nowlin@ihu1e.UUCP (Jerry Nowlin) (07/23/84)
There have been a few articles scattered around the net lately referring
to certain groups or individuals who aren't able to cope with their
surroundings and are consequently disappearing. It's not clear whether they
actually "die out" or in the process of adapting to their changing
environment, they're no longer recognizable as the original. I wish I'd saved
some of the articles.
They brought to mind an old question I pondered back in school. In an
advanced ecology course we were given a wide range of topics to pick from for
our term papers. One of them was natural selection. My thesis was "Is the
human species, through the intelligence that gives it a competitive edge over
other species, slowly defeating the process of natural selection with modern
medicine?".
On the average, humans are bigger, stronger, healthier, and live longer
than ever before. But if you define natural selection as a process that's
supposed to weed out the negative traits in a species, humans are fighting it
on many fronts. Only in man, and the species he's chosen to domesticate, are
genetic traits that would normally be fatal, allowed to survive and be
propagated.
There are many examples of genetic "diseases" that can't be cured, only
controlled. The afflicted individuals are allowed to breed and pass the
condition on to the next generation. How long would a fish or a rabbit
survive if it had hemophilia? How many offspring would a hawk live to produce
if it was born with severe astigmatism?
Before I start to get tons of hate mail let me finish. I don't advocate
stopping medical care for the victims of genetic defects. It's real easy to
sit here at my terminal and spout purist principles about science spoiling
natures plan. If it was up to me to withhold insulin from someone who would
otherwise pass diabetes on to most of their children I couldn't do it. My
mother wears glasses, I wear glasses, and my 9 year old daughter wears
glasses. I don't intend to sterilize my daughter to avoid grandchildren that
wear glasses.
What do we do when the science of genetic engineering gets to the stage
where we can detect defects and correct them? Not just for an individual
embryo, but so that the person it will become no longer has the defective
genes to pass on to it's progeny. Can we morally withhold this form of
treatment, any more than we would now make a child forgo an operation to
correct a genetic heart defect because they were born with it and that would
be tampering with nature?
Humans evolved with a unique ability to reason. That one trait that sets
us apart from other species should be used to it's full extent. If it means
we can work with nature to allow our species to reach it's full potential
without waiting for natural selection to do the work for us then lets go for
it. I don't want to create a race of super humans. I just want to clear up
some of the nagging little problems that are holding us back.
I've never understood how Hindus could allow their children to starve
while sacred cows wandered around the countryside. Are we going to ignore the
potential before us while our children continue to suffer from genetic
defects? The technology isn't there yet. It needs to be watched and
controlled. But if we restrict genetic research, when the potential is so
great, it's a terrible waste. How far is too far to go when we bend nature to
our purposes?
Sorry if I sort of rambled. I'm really interested in what other people
think about the whole range of ideas I meandered through. The fact that
opponents of genetic research were recently able to get a federal judge to
issue an injunction barring two Berkeley scientists from proceeding with
experiments that had already been approved by the recombinant DNA advisory
committee of the National Institutes of Health makes this an issue that's
immediate as well as important. If you aren't comfortable posting, feel free
to mail me your thoughts. I'm open to a suggestion of which newsgroup is the
most appropriate to carry on this discussion.
Jerry Nowlin
ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlinrbg@cbosgd (07/23/84)
<line-eaters still lurk> > But if you define natural selection as a process that's supposed >to weed out the negative traits in a species, humans are fighting it on >many fronts. Only in man, and the species he's chosen to domesticate, are >genetic traits that would normally be fatal, allowed to survive and >be propagated. >Jerry Nowlin >ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin This is not a very good definition of natural selection. Natural selection attempts to produce species which are maximally adaptable. The more niches to which the species can adapt, the better its reproductive success. There is also a premium on diversity in the gene pool: some new environment may require genetic contributions which were not previously optimal. Besides, the hemophiliac kid next door may be our next Einstein. Right now, our medicine is capable of treating lots of genetic disorders. Future generations of geneticists might be able to actually alter our DNA to patch those defects. This will obviously require extreme caution (wouldn't you be cautious about trying to patch a working program developed over several billion years). But genetic engineering isn't going to go away. >opponents of genetic research were recently able to get a federal judge >to issue an injunction barring two Berkeley scientists from proceeding >with experiments that had already been approved by the recombinant DNA >advisory committee of the National Institutes of Health As far as I know, what these scientists wanted to do was to release into some test fields some geneticly engineered bacteria which were designed to reduce the vulnerability of potatoes to frost. It turns out that the ordinary bacteria in that environment nucleate ice crystal formation. They have gone through extensive testing in protected environments already. The time has come to see some benefit to society from our public research funds. It is also worth noting that private companies aren't required to submit to NIH review. This is where some greater regulation might be in order. I think there are some bills in Congress to govern release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment, and there are discussions about jurisdiction going on between the different agencies which might regulate: EPA, FDA, Agriculture and others. I think it is laudable that the genetic engineers themselves proposed a hiatus in their research and discussed how to minimize the hazards and regulate themselves. As far as I know, no other comparable group of researchers has ever done this. Rich Goldschmidt Nothing in life (that's worth much) is guaranteed UUCP: {ucbvax|ihnp4|decvax|allegra}!cbosgd!rbg ARPA: cbosgd!rbg@Berkeley.ARPA
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (07/24/84)
The question is: what happens when we can choose what qualities
our kids will get, and we suddenly get a tremendous increase
in the number of football players?
-shudder-
--
_____
/_____\ "Get out there and keep moving forward!"
