of kinds of genetic engineering (whether it be creating a new bacterium or super-corn), and what it could do not only to our own species, or the species on which we're performing the "engineering." This is not meant to be a call for an end to all genetic engineering, but really I'm just wondering if genetic engineering really is analogous to an attempt by any other species to ensure it's continued existence. Furthermore, is every single instance of genetic engineering an actual attempt at furthering our species?

On Friday, the Genetic Engineering presentation discussed a bit about being able to make designer babies. This is a very controversial topic and it is somewhat scary because we are messing with nature and playing "God." I found a CNN report "Designer babies: Creating the perfect child," that related to genetic engineering and what someone brought up in class during the discussion.

After the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, our understandings of genetic bases of human disease and non-disease traits have been growing. With rapid advances in human genome and our increasing ability to modify and change genes, we can start designing our own babies in the near future. Already we can select the sex and check for certain disease bearing genes via in vitro fertilization.

With the potential to create designer babies, what other problems can arise from genetically engineered babies (i.e. social divisions, different parenting)? Those who can afford this procedure will end up prospering and those who cannot afford it will slowly diminish. Will this continue until we just have one race-the perfect race with equality amongst everyone? How will these perfect babies interact with the "natural" babies as they grow up? Will there even be equality? Genetically engineered babies are and will become a greater deal as our technology advances. I believe that genetically engineered babies will be created; it is inevitable because we are always looking for ways to improve our life. So, as a society we must prepare. How can we create better ways of practicing science? What are some other concerns or thoughts with regards to creating the perfect baby?

During the genetic engineering discussion on Friday the discussion turned to transgenic organisms. According to dictionary.com transgenic organisms are animals or plants that contain genetic material artificially transferred from another species. While most transgenic species combine human DNA with animals to study disease, some advancements in genetic engineering have allowed us to create transgenic organisms such as glowing bunnies. It seems that now it is possible to create an artificial species from any two animals no matter how genetically different they are. This got me thinking about a picture that I was sent awhile ago of a very interesting sculpture.

The sculpture is titled "The Young Family" and was created by Patricia Piccinini in 2002. I researched some of her work and it looks to me like a lot of it is based on transgenic ideas, combining human and animal traits. If you want to check out some more of her controversial sculptures, click here. Her sculptures are truly shocking and to be honest they scare me, and not just because they are creepy looking. These sculptures scare me because for all we know they could be the future of transgenic technology. I know it's a bit extreme and maybe this sculpture will never be a real species, but who knows how far we can go with so many recent developments occurring in this field. Transgenic organisms can be very beneficial to medical research because they allow us to test treatments in a way we were never able to before, but how far is too far? I say this because glowing bunnies are in no way beneficial to anyone or anything's survival.
Are we already taking the first steps on a path to a world where any species can be bred without issue?
Do you think these sculptures will ever be real organisms?
How can we prevent genetic engineering from moving in the wrong direction (designer babies, glowing bunnies, etc.)?
What are your thoughts?

Currently throughout the country we are genetically modifying foods to try to create higher yields of crops. With these genetically modified foods, we are creating cold-resistant and pesticide resistant crops. These crops will therefore out live other crops which may lead to less biodiversity and creating a "perfect" crop of Aryan race amongst plants. As Vandana Shiva pointed out in the video we watched before and when the group was talking, the higher yields are not necessarily being created in third world countries. Many farmers have to grow the crops to be exported to different regions and cannot save the crops for their families. Because of the patenting of the crops, families cannot save seeds to use the following years, but they have to purchase seeds each year which leads to increased spending which is not necessary. To take the crop example to the extreme, we are working with genetically modifying human genes in order to rid the population of diseases such as Alzheimer's in order to improve the quality of life. Many people are concerned that this will lead to the creation of designer babies, which we already have a small grasp on. View a shocking video about designer babies below.

Traits may become desired and the diversity of the human race may slowly be diminished. With the problems from the GMOs, many problems can be traced back to the large corporations. What is going to stop the human race from making designer babies? Do we allow the government to have more control over our rights? Will the government continue to slowing take over our rights and therefore lead to a supergovernment?

While a lot of the debate that occurred in class on Friday focused on whether genetic engineering was justifiable or not, I believe that the central argument surrounding genetic engineering relies upon the idea of what is natural vs. what is unnatural. For me, when I hear the word natural, many questions pop into my head, such as: How do you define natural? What can be defined as natural? Is anything really natural? After careful consideration of these questions, I have come to the conclusion that nothing in the world is natural or has been for a long time.

For me, natural conveys a time when nature was left to its own devices, when humans did not tamper with it or interact with it. One artist whose work I love is Yuken Teruya, who does origami sculptures of trees from paper bags and paper towel tubes. When I think of natural, I think of a particular photograph of him examining one of his trees. This picture is shown below:

To me, this picture represents how natural is something completely separate from humans, where humans can only have a glimpse of what is truly natural. We can guess what is natural, but every time we come into contact with an organism, we change something about that organism. Throughout history, humans have encroached upon animal habitats, knocking down their dwellings and forcing them into new habitats where they would not normally reside. We have domesticated animals to the extent where they depend on us to live; we have selectively bred our foods to obtain the best yield of crops. So, is anything left on this earth natural?

Looking at life from an evolutionary perspective further convinces me that nothing is truly natural. If life has been constantly evolving for millions of years, then every animal, every species, every organism is not natural. It can from a precursor organism, which came from another precursor and another. The only truly natural organisms were those that were created at the very beginning of time. So, how can we use a definition like this to apply it to those things that are natural and unnatural today? With this definition, everything today is already unnatural, so what is the harm in further changing organisms and modifying them to better serve the human purpose? Isn't this what we have always done? Why stop now?

