Genetic Engineering and Genetic Alteration of humans

[Victor Medvil]

This is another thread about the christian views of scientific advancement series, so what do you think about genetic engineering and genetic alteration of humans? There have been many recent advancements in this area such as Viral Gene Therapy and CRISPR to edit human's and animal's DNA. Under the doctrine of Christianity is this against what you believe is ethical, even if it cures disease and genetic illness?

Link1 = What is gene therapy?

Link2 = First in-body CRISPR human trial targets hereditary blindness

Link3 = How Gene Therapy May Hold Key to Treating Life-Threatening Cardiac Disease

Link4 = Gene therapies show promise for pediatric treatment

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Some will feel that others suffering from genetic defects is God’s will while those who are actually sick prefer to get cured. Funny how that goes.

Going to be interesting when they get anti-aging treatments to practical level how many evangelicals are going to deny themselves longer life because they feel it is against God’s plan.

 

[Victor Medvil]

Some will feel that others suffering from genetic defects is God’s will while those who are actually sick prefer to get cured. Funny how that goes.

Going to be interesting when they get anti-aging treatments to practical level how many evangelicals are going to deny themselves longer life because they feel it is against God’s plan.

Interesting so you think people would be willing to suffer because they think stuff like this isn't God's will?

 

[HatGuy]

Some will feel that others suffering from genetic defects is God’s will while those who are actually sick prefer to get cured. Funny how that goes.

Going to be interesting when they get anti-aging treatments to practical level how many evangelicals are going to deny themselves longer life because they feel it is against God’s plan.

That's not the only part of the story, though.

Having had a recent two-hour conversation with a bioethicist, there is more going on than just the cure of diseases - the arguments for genetic enhancement are quite at the forefront, as well as genetic diversity. It's the movie Gattaca in real life.

The argument is that, since we already value diversity in our cultures, why not be able to create diversity? People with purple hair? Different colour eyes? etc.

That's when it gets tricky. Sure, everyone wants diseases cured, and only fundamentalists insist that diseases are God's will, but most of us feel uncomfortable when it comes to enhancing or changing what makes a human, human. Or, what does make a human, human? And does it even matter? That's the question.

 

[JohnB445]

I don't see any scriptural evidence for Christians to deny things like anti-aging, curing genetic diseases with CRISPR gene editing, etc.

For example, bacteria called plaque that accumulates in teeth cause deterioration of the tooth and gums, we solve that with brushing it off with a toothbrush and toothpaste.

Therefore for one to claim it is against God's plan to have things that thoroughly benefit our health would be at a logical inconsistency if they are for toothbrushing.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's when it gets tricky. Sure, everyone wants diseases cured, and only fundamentalists insist that diseases are God's will, but most of us feel uncomfortable when it comes to enhancing or changing what makes a human, human. Or, what does make a human, human? And does it even matter? That's the question.

I suggest, from an ethical point of view, the only thing that makes a human a human is behaviour. If that is the case it may seem the problem is solved: make no changes that would change behaviour. But that ignores two issues:

• For the most part we do not know which genes control behaviour. We do know that physical and behavioural traits are typically influenced by multiple genes. (Mendel got lucky.) Thus changes to a gene controlling a physical trait may have an unanticipated impact on a behaviour.
• On the flip side, if we could, might we not to alter the behaviour of psychopaths?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

most of us feel uncomfortable when it comes to enhancing or changing what makes a human, human. Or, what does make a human, human? And does it even matter? That's the question.

There is no single answer of course. However seeing the possibilities the future is going to look pretty hard to for the people who take the extreme view of not messing with human genetics.

Especially interesting in US with high % of evangelical population while having a great tradition for personal freedom.

So who has the right to decide what people will do with their bodies ? What are you going to do when unmodified people can no longer compete ?

Dystopian possibilities on this are astounding.

But who knows maybe it is one transition phase people do not mess up.....

Yeah, not very likely.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Interesting so you think people would be willing to suffer because they think stuff like this isn't God's will?

Some might but it is more probable that those people are more willing for others to suffer because of their high ideals.

Bit like we now have the crowd that says there is too many poor people in China and India that we can’t afford to raise to middle class because the planet can’t take it all the while living happily with 25 times the resource consumption statistically that average Indian has.

 

[Mantishand]

Revelation 9:6
And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

 

[HatGuy]

I suggest, from an ethical point of view, the only thing that makes a human a human is behaviour. If that is the case it may seem the problem is solved: make no changes that would change behaviour. But that ignores two issues:

• For the most part we do not know which genes control behaviour. We do know that physical and behavioural traits are typically influenced by multiple genes. (Mendel got lucky.) Thus changes to a gene controlling a physical trait may have an unanticipated impact on a behaviour.
• On the flip side, if we could, might we not to alter the behaviour of psychopaths?

This seems all fair and well, except that when it comes to mental illness, why not change it?

My son has severe ADHD. That will probably be an advantage later on in life, but for now it can be quite disadvantageous. Where does that fall on the scale of behaviour?

People seem predisposed to certain types on mental illness. For example, ADHD is on the bipolar scale. Surely, if we're going to alter how people look or enhance their chances in sport, smarts, etc. we should also then take away those illnesses that are actually correlated with behaviour?

Seems all fair and well, until the definition of 'psychopath' changes. Society is always changing its morals. Psychopaths frequently claim to hear from God. So do I, though... and when I told that to my psychologist once he almost jumped out of his chair. The whole session he asked me a million questions to try and ascertain what this 'listening to God' sounds like - voices? Urges? It was funny, but made me think how maybe one day I would be considered part of the psychopaths.

