‘Designer baby’ book trilogy explores the moral dilemmas humans may soon create
How would the ability to genetically customize children change society? Sci-fi author Eugene Clark explores the future on our horizon in Volume I of the "Genetic Pressure" series.
18 January, 2021
- A new sci-fi book series called "Genetic Pressure" explores the scientific and moral implications of a world with a burgeoning designer baby industry.
- It's currently illegal to implant genetically edited human embryos in most nations, but designer babies may someday become widespread.
- While gene-editing technology could help humans eliminate genetic diseases, some in the scientific community fear it may also usher in a new era of eugenics.
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p class="media-headline"><br></p><div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="c757ef0c79111359597857b09540fee8" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B086RFXC2M?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/516FA23AmfL.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image widget__image">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__description">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__title" style="display: block;">Genetic Pressure Volume I: Baby Steps</div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__by-amazon"><!-- <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B086RFXC2M?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">by now at amazone</a> --></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__list-price"><span class="grey">List Price: </span><span class="list-price">$3.00</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__new-price"><span class="grey">New From: </span><span class="new-price">$3.00</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
</div>
</a>
</div>
<p>Imagine it's 2045. You start hearing rumors from your well-heeled friends about a mysterious corporation based on an undisclosed island that's offering an unprecedented service: the ability to genetically design your baby.</p><p>The baby will have some of your genetics, and some genetics from a sperm or egg donor, selected by you. But the rest of your child's genetic profile will be engineered by science. These changes will make it impossible for your child to develop genetic diseases. They'll also allow you to customize your child for dozens of traits, including intelligence level, emotional disposition, sexual orientation, height, skin tone, hair color, and eye color, to name a few. </p><p>This raises unsettling philosophical questions for some customers. "When does my child stop being my child?" they ask the corporate representatives. These wary customers are reminded of how risky it is to reproduce the old-fashioned way. The Better Genetics Corporation's motto sums it up: "Only God plays dice—humans don't have to."</p><p>This is the world described in a new science-fiction series by Eugene Clark titled <a href="http://bigth.ink/38VhJn3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">"Genetic Pressure"</a>, which explores the moral and scientific implications of a future in which designer babies are becoming a major industry. The first book begins with the story of Rachel, a renowned horse breeder who befriends a billionaire client, and soon gets the funding to visit the tropical island on which the Better Genetics Corporation is headquartered. </p><p>There, corporate executives walk her through the process of designing a baby—an experience that feels like an uncanny mix between visiting a doctor and designing a luxury car. The series is told from multiple perspectives, serving as a deep dive into a complex moral web that today's scientists may already be weaving.</p>
<blockquote>[T]he introduction of designer babies would create a labyrinth of philosophical dilemmas that society is only beginning to explore. </blockquote>
<p>Case in point: In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced that he had helped create the world's first genetically engineered babies. Using the gene-editing tool CRISPR on embryos, He Jiankui modified a gene called <a href="https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/CCR5" target="_blank">CCR5</a>, which enables HIV to enter and infect immune system cells. His goal was to engineer children that were immune to the virus.</p><p>It's unclear whether he succeeded. But what's certain is that the experiment shocked the international scientific community, which generally agreed that it's unethical to conduct gene-editing procedures on humans, given that scientists don't yet fully understand the consequences.</p><p>"This experiment is monstrous," Julian Savulescu, a professor of practical ethics at the University of Oxford, told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist" target="_blank"><em>The Guardian</em></a>. "The embryos were healthy. No known diseases. Gene editing itself is experimental and is still associated with off-target mutations, capable of causing genetic problems early and later in life, including the development of cancer."</p><p>Importantly, He Jiankui wasn't treating a disease, but rather genetically engineering babies to prevent the future contraction of a virus. These kinds of changes are heritable, meaning the experiment could have major downstream effects on future generations. So, too, would a designer-baby industry, even if scientists can do it safely.</p><p>With major implications on inequality, discrimination, sexuality, and our conceptions of life, the introduction of designer babies would create a labyrinth of philosophical dilemmas that society is only beginning to explore. </p>
