Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, March 30, 1992 TAG: 9203300189
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: NINA HAHN
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
At first, the idea of a gene that codes for musical ability sounded pretty far-fetched. Then I remembered some of the other genes that have been identified (didn't I hear something on the news about a "grammar gene"?) and thought, well, why not an ear for music? This got me thinking: Is the human race ready for this responsibility, this choice, that this rapidly developing technology potentially will give us?
Imagine 25, 50, 100 years from now. The majority of the human (and other animal) genes have been identified. That is sure to happen.
The next leap of the imagination is made, and the manipulation of these genes out of and into human cells is made accessible.
One type of gene manipulation, termed "gene therapy," is already in limited use. A few children with an invariably fatal disease called ADA deficiency - popularly known as "the-boy-in-the-bubble-disease" - are being successfully treated by removing a sample of their blood, growing some of the genetically deficient cells in culture, inserting the piece of missing DNA into those cells, then and injecting the cells back into the child to carry out their normal function.
The same technology may also be applied to fetuses that have genetic defects. Potentially, diseases such as cystic fibrosis could be genetically repaired prior to the birth of the child.
I find no ethical dilemma with testing a fetus in utero for the gene that codes for a lethal disease such as cystic fibrosis, and then treating the fetus so the child would be born free of it.
But what about all the other genes that code for everyday things such as eye color? What if, unlikely as it seems, there is one gene that codes for, say, musical or athletic ability?
Using technology similar to that to treat boy-in-the-bubble disease, it should be easy to manipulate any gene that can be identified. What if we were given the choice of genes to insert into or delete from our unborn children, electively as opposed to therapeutically?
I can imagine a day when birth control, being completely safe, effective and accessible, will have to be actively stopped in order for a woman to become pregnant. She then visits her obstetrician, who gives her a checklist:
Which of the following do you want for your child (check one for each category)?
Sex - male, female.
Eye color - blue, brown, hazel, green.
Hair color (pick one, or two for shades) - blond, brown, black, red.
Talent (pick two) - music, drawing, language, mathematics.
Sports - football, baseball, tennis, hockey, pingpong.
Height - tall, medium, short.
Personality - introverted, extroverted.
Several weeks after conception, the woman returns to her obstetrician and is given an injection into her uterus; these genetically controlled characteristics are now incorporated into her fetus' DNA.
I doubt this would be used to any great extent if it were invasive - that is, if eggs had to be surgically removed or tissue taken from growing embryos.
Also, if pregnancies are not planned, this sort of scenario will not be possible because, at the time the pregnancy is detected, the development of the fetus would probably be too advanced for gene manipulation.
But if this technology becomes so advanced as to make this sort of procedure reliable, safe and easy, will people choose it?
If elective gene manipulation became widely accepted and utilized, what would be the effect? Would we end up with a population of next-to-perfect people? Will we be able to genetically encode peace on Earth?
It sounds absurd, but I think at least some of this technology is not far off, and may be available in our lifetimes. Are there ethics committees somewhere addressing these questions? Should there be? What genes will we allow to be tampered with? Who will decide which ones they are? There is, right now, a lot of moeny and effort being put into research on the human genome. The potential information to be learned is exciting and revolutionary.
The Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, which reviews research proposals submitted to the National Institutes of Health, currently does not approve research that involves "germ-line" gene therapy: that is, research involving the genes that will be passed into the next generation. This is to avoid unforeseen consequences of passing the genetically engineered DNA to offspring, and it is sound policy.
But what if it is possible to alter the somatic cells (all the non-germ-line cells) without altering the germ line? Are we ready for the choices that this may offer us?
I'm not sure that I am.
Nina Hahn is a Blacksburg veterinarian and a biomedical-ethics student at Virginia Tech.
by CNB