And if we're changing mental illness that affects behaviour, it's only a short step to other behaviourial changes.

People ought to be morally responsible, gene editing or not, but I don't think it'll be difficult to move into the realm of behaviour modification once we decide it's okay to enhance skills etc. with gene editing.

 

[ZNP]

That's not the only part of the story, though.

Having had a recent two-hour conversation with a bioethicist, there is more going on than just the cure of diseases - the arguments for genetic enhancement are quite at the forefront, as well as genetic diversity. It's the movie Gattaca in real life.

The argument is that, since we already value diversity in our cultures, why not be able to create diversity? People with purple hair? Different colour eyes? etc.

That's when it gets tricky. Sure, everyone wants diseases cured, and only fundamentalists insist that diseases are God's will, but most of us feel uncomfortable when it comes to enhancing or changing what makes a human, human. Or, what does make a human, human? And does it even matter? That's the question.

Good point, we already put genes from spiders into sheep, who is to say that with genetic enhancement we wouldn't want to do that with humans. A human centaur?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's not the only part of the story, though.

Having had a recent two-hour conversation with a bioethicist, there is more going on than just the cure of diseases - the arguments for genetic enhancement are quite at the forefront, as well as genetic diversity. It's the movie Gattaca in real life.

The argument is that, since we already value diversity in our cultures, why not be able to create diversity? People with purple hair? Different colour eyes? etc.

That's when it gets tricky. Sure, everyone wants diseases cured, and only fundamentalists insist that diseases are God's will, but most of us feel uncomfortable when it comes to enhancing or changing what makes a human, human. Or, what does make a human, human? And does it even matter? That's the question.

Seems to me that somatic (non-heritable) genetic manipulation of consenting individuals is less ethically concerning, in general, than germ-line (heritable) genetic manipulation - with the possible exception of fatal or severely disabling heritable conditions.

This will probably change with the improved safety, reliability, and control of the techniques involved, so that reliably 'undoing' even germ-line changes becomes relatively simple.

 

[ZNP]

Seems to me that somatic (non-heritable) genetic manipulation of consenting individuals is less ethically concerning, in general, than germ-line (heritable) genetic manipulation - with the possible exception of fatal or severely disabling heritable conditions.

This will probably change with the improved safety, reliability, and control of the techniques involved, so that reliably 'undoing' even germ-line changes becomes relatively simple.

I suspect that most people would want you to first test it out, perhaps on prisoners, before messing with their DNA. Perhaps an industry that could help North Korea and Iran join the rest of the developed world.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I suspect that most people would want you to first test it out, perhaps on prisoners, before messing with their DNA.

I can't speak for most people, but most of the people I know would not want to be involved in something tested that way. There are likely to be plenty of people unhappy enough with their physical condition to be willing subjects for potential genetic treatments, without involving ethically dubious treatment of prisoners.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

People ought to be morally responsible, gene editing or not, but I don't think it'll be difficult to move into the realm of behaviour modification

That is easier than gene editing. What do you think propaganda, marketing, religious dogmas are if not attempts at behavior modification?

 

[HatGuy]

That is easier than gene editing. What do you think propaganda, marketing, religious dogmas are if not attempts at behavior modification?

Sure, but having the ability to make a moral choice is kind of a big deal.

Think about it. What if the current view of "toxic masculinity" evolves in such a way that eventually it seems like a good thing to remove certain traits from males for the "better of society".

I thought it was crazy to think that sort of thing until I had my conversation with the bioethicist. This sort of stuff is not far-fetched anymore.

 

[ZNP]

Sure, but having the ability to make a moral choice is kind of a big deal.

Think about it. What if the current view of "toxic masculinity" evolves in such a way that eventually it seems like a good thing to remove certain traits from males for the "better of society".

I thought it was crazy to think that sort of thing until I had my conversation with the bioethicist. This sort of stuff is not far-fetched anymore.

There are 8 billion people, how do they propose eliminating a trait from a gene pool of 8 billion?

Instead I think designer babies is far more likely.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Think about it. What if the current view of "toxic masculinity" evolves in such a way that eventually it seems like a good thing to remove certain traits from males for the "better of society".

What you call traits are usually effects of multiple genes and also our upbringing. By the time we have figured those interactions out I am sure we already have far more trustworthy technological controls to uphold our new dystopian society.

Besides we will have multitudes of people tinkering with our genes and then those people will have kids creating yet another layer of complexity and so forth so I don’t think genetical servitude is a credible threat in near future.

Besides some of those traits are probably disappearing anyway. Which makes sense.

Tendency to violence for example might have helped survival in harsher environments but nowadays showing a prospective breeding partner how handily you skin a mountain cougar might not get you a mate as easily as before.

Also getting to jail because of those said tendencies probably does not enhance your chances of getting children either.

 

[HatGuy]

There are 8 billion people, how do they propose eliminating a trait from a gene pool of 8 billion?

Instead I think designer babies is far more likely.

yeah probably, but is it a good idea?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

yeah probably, but is it a good idea?

Depends. Few object to a designer baby that has some one gene hereditary defect corrected.

Making a norm of people being tall, having greater strength or stamina is the slippery slope we are getting on.

Where is the line of “ we have gone too far”

Still I have great faith on the kid whose parents have used fortunes to make him ideal Olympic level runner genetically deciding to get fat and making a career of painting naked ladies.