<a href="http://bigth.ink/38VhJn3" ><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTI2MTEzNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NDcxMzY4M30.5fwCPH_6sQ0RF19aAH4FQFue9HFJykzdEc0Xka1TY04/img.jpg?width=980" id="affdd" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76374e8775bd9441a338cf513bb1fa55" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="924" data-height="520" /></a>
Tribalism and discrimination
<p>One question the "Genetic Pressure" series explores: What would tribalism and discrimination look like in a world with designer babies? As designer babies grow up, they could be noticeably different from other people, potentially being smarter, more attractive and healthier. This could breed resentment between the groups—as it does in the series.</p><p>"[Designer babies] slowly find that 'everyone else,' and even their own parents, becomes less and less tolerable," author Eugene Clark told Big Think. "Meanwhile, everyone else slowly feels threatened by the designer babies."</p><p>For example, one character in the series who was born a designer baby faces discrimination and harassment from "normal people"—they call her "soulless" and say she was "made in a factory," a "consumer product." </p><p>Would such divisions emerge in the real world? The answer may depend on who's able to afford designer baby services. If it's only the ultra-wealthy, then it's easy to imagine how being a designer baby could be seen by society as a kind of hyper-privilege, which designer babies would have to reckon with. </p><p>Even if people from all socioeconomic backgrounds can someday afford designer babies, people born designer babies may struggle with tough existential questions: Can they ever take full credit for things they achieve, or were they born with an unfair advantage? To what extent should they spend their lives helping the less fortunate? </p>Sexuality dilemmas
<p>Sexuality presents another set of thorny questions. If a designer baby industry someday allows people to optimize humans for attractiveness, designer babies could grow up to find themselves surrounded by ultra-attractive people. That may not sound like a big problem.</p><p>But consider that, if designer babies someday become the standard way to have children, there'd necessarily be a years-long gap in which only some people are having designer babies. Meanwhile, the rest of society would be having children the old-fashioned way. So, in terms of attractiveness, society could see increasingly apparent disparities in physical appearances between the two groups. "Normal people" could begin to seem increasingly ugly.</p><p>But ultra-attractive people who were born designer babies could face problems, too. One could be the loss of body image. </p><p>When designer babies grow up in the "Genetic Pressure" series, men look like all the other men, and women look like all the other women. This homogeneity of physical appearance occurs because parents of designer babies start following trends, all choosing similar traits for their children: tall, athletic build, olive skin, etc. </p><p>Sure, facial traits remain relatively unique, but everyone's more or less equally attractive. And this causes strange changes to sexual preferences.</p><p>"In a society of sexual equals, they start looking for other differentiators," he said, noting that violet-colored eyes become a rare trait that genetically engineered humans find especially attractive in the series.</p><p>But what about sexual relationships between genetically engineered humans and "normal" people? In the "Genetic Pressure" series, many "normal" people want to have kids with (or at least have sex with) genetically engineered humans. But a minority of engineered humans oppose breeding with "normal" people, and this leads to an ideology that considers engineered humans to be racially supreme. </p>Regulating designer babies
<p>On a policy level, there are many open questions about how governments might legislate a world with designer babies. But it's not totally new territory, considering the West's dark history of eugenics experiments.