-Permanent vs transient modification (aka germ-line vs somatic cell modification) - the topic as presented by Ryan Ludovic is obviously about germ-line modification, ie modifying unborn children before they are born. But on the other end of the spectrum is temporary modification; gene therapy, things like that. Is one better than the other?
Germline gene modification is definitely not a good idea for several reasons:
source
...germ cell modification may produce effects that were not predicted, and may not reveal themselves until the child is grown, or in future generations. Germ cell modification not only influence the single offspring, but create unique DNA that will persist into subsequent generations. Prenatal diagnosis permits specific pregnancies to be evaluated for genetic fitness. Manipulation of germ-cell DNA is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
It's too unpredictable, and could lead to damaged offspring or worse larger scale deterioration of the human gene pool which could ultimately lead to our extinction (though that's really far fetched in comparison, it's technically a possibility). At least w/somatic techniques (homologous recombination, Spindle transfer, etc.) any risk is to that one person.
-Prevention vs Enhancement - A lot of people don't have as much of a problem with modifying unborn children to prevent genetic, crippling diseases. What about enhancement? Longer lifespans, bigger muscles, smarter brains, etc. Should there be a line drawn somewhere? Is it okay to do both, or is prevention more acceptable than enhancement?
The prevention of genetic disease would be amazing, though in the short term may put a lot of folks out of work, in the long term would lead to a strengthening of the human gene pool. Here's a
LONG list of disorders. If we were to eliminate all these abnormalities, we would definitely be "healthier" as a species.
The flip to this is that Humanity often requires limitation to be overcome... that struggle is what we find so compelling in life, and what gives birth to creativity and ingenuity. By eliminating say, color blindness, we eliminate the possibility for someone to be born that way, to see the world as uniquely as they, and anything they may contribute to the world as a result.
Well, ok. Honestly and for the sake of our survival, I am willing to sacrifice one or two artsy poems on how one person's black is an others green. Not to be insensitive, but... you have to be an artist to think that way in the first place, and there will be PLENTY of struggle, angst, and whatnot to satisfy the needs of a minority. The rest of humanity would like to stop seeing half-man half-machines drooling on themselves.
So much for the Special Olympics, tho... ah well.
-The idea of "designer babies"
... disgusts me. If you can't make it naturally, it wasn't meant to exist. Not until we've come a LOT further with technology and our understanding thereof can we consider ourselves mature enough in this regard to even THINK about making our babies from scratch as opposed to the old-fashioned way (by letting nature take its course). This is NOT related to disease prevention, btw, at least not to me. This is about making the eyes blue, the hair blond... its bordering on eugenics, and that is fundamentally and for lack of a better word... evil.
-Access to the new technologies (ie, rich vs poor)
As gene therapy becomes more useful, and tried and true, so too will the cost of such treatments reduce.
source
In this article we see that 3 people injected w/a virus carrying "good" genes were able to produce the necessary protein compounds they were born deficient of. Now if we go w/the above, we could possibly eliminate the problem from the get-go. But, it may not be this simple. Depending on how the research goes, screening and treatment of the unborn may actually still be far more costly than after-the-fact. With this article we see the potential for a simple battery of injections that result in a total cure of the disease. If caught early enough in a person's life, this could help prevent long term ailments, such as organ failure. And the cost need not necessarily be huge. Walgreens charges 25 bucks or so for a flu shot. I see this being the same for gene-therapy shots, once the process is mastered (note: many Flu vaccines are still experimental).
-The possible morally reprehensible consequences of withholding this kind of technology (ie, if we can make better firefighters or doctors, isn't it wrong not to?)
-The ethics of how it might affect human agency; in other words, choosing things for children before they're born
I can lump these together though this is a highly subjective area to debate. The problem with making super-cops or super-soldiers or super-anything is that you are transforming the person into a higher being. An enhanced being. It's unfair to everyone else that's not enhanced, and it leads to a separation at a fundamental level that we cannot yet even quantify, except in theory or in historical context. Turning men into Gods in other words... purposefully... creating people who could theoretically develop so-called "God" complexes.
I mean sure, you take a ... firefighter, and genetically enhance him so he can carry more, withstand heat better, etc etc. But isn't it possible that these supermen could find themselves outcasts... "freaks" ... or worse, maybe the try to take control! It's a slippery slope I'd rather not traverse. Too scary.
As for doing it to people before their even born? Eh, yeah no. Same evil as making designer babies. Almost the same as the evil in abortion that is perceived by pro-lifers (not my stance, btw.) It may seem an obvious choice. "What, you DON'T wanna have x-ray vision???" But to assume that's what we want, is to assume you're God, once again, and that's just bad. You don't even have to believe in God really, just the idea that our biology is predetermined by our genes and DNA, and that this predetermination was created in Nature. True, Humans, as a result of Nature (evolution), are self-determining. However, we cannot afford ourselves the luxury of assuming we know what's best for us at the genetic level. We can fix problems we perceive, sure... but to change our very nature, our humanity, into something Extra-human, is dangerous, and foolhardy, and can almost only end badly.
