From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Tue Apr 30 2002 - 00:35:01 MDT
Hal wrote:
>
> Here is a thought experiment presented in the form of a poll. I think
> it offers insight into some of the ethical questions regarding genetic
> engineering of human beings.
>
> Background: A few years ago researchers found a way to make
> "genius" mice.
> They added a gene for the formation of a protein called NR2B which is
> involved with learning and memory. The resulting mice had cells which
> were much more responsive to stimuli. They were nicknamed
> "Doogie" mice,
> after the TV show Doogie Howser about a young genius doctor. In tests
> the mice learned things more quickly and remembered them longer, both
> signs of intelligence. A Scientific American article is at
> http://www.sciam.com/2000/0400issue/0400tsien.html
>
> Question 1:
>
> Suppose you have recently gotten married and are getting ready to
> have children. A group approaches you with a confidential offer.
> They will perform an in vitro fertilization for you and add the NR2B
> gene to the resulting embryo, re-implanting it for a natural
> childbirth.
> The hope is that the resulting baby will be genetically engineered for
> higher intelligence. As a known Extropian they hope that you might be
> willing to volunteer for this procedure.
>
> Your response is:
>
> A. Yes, I want to proceed with the experiment.
>
> B. I want to wait for more data.
> We can subdivide B into some categories:
> B1. I want to wait for more mouse tests to replicate the results.
> B2. I want to wait for the results to be replicated in
> another animal
> model like dogs or cats.
> B3. I want to wait for the results to be replicated in a
> primate model
> such as chimpanzees.
> B4. I want to wait for the results to be replicated in human beings,
> then I would be willing to go forward.
>
> C. I would not agree to this procedure even if it had been proven in
> humans.
>
My kids have turned out to be pretty smart all by themselves :-) ...
however, if I thought there were enough benefit likely, and could be given
enough extra information, and was intending to have another child, then yes,
I'd probably volunteer (my unborn child), ie: my answer is A. If I were
unsatisfied with the available information, I might fall back to B2.
However, I'm not sure that replicated or extra animal tests would tell us
much; doing this stuff in humans is pretty much the only reliable way.
The basis of my reasoning for saying yes is that, given the possible
benefits are huge, and given that this is an unique opportunity, can I deny
this to my unborn child?
Other factors would influence my decision:
Reputation:
Who is the group? Does it include someone like Lord Winston? Yes? Then I'm
in. Is it headed up by Dr. Antinori? Yes? Then I'm out.
Further information:
Were there any problems in the mice? What kind of effect is predicted in
humans (details)? Where did this gene come from? Are there already humans or
animals with it occuring naturally? If there are humans, and they are ok,
then I'm far more comfortable with it. Is it possible to stimulate
production of NR2B in an existing organism without the gene. If so, has it
been done, and what were the results? etc...
Reversibility:
How likely is it, in the researchers' opinions, that the proteins could
cause irreversible damage during development? Can the researchers forsee a
future method for turning off the gene if it turns out to be unwanted by my
child at a later date? How reversible would the effects be, speculating
about future developments?
>
> Question 2:
>
> If your answer to question 1 was B or C, then the question is what
> limitations, if any, you think should be imposed on other people.
> Should they be allowed to take answer A and proceed with the
> experiment
> based solely on the mouse results? Or would they have to
> wait until it
> was proven safe and effective in other animal models, or in
> human testing
> (clinically supervised)? Where do you draw the line for other people?
>
> Hal
>
Even if I ended up falling back to some B variant, I would support other
people in choosing A. However, I do think some (government enforced)
safeguards could be appropriate:
- I don't think it would ever be appropriate for parents to accept such
procedures on the unborn in return for money.
- It would be a very good idea to have a process in place to ensure that
parents give informed consent. It should be ascertained that a parent truly
understands the ramifications, before being allowed to proceed. This might
even involve taking a course and passing a test.
- Finally, I believe such procedures should be public knowledge, open, to
ensure that the above safeguards are being upheld correctly.
I would happily submit to such safeguards. In the absense of them, however,
given the above scenario (which implies a level of secrecy) I'd probably
still proceed, as stated.
Emlyn
***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,
disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us
immediately and delete the document.
Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's
responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the
material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus
or other defect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:43 MST