</p><p>In the 20th century, the U.S. conducted multiple eugenics programs, including immigration restrictions based on genetic inferiority and forced sterilizations. In 1927, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that forcibly sterilizing the mentally handicapped didn't violate the Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote, "… three generations of imbeciles are enough." </p><p>After the Holocaust, eugenics programs became increasingly taboo and regulated in the U.S. (though some states continued forced sterilizations <a href="https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/" target="_blank">into the 1970s</a>). In recent years, some policymakers and scientists have expressed concerns about how gene-editing technologies could reanimate the eugenics nightmares of the 20th century. </p><p>Currently, the U.S. doesn't explicitly ban human germline genetic editing on the federal level, but a combination of laws effectively render it <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa006/5841599#204481018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">illegal to implant a genetically modified embryo</a>. Part of the reason is that scientists still aren't sure of the unintended consequences of new gene-editing technologies. </p><p>But there are also concerns that these technologies could usher in a new era of eugenics. After all, the function of a designer baby industry, like the one in the "Genetic Pressure" series, wouldn't necessarily be limited to eliminating genetic diseases; it could also work to increase the occurrence of "desirable" traits. </p><p>If the industry did that, it'd effectively signal that the <em>opposites of those traits are undesirable. </em>As the International Bioethics Committee <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa006/5841599#204481018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrote</a>, this would "jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings and renew eugenics, disguised as the fulfillment of the wish for a better, improved life."</p><p><em>"Genetic Pressure Volume I: Baby Steps"</em><em> by Eugene Clark is <a href="http://bigth.ink/38VhJn3" target="_blank">available now.</a></em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Study calls out the genes that make cancer cells so hard to kill
Researchers from the University of Toronto published a new map of cancer cells' genetic defenses against treatment.
24 September, 2020
Credit: CI Photos/Shutterstock
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p class=""><br></p>
<p>There's a great diversity among cancer cells, though many of them share one unfortunate trait: They're often quite adept at resisting the body's immune system. The immune system's T killer cells can theoretically take out cancer cells, and immunotherapies enhance existing T cells' potency. Still, cancer cells are often impervious to them, can mutate to evade them, and worst of all, can acquire "cancer resistance mutations" that cause the disease to worsen in response to T cells. This is especially true of the cells in solid tumors.</p><p>A study from researchers at University of Toronto catalogs the genes in cancer tumors that allow the disease to so effectively resist immunotherapy. Its authors hope that their findings will eventually lead to the development of more successful cancer treatments.</p><p>The study is published in the journal <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2746-2" target="_blank">Nature</a>.</p>
A moving target
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQzNjQ2Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MDM3OTA0N30.z4u2eaulqRu8cslqqny8t9G7iaHr_DarbDJSFKLdDwI/img.jpg?width=980" id="21b22" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="aefbbccdf3bb0d25bf14268ab87a821f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="IV drip" data-width="1440" data-height="960" />Credit: Marcelo Leal/Unsplash
<p>Speaking to <a href="https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-researchers-identify-genes-enable-cancer-evade-immune-system" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U of T News</a>, lead author of the study molecular geneticist <a href="http://www.moleculargenetics.utoronto.ca/faculty/2014/9/30/jason-moffat" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jason Moffat</a> of the university's <a href="https://ccbr.utoronto.ca/donnelly-centre-cellular-and-biomolecular-research" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research</a> says, "Over the last decade, different forms of immunotherapy have emerged as really potent cancer treatments, but the reality is that they only generate durable responses in a fraction of patients and not for all tumor types."</p><p>There can be a significant degree of heterogeneity between cancer cells from human to human, and even within the same person, making the development of therapies maddeningly difficult. Attempting to address potential cancer-cell vulnerabilities across these variations is a life-or-death game of whack-a-mole.</p><p>"It's an ongoing battle between the immune system and cancer, where the immune system is trying to find and kill the cancer whereas the cancer's job is to evade that killing," says Moffat.</p>Mapping the mechanisms
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQzNjQ3Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMjQ1OTM0MX0.HNtivrlU9VBYxcG9JaWKvPJ5RrBsgqd8Fw6ohfSpfh0/img.jpg?width=980" id="0faa6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7687cdc5abe93503764c1c0401b65fd4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1440" data-height="810" />Illustration: genes (red, green, and blue spots within the nuclei of HeLa cells) artificially superimposed on images of multi-well plates.
