August 2002
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Jul   Sep


pages I visit regularly

The Aardvark Speaks

Aquinas

The Bleat

boing boing

Caveat Lector

Clark Hornbell

Crazy Apple Rumors

The Disseminary

Eeksy-Peeksy

Fragments

Fury

A Girl Named Bob

harrumph! still crazy!

Jonathon Delacour

Oblivio

ordinary morning

Pax Nortona

rabbit blog

reverend jim

runs with scissors

Russell Beattie

Ruzz

sour mash with a twist

Sainteros

Samurai Panda

Seb's Open Research

Time's Shadow

The Universal Church of Cosmic Uncertainty

Visible Darkness


Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.  Write to me!


more posts

Monday, August 26, 2002    permalink
You can pick your nose, and you can pick your children, and now you can pick your children's nose...

In a review of Redesigning Humans the NY Times quotes the author, Gregory Stock:

Stock's overarching claim is that germ-line modifications will ''write a new page in the history of life, allowing us to seize control of our evolutionary future,'' an echo of the classic eugenicist dream. New technologies will allow humans to make fundamental alterations to their individual genetic compositions and those of their children. The net effect, he says, will be to draw ''reproduction into a highly selective social process that is far more rapid and effective at spreading successful genes than traditional sexual competition and mate selection.'' In the future, he claims, we will be ''much more than simply human.'

I fail to see how anyone can argue with a straight face that allowing rich people loose in the human genome is going to improve the species at an accelerated rate. What, pray tell, counts as "successful" to those folks? Big breasts? Height? Intelligence? Alpha-instincts? What?

With luck, natural selection will just have a bunch more mutations to choose from. Without luck, we'll all end up with snub noses because Richy Rich thinks they look better, and you know what a trend-setter he is.

The good news is also that I think we're a long way away from really understanding what does what at a fine level in the genome. The bad news is that our ignorance won't prevent a whole bunch of people from mucking about with it anyway. The results are bound to be messy much of the time. (Can anybody say "thalidomide"?)

I do agree with Stock that this change is coming. I hope that, initially, we can find a way to legislate that it be used only to cure genetic diseases, not to "enhance" or "tinker," at least for some appropriate moratorium period, while we try to get a grip on what it is we're actually doing.

8:11:21 PM    please comment []



© Copyright 2002 Pascale Soleil.
Last updated: 11/10/02; 3:18:19 PM.
Comments by: YACCS
Click to see the XML version of this web page.