Era of Genes and Dilemmas
The most profound social question raised by science in the 20th century has been how to wield the power that man acquired upon splitting the atom. Now, as a new century approaches, science is poised to present society with an equally momentous question: how to use man’s growing ability to “split” or genetically alter DNA, the chemical code that guides the development of all life on Earth.
Early in this century atomic power’s huge potential for harm or good was appreciated by only a handful of scientists, among them British physicist Ernest Rutherford, who in 1911 showed the atom to be a sort of mini-solar system harboring immense energy. Like those earlier scientists, biotechnologists today are raising wrenching social questions, questions about genetic power that most policymakers haven’t even begun to ponder. Four instances from this month:
* The insertion of jellyfish genes into monkey embryos was reported by researchers at Oregon Health Sciences University. This is an important step in gene manipulation,perhaps leading eventually to gene-replacement disease cures--or, on a darker path, insertion of desirable traits into human embryos.
* Colorado State University scientists showed they can reliably sort sperm with X chromosomes from those with Y chromosomes, allowing sex selection at the time of artificial insemination. Should couples be free to choose their offspring by gender?
* Biologists at Indiana’s Purdue University reported a four-year study of fish genetically engineered to carry the human growth hormone. They found that the gene increased growth and size in the short term, but somehow the treated fish died young and didn’t reproduce. The research highlights the need for federal officials to spend more time considering the long-term ecological consequences of new biotechnologies.
* J. Craig Venter of the private Institute for Genomic Research published a report in the journal Science documenting major advances in his effort to discover the minimum number of genes necessary to keep the simplest known bacterium alive. Venter’s goal is to make synthetic copies of those genes and then reassemble them to design and construct new species from scratch. Is it ethical to synthesize life?
Answers to these and other issues of the emerging Genetic Age will be a long time in coming. The history of atomic power underscores the importance of finding answers collectively, in open forums involving scientists as well as laypeople, poor countries as well as rich ones. In his two books on the development of atomic and hydrogen weapons, historian Richard Rhodes argues that the lack of democratic, open debate in the Atomic Age needlessly stoked public suspicions about science and stymied the development of treaties that could have stemmed today’s arms races, in which India builds weapons to deter China, Pakistan to thwart India and so on.
Today’s emerging debates on genetic engineering are in similar danger of giving short shrift to consensus-building. Ecological activists who unreasonably oppose any kind of genetically engineered products are pitted against secretive biotechnology companies that want to avoid the government regulation that should go hand in hand with their growing power.
As University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan recently wrote in the journal Science, the real question is not whether policymakers should allow genetic engineering: The industry’s booming growth is unstoppable. Rather, it’s how to wield the powerful new tool in ways that ensure “equal access to benefits, and equal distribution of burden.” It’s a good challenge, one that can be met only through vigorous public debate.
