First, on a topic totally unrelated to the subject at hand, Canada's National Post won my Loaded Headline Award of the Day the other day for "Democracy Divides Arab League." Just thought I'd get that out, to place alongside "Science Goes Too Far" and "Globalization Cures Poverty." I'm just sayin'.
Anyway, the BBC once again reported something that's gotten me doing the standard jawdrop thing.
Researchers at Imperial College and University College, London have already successfully implanted corrective genes in foetal mice.They now hope to use the technique on human foetuses, and say it could help cure inherited diseases such as haemophilia.
Now, this is obviously an experimental thing, mice not being humans. The Big Deal about this, though, is the fact that researchers have successfully modified a fetal genome while it was still in the womb. The BBC article spells out the implications pretty clearly, and I agree with them that this is something both Huge and Potentially Very Good. This paves the way to general genefixing procedures that could make a lot of truly lasty congenital diseases a thing of the past.
Almost as doubletake-worthy as the breakthrough itself is the tool they're using for it. Making use of disarmed retrovirii for one procedure or another is nothing new, and variants of it go back over a century for things like vaccination. Despite the fact that the principle's nothing new, I still can't help but be boggled by the fact that they're taking HIV - HIV of all things - and beating it into a plowshare to perform acts almost the total opposite of its original intent. There's a few other metaphors in there, probably, but I can't think of them right off the top of my head. Either way, the use of that retrovirus of all the ones out there - because of its malignant nature making it so much more effective at its new job - is one of the things which turns this from something that's merely really cool to a work of artistry.
Of course, the standard response to this sort of thing is to say that It Raises Ethical Questions, usually with the implication that Ethical Questions Only Imply Bad So Let's Proscribe This Now. I find this kind of thought to sit somewhere on the line between counterproductive and actively evil, so I can never resist the opportunity to view it with the contempt it deserves.
Stuff like this will become the norm in medicine in the next generation or so. The only real way this wouldn't be the case would be if the entire world got together and started declaring fields of knowledge and their preqrequites to be illegal; this obviously isn't going to happen. That should happen is a calm and open discussion of the implications of this sort of technology - preferably devoid of loaded phrases like "playing God" - so that people can come to a conclusion of what their stance is on things like these without relying on kneejerk and soundbites. Considering the tendency in a lot of countries to go full-out kneejerk these days - technically, it's illegal to learn about stem cells in the United States right now, for instance - I'm not entirely confident on society's ability to do this, but anyone who is thinking with a level head about it is one less person who isn't.
My personal stance on this is that the potential benefits of this sort of thing far outweigh the potential risks, and that it stands to set off a revolution in medicine not seen since in generations, to say nothing of millenia. There are potential problems and risks with genefixing as well - eugenics concerns, particularly with regard to screening mental illnesses (or the idea, false but popular, that you should be able to screen for politics, beliefs, etc) and the (equally silly, IMO) concept of government-mandated screening for "ideal" human beings - something the objectors never define - are the main ones.
The idea of screening in nonproductive ways is an issue, however, as is the issue of treating things like congenital mental illnesses in this way, considering the nuances of such things have yet to be worked out. On the other hand, nobody's saying we have to start zotting schizophrenia or whatnot out of the genome right away. However, people who advocate the retention of hemophilia or progeria in a developing fetus are little more than fools anyway. So once this process is nailed down to the point where it can work on humans, we should go right the hell ahead with fixing that sort of thing while we determine what to do about the stickier issues.
Such technology definately goes on the list of things that can help build a finer world. The problem is that of responsible use, coupled with any number of other tools that we're beginning to reach towards. People who know me know that I'm a fairly enthusiastic transhumanist, thereby a technophile by definition; of course I'm going to say these sorts of things, whether it be for genetic engineering, molecular assemblers, manned spaceflight on scales both large and small, artificial intelligence, or much of anything else. At the same time, I don't believe technology can solve our problems. That has to come from within us.
Like nuclear power, computers, spacecraft, aircraft, steam power, antibiotics, metallurgy, agriculture, the wheel, flint-knapping, fire and sentience itself, this new wave of technology is a tool. For good or ill, it heralds change, and I'd rather be on the side that comprehends it than the side which flees or fights anything they don't immediately understand.
Posted by zibblsnrt at March 30, 2004 08:38 PM