[net.religion] Is genetic research too far?

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!nowlin

rbg@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!seifert

jwp@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!jwp

yba@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.

                GEORGE

dgary@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!dgary

hutch@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 !