Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihu1e.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin From: nowlin@ihu1e.UUCP (Jerry Nowlin) Newsgroups: net.misc,net.med,net.religion,net.research,net.philosophy Subject: Is genetic research too far? Message-ID: <284@ihu1e.UUCP> Date: Sun, 22-Jul-84 22:11:08 EDT Article-I.D.: ihu1e.284 Posted: Sun Jul 22 22:11:08 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jul-84 02:23:08 EDT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 72 There have been a few articles scattered around the net lately referring to certain groups or individuals who aren't able to cope with their surroundings and are consequently disappearing. It's not clear whether they actually "die out" or in the process of adapting to their changing environment, they're no longer recognizable as the original. I wish I'd saved some of the articles. They brought to mind an old question I pondered back in school. In an advanced ecology course we were given a wide range of topics to pick from for our term papers. One of them was natural selection. My thesis was "Is the human species, through the intelligence that gives it a competitive edge over other species, slowly defeating the process of natural selection with modern medicine?". On the average, humans are bigger, stronger, healthier, and live longer than ever before. But if you define natural selection as a process that's supposed to weed out the negative traits in a species, humans are fighting it on many fronts. Only in man, and the species he's chosen to domesticate, are genetic traits that would normally be fatal, allowed to survive and be propagated. There are many examples of genetic "diseases" that can't be cured, only controlled. The afflicted individuals are allowed to breed and pass the condition on to the next generation. How long would a fish or a rabbit survive if it had hemophilia? How many offspring would a hawk live to produce if it was born with severe astigmatism? Before I start to get tons of hate mail let me finish. I don't advocate stopping medical care for the victims of genetic defects. It's real easy to sit here at my terminal and spout purist principles about science spoiling natures plan. If it was up to me to withhold insulin from someone who would otherwise pass diabetes on to most of their children I couldn't do it. My mother wears glasses, I wear glasses, and my 9 year old daughter wears glasses. I don't intend to sterilize my daughter to avoid grandchildren that wear glasses. What do we do when the science of genetic engineering gets to the stage where we can detect defects and correct them? Not just for an individual embryo, but so that the person it will become no longer has the defective genes to pass on to it's progeny. Can we morally withhold this form of treatment, any more than we would now make a child forgo an operation to correct a genetic heart defect because they were born with it and that would be tampering with nature? Humans evolved with a unique ability to reason. That one trait that sets us apart from other species should be used to it's full extent. If it means we can work with nature to allow our species to reach it's full potential without waiting for natural selection to do the work for us then lets go for it. I don't want to create a race of super humans. I just want to clear up some of the nagging little problems that are holding us back. I've never understood how Hindus could allow their children to starve while sacred cows wandered around the countryside. Are we going to ignore the potential before us while our children continue to suffer from genetic defects? The technology isn't there yet. It needs to be watched and controlled. But if we restrict genetic research, when the potential is so great, it's a terrible waste. How far is too far to go when we bend nature to our purposes? Sorry if I sort of rambled. I'm really interested in what other people think about the whole range of ideas I meandered through. The fact that opponents of genetic research were recently able to get a federal judge to issue an injunction barring two Berkeley scientists from proceeding with experiments that had already been approved by the recombinant DNA advisory committee of the National Institutes of Health makes this an issue that's immediate as well as important. If you aren't comfortable posting, feel free to mail me your thoughts. I'm open to a suggestion of which newsgroup is the most appropriate to carry on this discussion. Jerry Nowlin ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin