|
Grave New World
by Geraldine Sombke
GENE THERAPY.... STEM CELL
RESEARCH.... FROG EYES AND EARS GROWN IN LABS.... These are only a few recent headlines from national and local
media exploring advances in medicine and gene therapy, and even hair follicle repair. What do we think of when
we read these headlines? Are we alarmed, do we wonder about the implications of human genome research, should we?
The first Newsweek of the
new century carried an article by Dr. W. French Anderson, a professor of biochemistry and paediatrics at the University
of Southern California, describing breakthrough treatments in genetic engineering, including stimulating new blood
vessel growth in the heart. The Vancouver Sun heralded discoveries in stem cell research as one of the top scientific
advances of 1999. Japanese scientists may agree, as they have grown the cells of frog eyes and ears in a test tube,
the latest step towards grow-your-own organs, according to a BBC story.
Stem cells are the body's
building blocks. Some come only from embyos, making their use in research controversial. Other stem cells are produced
in adults. Researchers at Osiris Therapeutics in Baltimore report in the journal Science that they isolated a single
cell, then grew it into a colony of more than a million cells that could be induced to produce bone, cartilage
and fat. Researchers will eventually be able to inject specific types of cells into patients, which then would
grow into replacement bone, tendon or muscle.
Science Notebook, in their
3-1-2000 online edition, describes a Philadelphia laboratory experiment using gene therapy to permanently colour
grey hair. Iceland is licensing a genetic catalogue of its entire population to an American company to be used
as a gigantic database. We can already screen for genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
And yet...
The same article in the
Vancouver Sun mentions the United States National Institute for Health (NIH) draft guidelines specifying that cells
used in experiments it funds must come from excess embryos created by couples for infertility treatment that would
otherwise be thrown away. Does this reduce human embryos to the level of recycled cans and newspapers?
Dr. Anderson mentions that
human genes have been identified that appear to influence behaviour - an affinity for risk-taking, intelligence
and even sexual preference. Scientists have also identified genes which influence body size and muscle mass. "The
temptation to try to use genes such as these to 'improve' ourselves is very strong-maybe even irresistible,"
says the good doctor. The movie Gattaca proposed designer children, pre-selected
for intelligence, physical prowess, height, weight, dexterity.
The first step would be
to say that treatments are available. Would the next step be that treatments are mandatory? Shall we breed the
risk takers out of our society to lower medical costs? Shall we create more geniuses by breeding for intelligence?
If we can screen for a genetic disease, should children born with such a disease then be allowed to sue their parents
for not having it corrected prior to their birth?
The field of bioethics is
hard pressed to keep up with the pace of discovery. Once the entire human genome is mapped, will we feel it mandatory
to tinker with it? We already possess more knowledge than ethical guidelines for its use. This issue is too fundamental
to our continued humanity to be left to the dictates of the marketplace.
Before we develop more promising
ways to reengineer fallible humanity, let us spend some time pondering the profound dangers and the need for stopping
points.
|