/_______\ - Leo Franchi
|___| Snoopy
____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifertjwp@sdchema.UUCP (07/24/84)
ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin:
"Can we morally withhold this form of treatment [of genetic defects], ..."
Actually, a good many people would have no problem with this at all.
"[above quote continued] .... any more than we would now make a child
forgo an operation to correct a genetic heart defect because they were
born with it ..."
There are many people who not only would refuse such an operation, but who
have in fact done so, with no moral qualms whatsoever.
"[above quote continued] ...and that would be tampering with nature?"
The usual reason given is not that it "would be tampering with nature", but
that it would be tampering with the work of God. If God hadn't wanted the
kid to have a (so-called genetic) heart defect, then God wouldn't have given
it one, right?
There are a lot of fools out there, ihu1e!nowlin; more fools than rational
people. And they will win - every time. Because they don't waste their time
and energy worrying about such problems; they simply react in whatever way
their father, or mother, or preacher, or whoever, tells them to. This leaves
them a lot more time and energy to gather other fools who are waiting around
for someone to tell them how to react. And they will win - every time.
John Pierce, Chemistry, UCSD
sdcsvax!sdchema!jwpyba@mit-athena.UUCP (07/25/84)
In this case I think you may find a very important answer in the question of how Hindu people can allow babies to starve while sacred cows walk around. Seriously: try and answer that question before you ask anyone to make policy. I wonder if you consider that "low intelligence" or lack of athletic ability or physical attractiveness are genetic defects we should fix? -- yba%mit-heracles@mit-mc.ARPA UUCP: decvax!mit-athena!yba
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/25/84)
> The hindus can let children starve while millions of sacred cows line the > roads because they believe that the life of an animal is equivalently > sacred to that of a human. Also, a cow is a specific representative of > a particular god (I think Shiva or Lakshmi, but I don't remember > clearly). > > So this question would sound to a hindu pretty much as clearly foolish > and either satirical or simply immmoral as Swift's "Modest Suggestion" > -- that Irish babies be fattened up and cooked to feed English families. > > Western cultural chauvinism is a subtle thing sometimes... It would seem even more foolish once one recognizes that the cow is India's main source of power (draft animals), cooking fuel (dung) and is an important renewable source of protein (milk), which is worth far more to the Indian economy as live animals than it would be if slaughtered and eaten. -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)
labelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ La Belle) (07/25/84)
I don't know where this "hindus allow children to starve while cows
roam around" nonsense came from. I have a close friend who is a (was
a) Hindu. Surely they do not eat cows because they are vegetarians,
but the cows do produce milk, which they drink.
1) If the cow is dead- it no longer produces milk.
2) If the people were truely starving, they would eat the cow
(if available)
3) Most of the starving children in India are in the big cities.
GEORGEdgary@ecsvax.UUCP (07/25/84)
<>
<> Some of this discussion reminds me of Kornbluth's story The
Marching Morons, in which medicine has so negated the effects of
natural selection that the faster-breeding ninnies rapidly
outstripped the few people who prefer thinking and reading to sex
(Yes, hurray for our side :-}). The few people with any brains
left devoted their lives to making things as easy as possible on
the demented majority. The Little Black Bag is another story in
this vein, in which physicians use a black bag designed so even
an idiot can operate the instruments, mainly because the vast ma-
jority of physicians (at this period in the future, I hasten to
add, lest I find myself on an operating table with someone saying
"So YOU'RE dgary@ecsvax!") are in fact morons.
D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgaryhutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (07/26/84)
< They pelted us with rocks and garbage! > | The question is: what happens when we can choose what qualities | our kids will get, and we suddenly get a tremendous increase | in the number of football players? | | -shudder- | -- | _____ | /_____\ "Get out there and keep moving forward!" | /_______\ - Leo Franchi | |___| Snoopy | ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert That's easy. We get Texas. By the way, is it really necessary for this discussion to continue in so many newsgroups? I suggest it go in net.misc until such a time as a more obvious direction manifests itself. Hutch
yba@mit-athena.ARPA (Mark H Levine) (07/26/84)
<sacred cows (Oh God!)> You might also consider the consequences for babies who need milk the day after the cows were slaughtered to feed the starving babies. Sometimes religion is practical. This way at least the next generation has cows. -- yba%mit-heracles@mit-mc.ARPA UUCP: decvax!mit-athena!yba
marcus@pyuxt.UUCP (M. G. Hand) (07/27/84)
To all those interested in this topic I can recommend the Science and Technology section of last week's Economist magazine - there were several pages on what is now possible and what may be possible in the future regarding human conception and genetic interference. Some of the ethical problems were also alluded to. marcus hand (pyuxt!marcus)
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (07/28/84)
[Place stamp here. The post office will not deliver mail without postage.] Maybe the geneticists will never be able to stamp out conditions like nearsightedness and overbite, because they are not congenital but environmental. In that case, no genuine political problem arises. (Not that you need a genuine problem - witness Nazi race theories.) -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
gurr@west44.UUCP (Dave Gurr) (08/02/84)
< force of habit ... > If an item belongs in net.misc it is because it does not fit into any onew particular group, and hence it should NOT be specified along with a large list of other groups. I have specified a `Followup-To:' field for this article for net.misc - you may not think this appropriate, in which case, choose an APPROPRIATE group. mcvax "You can't clean the \ toilet Neil, real students ukc!west44!gurr don't do that!" / vax135 Dave Gurr, Westfield College, Univ. of London, England. PS - this is not supposed to be a flame !