Credit: National Cancer Institute/Unsplash
<p>Moffat and his colleagues decided to investigate and identify genes within cancer cells that help them defeat treatment. Co-lead author Keith Lawson of Moffat's lab explains that "it's important to not just find genes that can regulate immune evasion in one model of cancer, but what you really want are to find those genes that you can manipulate in cancer cells across many models because those are going to make the best therapeutic targets."</p><p>To accomplish this, the researchers, working with scientists at <a href="https://www.agios.com" target="_blank">Agios Pharmaceuticals</a> in Cambridge, Massachusetts, first exposed cells from breast, colon, kidney and skin cancer tumors to T cells in lab dishes. This established a baseline of their responses to treatment. Next, using CRISPR, the scientists went through the cells, exhaustively turning off one gene at a time to determine its role in immunotherapy resistance by comparing the cells' response to the T cells compared to their original baseline response.</p><p>The team identified 182 "core cancer intrinsic immune evasion genes" that affected the cells' response to T cells. The fact that some of the identified genes were already known to be involved in resistance provided the researchers with some confidence that they were on the right track.</p><p>Still, many of the genes they ID'ed had not been previously implicated. "That was really exciting to see because it means that our dataset was very rich in new biological information," says Lawson.</p>It's complicated
<p>Unfortunately, Moffat's research also makes clear that defeating cancer-cell resistance is not as simple as removing certain genes. It's true that when the team switched off some of the genes they'd identified, the cancer cells became more vulnerable to T cells, but on the other hand, removal of some other genes made the cancer cells more resistant.</p><p>There also appear to be relationships between multiple genes that complicate matters. </p><p>The team explored the manipulation of the genes that allow cancer cells to engage in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autophagy" target="_blank">autophagy</a>, the process by which cells clear out no-longer useful materials to facilitate speedy recovery from damage. Surprisingly, when the researchers deleted certain genes responsible for cancer cells' autophagy, they found the cells' resistance to T cells increased. Apparently, removing one autophagy gene strengthened another mutated autophagy gene.</p><p>"We found this complete inversion of gene dependency," said Moffat. "We did not anticipate this at all. What it shows us is that genetic context — what mutations are present — very much dictates whether the introduction of the second mutation will cause no effect, resistance or sensitivity to therapy."</p><p>There remains a long road ahead when it comes to unraveling cancer cells' resistance to immunotherapy. However, this new study presents a new map that can help scientists navigate what comes next.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
How gene editing a person’s brain cells could be used to curb the opioid epidemic
Is CRISPR the solution?
08 August, 2020
John Moore/Getty Images
Even as the COVID-19 pandemic cripples the economy and kills hundreds of people each day, there is another epidemic that continues to kill tens of thousands of people each year through opioid drug overdose.
<p>Opioid analgesic drugs, like morphine and oxycodone, are the classic double-edged swords. They are the very best drugs to stop severe pain but also the class of drugs most likely to kill the person taking them.
