ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Guest Blog

Guest Blog


Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American
Guest Blog HomeAboutContact

Warning: Genetically Modified Humans


Email   PrintPrint



ANATOLIA, 9,000BC – The rising sun advanced over the hills, engulfing the arid land in a blaze of warmth. Below the amber sky lay a patchwork of wheat fields, in which a scattering of stooped figures silently harvested their crops.

Later, their harvest would be scrutinised, and only the largest grains selected for planting in the autumn.

A revolution was occurring. For the first time in 3.6 billion years, life had subverted the evolutionary process and began to steer it not with natural selection, but artificial selection. Selection pressures became synonymous with the needs of the architects; the farmers. The technique led to a widespread transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture, a shift that would transform human culture and lay the foundations for the first civilisations. Moreover, in their efforts to permanently remodel the characteristics of a species, early farmers were pioneers of genetic modification.

The modification of plants would later be followed by the domestication of animals, and perhaps eventually, human beings.

From the promotion of eugenics to justify genocide in Nazi Germany, to the mass-produced and homogenous population of Aldous Huxley’s dystopian future in the novel ‘Brave New World’, to ‘Frankenfood’, genetic engineering has amassed a reputation as a treacherous pursuit. However, a recent development appears to have slipped under the public radar: human pre-natal diagnosis. Screening foetal genomes to eliminate genetic ‘defects’ may lead to incremental changes in the human genetic reservoir, a permanent shift in our characteristics and eventually, self-domestication.

The technique involves testing for diseases in a human embryo or foetus, and may be performed to determine if it will be aborted, or in high-risk pregnancies, to enable the provision of immediate medical treatment on delivery. Until recently, pre-natal screening required invasive procedures such as amniocentesis, in which the fluid from the sac surrounding the foetus, the amnion, is sampled and the DNA examined for genetic abnormalities. The procedure can only be performed after the 15th week of pregnancy, and carries a 1% risk of miscarriage and the possibility of complications. In the light of such limitations and risks, the technique hasn’t gained widespread popularity.

However, a research group based at the University of Washington in Seattle has developed an alternative. Their simple test can be performed weeks earlier than current pre-natal screening, and crucially, requires only a maternal blood sample and DNA from both parents. The technique exploits the fragments of foetal DNA in the mother’s blood plasma, which can be strung together by sequencing each nucleotide many times, and then differentiated from maternal and paternal DNA by statistical comparison. It’s quick, harmless, and may soon become widely available. Therein lies the problem. Such a tool is a powerful new route gleaning information about unborn offspring. The object of the exercise: to identify foetuses with the earmarks of genetic disease as candidates for abortion.

Inevitably, the technique is vulnerable to abuse and will empower parents to discriminate the characteristics of their progeny pre-emptively, in a step towards ‘designer babies’. Nevertheless, there is a more immediate concern. Screening for inheritable disorders requires knowledge of their genetic basis, which can be dangerously precarious. Some conditions, such as Down’s syndrome; characterised by the presence of an extra chromosome, are glaringly obvious. Others have more subtle and complex genetic origins. Just as the invention of vaccines to prevent infectious diseases was followed by attempts at total eradication, our efforts to eliminate genetic characteristics may have permanent consequences.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has already been singled out as a potential target for the screening technology. The disorder, which is characterised by difficulties in communication and social interaction, and repetitive or stereotyped behaviours and interests, has a strong but elusive genetic basis. Intriguingly, there has been much speculation that the genes involved in the development of ASD may be linked to mathematical and scientific ability.

The theory has roots in the overlap between certain useful aptitudes in technical professions, and behaviour typical of ASD. An obsessive attention to detail, the ability to understand predictable rule- based systems, ‘systemising’, and a narrow range of interests, are traits characteristic of both groups. Professor Baron Cohen of the University of Cambridge is a strong proponent of the idea, and has suggested that scientist couples are more likely to have children with the disorder. It’s a compelling idea with intuitive plausibility, but the evidence isn’t there (yet). Until we know better, perhaps restraint is needed in eliminating these potentially important genes from our gene pool. There has been speculation that Einstein and Newton were ‘on the spectrum’- what if we inadvertently ‘cured’ the future world of similar talent?