What do you think? What constitutes natural vs. unnatural? Feel free to answer any of the questions posed in the above paragraphs. I do not believe everything that I just wrote but I am following a line of logic, so feel free to tear it apart.

After completing our first week of ethics presentations, I want to make sure our class keeps a few things in mind, in order to move forward more productively:

All of the topics selected are contentious, and this is precisely the point: from day one of this course, we've discussed how science is an ever-evolving dialogue, an imperfect process in a quest for greater understandings of our shared world.

These presentations discuss a wide range of topics from many perspectives. While some of you have chosen to present "pros," "cons," and "neutrals" of a subject, we have to remember that the benefits and drawbacks of a particular topic should not be conflated with whether you're "for" or "against" it. When we make simplistic conclusions about an issue, we not only create unnecessary polarization, but we also foreclose the possibility for other insights to be revealed. The truth is, there are positives and negatives to most things in life, but ethical concerns are raised in science when we weigh questions of power:
...Who has the ability to control a scientific process and why? Who will benefit and who won't?
...What, exactly, makes this topic so contentious to some? What fears, anxieties, traditions, ideologies, does it uphold or threaten?
...What kinds of relationships should we demand between science and academies, industries, and governments?
...And though it will always be imperfect, impartial, and finite, how can we create BETTER ways of practicing science, science that promotes more livable ways of relating across the spectrum of races, genders, species, etc. for generations to come?

Finally, a note of caution on creating a classroom climate conducive to healthy debate, for there have been moments when productive questions have been shut down. Once we understand that:
...no topic presented is "bad" or "good,"
...that the point of these exercises is NOT to reach a final conclusion or resolve the debate,
...and that multiple considerations, in multiple contexts, must be weighed in order to grasp these complex issues,
we can move forward as a class asking more questions, becoming more aware and critical knowers, consumers, voters, and researchers, and creating a space where varying viewpoints can be aired. Remember, if critiques are raised, they can be harnessed to develop better ways of employing whatever scientific development we're considering, making it more effective, more sustainable, and more liberatory.

These presentations are meant to inform our class on important topics that may be brand new to some. But more importantly, they are meant to showcase ethical dilemmas. Keep this in mind, whether you present in the upcoming classes or listen as an active audience member. What larger concerns do these topics raise, especially within a context of feminist science?

Throughout this course there has been a lot of debate about the culturally constructed aspects of science. One aspect of this debate has been the question of whether we, as humans, need to resist privileging humans as subject and all other life forms as object. Basically, is speciesism ok? Our course materials have thoroughly explored how speciesism works and where we can see evidence of it in our understanding of science. By failing to acknowledge the vast array of differing subjectivities of animals and organisms, (and plants too, perhaps to a lesser extent) humans engage in speciesism constantly. However, this aspect of debate has taken on a new form in our class while talking about animal rights and genetic engineering. The assertion that humans, if we are no different than other animals in our instinctual drive to survive, are not doing anything wrong by using our considerable scientific means to "survive" has come up several times. This is speciesism sneaking in through the back door. At first glance, it seems this argument does not engage in speciesism: "Humans are the same as all animals, no worse or better." From this, it might seem to follow that humans, like any other animal, will use all of its power to survive. However, there is fallacy in both of these points.

To start, humans are very different from any other species on this planet. This is not to say better or worse, but surely different. Humans alone have access to intellect that separates us from all other species. (Stating this fact is not speciesist, because it does not deny that other subjectivities, and perspectives exist for other species and individual organisms.) This separates the scientific research and methods, such as research using animals and genetically engineering plants and animals, from a situation of predator and prey. A lion preying on an antelope is a vastly different situation from genetically altering an organism so that it is more beneficial for humankind (which is debatable as well). Although all types of scientific research can very well be defended for innumerable reasons, and I am not arguing against those, scientific research is not a predator-prey scenario and it shouldn't be defended as one.

My second objection to this line of argument that has come up many times in class and on this blog is that while an animal hunts its prey for its individual benefit, the development, research and use of scientific and technological advances do not aim to ensure the survival of the human race, but rather to improve quality of life. While there is the possibility that the results of lab testing or improved disease resistance in crops will save lives, the survival of the human race by and large does not hinge on these. Humans existed long before the types of scientific advances that we investigate in this class came into existence. Also, there is no animal other than humans that have the same capability of collecting, imprisoning, breeding, altering the genetic makeup of, violating, and killing other organisms. It is not a level playing field. While invasive species have been known to kill off other organisms on a large scale, it is very different from the scale of damage that humans can knowingly enact, and the conscious effort behind these enterprises is what separates humans' deployment of scientific advances from animals preying on others for food and survival.

I realize that there may be possible points for debate in my argument, but I am really frustrated at this analogy that continues to be wielded in defense of very intricate and specialized scientific research that is in no way similar to a predator-prey scenario. It is speciesism because it assumes the guise of equality between humans and other species in their predator capabilities, but really is used as an excuse to continue the hierarchy of humans manipulating other organisms without consent. I like to think of the difference between speciesism and an understanding of the nuanced place humans hold in their intellectual differences from animals as akin to the famous line from spiderman: "With great power, comes great responsibility." It may be cheesy, but there is some real truth to it, and it is very applicable when we investigate the issues of this course. (If you want to relive the wonderful movie moments, here is a link and here is another link with Uncle Ben telling Peter Parker all about this... I'm not going to address the "becoming a man" part and the issues therein today though...)

Does anyone else agree? If people think there is a hole in my logic, by all means, defend this analogy. I am very interested to see if anyone has other thoughts that may be different.

"U.S. Says Genes Should Not Be Eligible for Patents"
By Andew Pollack, New York Times
10/29/10