In a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.24636">recent journal article</a>, I outlined how a combination of state-of-the-art molecular techniques, such as CRISPR gene editing and brain microinjection methods, could be used to blunt one edge of the sword and make opioid drugs safer.</p><p>I am a pharmacologist interested in the way opioid drugs such as morphine and fentanyl can blunt pain. I became fascinated in biology at the time when endorphins – natural opioids made by our bodies – were discovered. I have been intrigued by the way opioid drugs work and their targets in the brain, the opioid receptors, for the last 30 years. In my paper, I propose a way to prevent opioid overdoses by modifying an opioid user's brain cells using advanced technology.</p>
<h2>Opioid receptors stop breathing</h2><p>Opioids kill by stopping a person from breathing (respiratory depression). They do so by acting on a specific set of respiratory nerves, or neurons, found in the lower part of the brain that contain opioid receptors. Opioid receptors are proteins that bind morphine, heroin and other opioid drugs. The binding of an opioid to its receptor triggers a reaction in neurons that reduces their activity. Opioid receptors on pain neurons mediate the pain-killing, or analgesic, effects of opioids. When opioids bind to opioid receptors on respiratory neurons, they slow breathing or, in the case of an opioid overdose, stop it entirely.</p><p>Respiratory neurons are located in the brainstem, the tail-end part of the brain that continues into the spine as the spinal cord. Animal studies show that opioid receptors on respiratory neurons are responsible for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1113/JP270822" target="_blank">opioid-induced respiratory depression</a> – the cause of opioid overdose. Genetically altered mice born without opioid receptors <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-328x(97)00353-7" target="_blank">do not die from large doses of morphine</a> unlike mice with these receptors present.</p><p>Unlike laboratory mice, humans cannot be altered when embryos to remove all opioid receptors from the brain and elsewhere. Nor would it be a good idea. Humans need opioid receptors to serve as the targets for our natural opioid substances, the endorphins, which are released into the brain during times of high stress and pain.</p><p>Also, a total opioid receptor knockout in humans would leave that person unresponsive to the beneficial pain-killing effects of opioids. In my journal article, I argue that what is needed is a selective receptor removal of the opioid receptors on respiratory neurons. Having reviewed the available technology, I believe this can be done by combining CRISPR gene editing and a new neurosurgical microinjection technique.</p>
<h2>CRISPR to the rescue: Destroying opioid receptors</h2><p>CRISPR, which is an acronym for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, is a gene editing method that was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225829" target="_blank">discovered in the genome of bacteria</a>. Bacteria get infected by viruses too and CRISPR is a strategy that bacteria evolved to cut-up the viral genes and kill invading pathogens.</p><p>The CRISPR method allows researchers to target specific genes expressed in cell lines, tissues, or whole organisms, to be cut-up and removed – knocked out – or otherwise altered. There is a commercially available <a href="https://www.freethink.com/shows/biohackers/crispr-kit" target="_blank">CRISPR kit</a> which knocks out human opioid receptors produced in cells that are grown in cell cultures in the lab. While this CRISPR kit is formulated for in vitro use, similar conditional opioid receptor knock-out techniques <a href="https://doi.org/10.1113/JP278612" target="_blank">have been demonstrated in live mice</a>.</p><p>To knockout opioid receptors in human respiratory neurons, a sterile solution containing CRISPR gene-editing molecules would be prepared in the laboratory. Besides the gene-editing components, the solution contains chemical reagents that allow the gene-editing machinery to enter the respiratory neurons and make their way into the nucleus and into the neuron's genome.</p><p>How does one get the CRISPR opioid receptor knockout solution into a person's respiratory neurons?</p><p>Enter the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.04.081" target="_blank">intracranial microinjection instrument</a> (IMI) developed by <a href="https://www.mcleanhospital.org/profile/miles-cunningham" target="_blank">Miles Cunningham</a> and his colleagues at Harvard. The IMI allows for computer-controlled delivery of small volumes of solution at specific places in the brain by using an extremely thin tube – about twice the diameter of a human hair – that can enter the brain at the base of the skull and thread through brain tissue without damage.</p><p>The computer can direct the robotic placement of the tube as it is fed images of the brain taken before the procedure using MRI. But even better, the IMI also has a recording wire embedded in the tube that allows measurement of neuronal activity to identify the right group of nerve cells.</p><p>Because the brain itself feels no pain, the procedure could be done in a conscious patient using only local anesthetics to numb the skin. Respiratory neurons drive the breathing muscles by firing action potentials which are measured by the recording wire in the tube. When the activity of the respiratory neurons matches the breathing movements by the patients, the proper location of the tube is confirmed and the CRISPR solution injected.</p>
<h2>The call for drastic action</h2><p>Opioid receptors on neurons in the brain have a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.13901" target="_blank">half-life of about 45 minutes</a>. Over a period of several hours, the opioid receptors on respiratory neurons would degrade and the CRISPR gene-editing machinery embedded in the genome would prevent new opioid receptors from appearing. If this works, the patient would be protected from opioid overdose within 24 hours. Because the respiratory neurons do not replenish, the CRISPR opioid receptor knockout should last for life.</p><p>With no opioid receptors on respiratory neurons, the opioid user cannot die from opioid overdose. After proper backing from National Institute on Drug Abuse and leading research and health care institutions, I believe CRISPR treatment could enter clinical trials in between five to 10 years. The total cost of opioid-involved <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/The%20Underestimated%20Cost%20of%20the%20Opioid%20Crisis.pdf" target="_blank">overdose deaths is about US$430 billion per year</a>. CRISPR treatment of only 10% of high-risk opioid users in one year would save thousands of lives and $43 billion.</p><p>Intracranial microinjection of CRISPR solutions might seem drastic. But drastic actions that are needed to save human lives from opioid overdoses. A large segment of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.10046" target="_blank">opioid overdose victims are chronic pain patients</a>. It may be possible that chronic pain patients in a terminal phase of their lives and in hospice care would volunteer in phase I clinical trials for the CRISPR opioid receptor knockout treatment I propose here.</p><p>Making the opioid user impervious to death by opioids is a permanent solution to a horrendous problem that has resisted efforts by prevention, treatment and pharmacological means. Steady and well-funded work to prove the CRISPR method, first with preclinical animal models then in clinical trials, is a moonshot for the present generation of biomedical scientists.</p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/craig-w-stevens-1138523" target="_blank">Craig W. Stevens</a>, Professor of Pharmacology, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/oklahoma-state-university-2062" target="_blank">Oklahoma State University</a></em></p><p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com/" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-gene-editing-a-persons-brain-cells-could-be-used-to-curb-the-opioid-epidemic-143165" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
4 key questions to challenge your views on genetic engineering
New research shows how Americans feel about genetic engineering, human enhancement and automation.
23 February, 2020
Adobe stock.
- A review of Pew Research studies reveals the views of Americans on the role of science in society.
- 4 key questions were asked to gauge feelings on genetic engineering, automation and human enhancement.
- Americans are split in how they view technology and many worry about its growing role.
<p><br></p></div>
<p>The Pew Research Center published a fascinating roundup of studies that revealed the opinions of the U.S. public on a number of key science-related issues. The researchers wanted to find out what people thought overall about the role of science and scientists in society, but also to see more specifically how far modern humans are willing to go with genetic engineering and automation. </p><p>The <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/12/key-findings-about-americans-confidence-in-science-and-their-views-on-scientists-role-in-society/" target="_blank">responses show</a> that people are generally not as worried as you'd think about messing with human genetics but when it comes to implanting technology to enhance bodies, doubts proliferate. A strong uneasiness also pervades responses dealing with robots in workplaces. </p><p>Before you know the details of what others thought, however, you have a chance to take the quiz yourself to test your own points of view on these matters.</p>
<p>These first two questions relate to your stance on <strong>genetic engineering. </strong>With the advent of CRISPR gene editing techniques, it now seems possible to edit out mutations and create babies without disease. Wouldn't you want to do it? Or do you see the potential for horrendous accidents, genetic deformities, creation of second-class citizens and forever changing what it means to be human?</p><p><em>1. Changing a baby's genetic characteristics to reduce the risk of a serious illness that could occur over their lifetime is:</em></p><p>- An appropriate use of medical technology </p><p>- Taking medical technology too far</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="49dbf04bfbffc1e18231f69fc529de15"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6tw_JVz_IEc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>Another key question concerns growing human organs in other animals. Obviously, we have used animals for testing to develop new treatments already amid changing public attitudes about the cruelty involved, so how ethical is it to use animals simply as incubators of spare body parts?