Will our descendants be less than human? Another candidate for remedy with reproductive technology is schizophrenia. The disorder affects cognition, and can lead to chronic problems with emotional responsiveness. The 1% prevalence of schizophrenia makes it an apt target for prevention. However, the globally consistent and high incidence of this disease may be an indicator of its association with advantageous genetic characteristics. The ‘social brain hypothesis’, the main theory to explain the evolution of schizophrenia, suggests that the human brain evolved to select for genes associated with schizophrenia in a trade for higher order cognitive traits. These include language and the ability to interpret the thoughts and emotions of others. Schizophrenia is the cost that humans pay for being able to communicate, and as such, the genes responsible may be an essential component of the human gene pool. As with ASD, the elimination of the disease may have unintended consequences, and permanently alter the social dynamics within our species.

This mechanism, termed a ‘heterozygote advantage’, can arise from the benefits of carrying different forms of a gene, as opposed to two of the same variant, or ‘alleles’. The phenomenon has been proposed for a wide variety of genetic diseases; however usefulness is often dependent on environmental context. Because human lifestyles have diversified to such an extent from those of our ancestors, certain advantages may be outdated. The malaria protection conferred by carrying a single sickle-cell gene is hardly worth the risk of debilitating anaemia if you end up with two- especially in a modern world where anti-malarial medication is widely available. The systematic eradication of this disorder, and many others, will be a welcome and significant medical advancement. But caution is needed.

Following a recent project to build a comprehensive map of the functional elements in the human genome, ENCODE, a function was assigned to 80% of our DNA sequence. However, our genomes are still poorly understood. Many sequences are multi-functional, and knowledge of mechanisms of gene expression is essential to any meaningful model.

We urgently need a regulatory framework for the use of procedures such as pre-natal screening, and to exercise restraint in gene eradication. A detailed assessment and forecast of the long- term consequences is essential before a potentially corrosive procedure become entrenched in modern society. The alternative: we might just end up domesticating ourselves.

DNA image: Altered from original by Sponk on Wikimedia Commons.

Zaria Gorvett About the Author: Zaria Gorvett is a British science graduate and aspiring science writer. She has travelled widely, including work for environmental conservation NGOs in Greece and Tobago. She is currently living in Singapore and working for a small business. She can be followed on Twitter: @zariagorvett and contacted via e-mail: zaria_gorvett@hotmail.co.uk. More articles can be found on her website: http://www.curious-fox.co.uk. Follow on Twitter @zariagorvett.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.






Comments 16 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. StromElder 10:53 am 10/4/2012

    How does this procedure happen? How would they get a sample of the embryonic fluid? What are the complications that could happen? Do you believe it is a right thing to do?

    Link to this
  2. 2. geojellyroll 12:06 pm 10/4/2012

    It’s irrevelent what the West does. China and Indian entrepreneurs will put billions into producing more intelligent, healthier, faster, stronger , good looking offspring.

    Link to this
  3. 3. BillR 12:09 pm 10/4/2012

    Although you urge caution, you seem to be in favor of this type of genetic modification. My concern is that medical science still seems confused about things like diet and cholesterol to the point that they reverse their consensus periodically. Every new medicine seems to to run a high risk that it will eventually result in unexpected side effects that result in death, injury and lawsuits.

    It is so tempting to “play God” with our knowledge. Unfortunately, we really now so little and are not yet able to understand the complex interrelationships of drug interactions, much less the extremely complex issue of genetics. Now we hear that the so called “junk DNA” isn’t junk after all…. Just read the different articles in SA about genetics and you can see that there is no real agreement or certainty about anything. To then play with human genetics with such a cavalier attitude is no less than irresponsible idiocy.

    I think the human race has to learn a whole lot more about how this universe works from the grandest scale to the smallest scale before they start messing with their own genetic code. I can just imagine the crazy scientist saying “opps!” just before the human race transforms itself into sterile burros…

    Link to this
  4. 4. DGoogs 12:42 pm 10/4/2012

    They point to the issue being too much control. The ability to keep trying until you create the genetically perfect designer baby. I say that’s the next step in evolution and the best way to move our species ahead. If our future involves a species of smart, attractive, caring citizens who live long happy lives, it’s really hard to see the negative in that.