</p><p><em>2. Genetic engineering of animals to grow organs / tissues for humans needing a transplant is:</em></p><p>- An appropriate use of medical technology </p><p>- Taking medical technology too far</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="776f6763c8d018c894df1ccf474eef4c"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yh6rTKNwBJY?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>This next question pertains to <strong>human enhancement. </strong>How comfortable would you be outfitting yourself with digital chips or other prosthetics and modifications? Famously, Elon Musk is spearheading the development of Neuralink technology that would allow human brains to control machines. In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vbh3t7WVI&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">2019 presentation</a>, he described the possibility that such devices would be made to work by first making holes in people's skulls with lasers, followed by feeding flexible electrode threads into the brain. He previously <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smK9dgdTl40&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">promised</a> that such devices would not only give people additional abilities but can also cure brain illnesses like schizophrenia. Recently, <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1224195776131272704" target="_blank">he tweeted</a> an "awesome" update to the tech is coming, sharing also that it might be implanted in humans as early as this year.</p><p>Would you put one of these things on? See how you would answer this:</p><p><em>3. I am ____________________ about the possibility of a brain chip implant for a much improved ability to concentrate and process information.</em></p><p>- Very/somewhat worried</p><p>- Not too / not at all worried</p>
Watch Elon Musk’s presentation on Neuralink here:
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a646a0b439db89b498836659049faf35"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lA77zsJ31nA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p><span style="background-color: initial;">And now for your thoughts on <strong>automation</strong>. Numerous studies have found that not only is automation coming faster than you think, it's bound to replace <a href="https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/heres-when-machines-will-take-your-job-predict-ai-gurus" target="_self">the vast majority</a> of human occupations in the next 10-30 years. And it sounds like there's still time left, a <a href="https://go.forrester.com/blogs/predictions-2020-automation/" target="_blank">2020 study</a> by the research company Forrester shows that job loss due to automation is already very much here. They predict that more than <strong>1 million</strong> "</span><span style="background-color: initial;">knowledge-work jobs" will be taken over in 2020 by software robotics, virtual agents, chatbots and decisions based on machine-learning. On the other hand, the firm estimates</span> that <strong>331,500 </strong>net jobs will be added this year to the American workforce alone that are <strong>"human-touch jobs"</strong> utilizing such human qualities as intuition, empathy, and both physical and mental agility. So there's hope humans can adapt and find new things to do once technology takes over.</p><p>Here's your chance to answer for yourself: </p><p><em>4. The automation of jobs through new technology in the workplace has ___________ American workers.</em></p><p>- Mostly helped </p><p>- Mostly hurt</p><p>- Neither helped nor hurt.</p><p>If you're interested what the participants in the Pew Research polls thought, here is the breakdown:</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc4NDg4My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NjgwNjQxN30.vIChbmZRAm9ILsI5m6elRXiiST6YjzMbH4BYKqKHkgg/img.png?width=980" id="08e31" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f38d572619db1c08a0742e39d3870600" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="310" data-height="628" />
<p>The Pew Research Center, which carried out the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/12/key-findings-about-americans-confidence-in-science-and-their-views-on-scientists-role-in-society/" target="_blank">study</a>, pinpointed a specific theme in the findings, citing "the loss of human control, especially if such developments would be at odds with personal, religious and ethical values" as the key source of hesitancy when people think about future technologies. Proposals that give people more control over tech met with more positive response. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
Chinese scientist gets jail for rogue gene editing
A punishment is handed down for performing shocking research on human embryos.
31 December, 2019
Image source: vchal/arek_malang/Shutterstock/Big Think
- In November 2018, a Chinese scientist claimed he'd flouted ethics and the law to edit genes in human embryos.
- Other Chinese scientists call He Jiankui's research "crazy."
- Three gene-modified babies are now living in China, future uncertain.