    As a person who is pro-choice (with conviction) I see no harm in not only preventing 2 excited and willing parents from spending their lives raising a child with a severe handicap but saving a child from a destiny to live with an horrific disease or die at 19 from cancer.

    High five for not being trapped in 1940 and being open to technology that can make the world a better place.

    Link to this
  5. 5. daisychain 2:06 pm 10/4/2012

    Such direct genetic manipulation is far behind common meta-genetic changes already happening, for example, if the parents smoke the baby’s gene’s will be slightly altered by that. I am observing young people who look very different from the way we looked when I was young, and it’s not just obesity. Legs like tree trunks are not unusual. It’s a blown-up look overall with a bigger body in general. I think this is from the industrial diet of milk, meat, sugar and fats that everyone eats now. It makes the body grow too much. So, yes, we are self-domesticating, willy nilly.

    Link to this
  6. 6. vulvox 3:58 pm 10/4/2012

    I have no objection to weeding out defective embryos.

    Link to this
  7. 7. silentagony 11:27 pm 10/4/2012

    I too have no objection to weeding out the defectives, it would cause many suffering people much less emotional stress. Although I have aspgergers and it is autism spectrum and I do not consider it a disorder which I am hindered by.

    Link to this
  8. 8. Quentin 1:27 pm 10/5/2012

    Really valuable here to look at not just where we go next but where we might end up.Presumably during the lifetime of most of us we will increase our genetic control considerably and use it not just to avoid diseases but to build in desired characteristics like intelligence or height.

    Already we have seen serious gender imbalance in Asia (diagnosis of sex, followed by abortion). That route may well be commoner than disease avoidance because it costs very little.

    Perhaps we should think about what kind of society will emerge. The clock is difficult to turn back.

    Link to this
  9. 9. Quentin 1:33 pm 10/5/2012

    Silent Agony, I know an Asberger’s boy. He is captain of his schools first XV rugby squad, he is adored by his family, he has a smashing girlfriend, and he is aiming to read philosophy at Oxford. It’s not all bad!

    Link to this
  10. 10. eurotimbr 7:20 pm 10/10/2012

    I agree that we should be working on some form of regulation, but in the United States anything to do with restrictions on abortion is politically radioactive. Being pro choice myself, I find it really hard to think about a good way to approach this issue.

    Perhaps some other country that is not as extremely politically divided can blaze a path.

    Selective abortion of female fetuses is already a severe problem in some cultures, perhaps that should be addressed first.

    Link to this
  11. 11. Solipsist 11:56 am 10/13/2012

    “The systematic eradication of this disorder, and many others, will be a welcome and significant medical advancement.”

    And — the author does a complete 180-degree turn. It’s a bad thing, except in THESE case, and for THIS disorder.

    That’s exactly what the people who would do something like this would be thinking, you know. It makes it hard to take the doomsaying from this author seriously.

    Eradication of ANY naturally-selected advantage, no matter how well we THINK we understand it, is a mistake.

    Link to this
  12. 12. steenisaiah 10:55 am 10/16/2012

    How does this produces happen?

    Link to this
  13. 13. AmyMPH 12:08 pm 10/17/2012

    Who gets to choose, and why? http://acroan.com/2012/04/23/birth-rights-gender-selection/

    Link to this
  14. 14. steenisaiah 12:18 pm 10/17/2012

    how do this produces happen? Will our descendants be less than human? What is Autism spectrum disorder.

    Link to this
  15. 15. ABlack 12:27 pm 12/13/2012

    America has always been pro super hero so i’m sure we’ll make it happen just so not to lose the ‘dna’ race.

    Logged in via Twitter.com/buysteroidsuk

    Link to this
  16. 16. K_Handy-Todd 8:37 pm 01/17/2013

    If our bodies can’t recognize the proteins in GMO foods how successful will Genetically Engineered Humans be at reproducing?

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American MIND iPad

Give a Gift & Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now >>

X

Email this Article

X