<p>The scientific community has been proceeding with caution as it explores the potential of gene editing. The high risk of unintended consequences, both immediate and long-term, has prompted reticence regarding experimentation with humans. And then there's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui" target="_blank">He Jiankui</a>, who <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist" target="_blank">announced in 2018</a> that he'd genetically modified two human embryos, twin sisters, "Lulu" and "Nana," born in October of that year. Last week, a Chinese court sentenced He to three years in jail and a fine of three million Chinese yuan, about $430,000, for engaging in "illegal medical practices." The court also confirmed rumors that He had modified the genome of a <a href="https://futurism.com/neoscope/china-confirms-birth-third-gene-edited-baby" target="_blank">third child</a>, likely born in June or July 2019.</p>
He's experiments
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjI2NTE1Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNjE0MDI2Mn0.pD6za00yORg0ZH6nk0RJLh3SBOzed7uc1oh9yZDe3tc/img.jpg?width=980" id="98186" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5a306efb5afbd1a936315f28134a8417" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />He tells the world
Image source: Anthony Wallace/Getty
<p>When He first announced his research in November 2018 at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong, the scientific community was stunned at this deliberate flaunting of scientific consensus and Chinese law. A <a href="https://www.yicai.com/news/100067069.html" target="_blank">statement</a> from 122 Chinese scientists referred to He's work as "crazy" and called it "a huge blow to the global reputation and development of Chinese science."</p><p>He, an associate professor at Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, claimed to have used CRISPR-cas9 in an attempt to provide embryos with immunity to HIV. The DNA in 16 embryos was altered, and 11 of these were used in six implant attempts that eventually led to the successful pregnancy of three infants. </p><p>After the announcement, Julian Savulescu of University of Oxford told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist" target="_blank"><em>The Guardian</em></a>, "If true, this experiment is monstrous," adding that, "There are many effective ways to prevent HIV in healthy individuals: for example, protected sex. And there are effective treatments if one does contract it. This experiment exposes healthy normal children to risks of gene editing for no real necessary benefit." While there <em>are</em> <a href="https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-around-world/asia-pacific/china" target="_blank">HIV infections in China</a>, there was no indication that the embryos had been infected.</p><p>In his announcement, He claimed to have inserted a mutated form of the CCR5 gene into the embryos' genome, a particular mutation that makes a small number of people immune to HIV. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist" target="_blank">According to</a> Kiran Musunuru of University of Pennsylvania, though, the mutation has a nasty downside: People who have it are at higher risk of contracting other, non-HIV viruses, and of dying of the flu. So, while potentially shielding his subjects from HIV, He was, in essence, consigning them to a lifetime of enhanced vulnerability to all sorts of more common infections.</p><p>It's likely, however, that He never actually produced or inserted the CCR5 mutation in any event. Excerpts of He's documentation published in <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614764/chinas-crispr-babies-read-exclusive-excerpts-he-jiankui-paper/" target="_blank"><em>MIT Technology Review</em></a> suggest that what He created were some new kinds of CCR5 mutations, as well as unintended gene mutations elsewhere in the genome, and the effect of all of these edits are anyone's guess. After reviewing the excerpts, University of California, Berkeley's Fyodor Urnov <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist" target="_blank">concluded</a> He's claim was "a deliberate falsehood."</p>What the court said
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjI2NTU5NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzkyOTExM30.W-iOUnHs0lXu59_5Wqq6ACnLouuscxg4dr-ySfS1pjg/img.jpg?width=980" id="03f5e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0ce199d4f8ebb8abea1a6b9b2341146e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />He Jiankui and his genetic research team
Image source: VCG/Getty
<p>Two of He's colleagues involved in the research were also convicted by the Shenzhen court. According to Chinese news outlet <em>Xinhua</em>, the court found:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>"The three accused did not have the proper certification to practice medicine, and in seeking fame and wealth, deliberately violated national regulations in scientific research and medical treatment. They've crossed the bottom line of ethics in scientific research and medical ethics."</em></p><p>The court also ruled that He had forged documents from an ethics review panel.</p><p>The other two researchers found guilty were Zhang Renli, who was sentenced to two years in prison and fined one million yuan (about $143,000), and Qin Jinzhou, whose 18-month sentence came with a two-year reprieve, and a 500,000 yuan ($71,000) fine.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
