Recent science-related headlines out of Red China can be indicative of two very different futures. And knowing what we know of mankind, we're not at all comfortable with it.
A scientist on mainland China claims to have altered the DNA of twin girls in an attempt to make them more resistant to HIV, the AIDS virus. He says he's been tinkering with DNA for several couples, resulting in that one pregnancy. Gene editing is banned in the United States, but that's not keeping scientists awake at night in China.
One future is bright and shining, with folks immune to diseases. (Turn us into Methuselah, and where are we gonna park?) Another future might be a scene in which mad scientists upend the natural order of birth and genealogy.
The problem, or maybe the everlasting hope, with this scientist's claims is they're just that: claims. NBC News reports his work hasn't been independently verified or published in a scientific journal where it can be vetted by other experts. Instead, the scientist discussed his work in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, providing some materials from his research. Experts who reviewed material given to the AP said tests so far are insufficient to determine if the gene-editing worked.
So he could be as reliable as any other government-provided news coming out of Red China. Let's hope.
Our problem with DNA editing isn't that disease could be overcome and beaten. It's that such experiments could have more unintended consequences than even a pessimist would allow. As one researcher said in Michael Crichton's wonderful book about DNA editing: You put so much effort in doing what you could, you never thought about whether you should.
Who's going to provide the ethical guidance on this new experimentation/industry? The government in Beijing? God help us.
And if a government, or even some select committee of scientists in the West, decided that altering DNA was ethical, and experiments such as this are morally acceptable, would they be? Can there be a code of ethics that would justify experimenting with babies in the womb, or babies before they're in the womb? Who would write that code?
Consider the natural curiosity of scientists. Now consider the natural curiosity of scientists who aren't handcuffed by certain laws passed by the United States Congress. Now consider the natural curiosity of scientists and the money that would flow from certain quarters to create designer babies. (Oh, he looks just like his father! But with blue eyes and a dimpled chin and the abs of an NFL cornerback.)
If what this scientist claims is true, then mankind could be looking at a revolution of sorts. Of course the practice of ethics will have to be revolutionized, too. Or should we think about that minor detail? Can we safely leave all of that up to scientists, or lawmakers in various countries?
Yes, some will see this as a form of medicine, and genetic diseases will be a thing of the past, like polio. Others see a slippery slope--and eugenics.
It's "unconscionable . . . an experiment on human beings that is not morally or ethically defensible," Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania gene editing expert and editor of a genetics journal, told the AP.
"This is far too premature," echoed Dr. Eric Topol, who heads the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California. "We're dealing with the operating instructions of a human being. It's a big deal."
The tool used to manipulate DNA is called, believe it or not, the CRISPR-cas9, which stands for something besides moral and ethical dilemmas. Soon it may be easy enough to take an altered human life out of the, yes, CRISPR. Remember, this is The Associated Press reporting, not The Onion.
It's not the potential good that this "breakthrough" could give the rest of us. We question only that the scientists involved seem not to acknowledge human nature, and their sublime confidence that the curiosity of man can be limited.
It's one thing to question a lack of reverence for human life these days--we're used to that in the Age of Choice--but what about the lack of imagination these experimenters seem to have? They've done something because they could, but have given no thought, apparently, to whether they should.
If mankind allows its scientists to take this step, can we be assured they won't take the next one?
For more reading on the subject, we suggest H.G. Wells and his youthful blasphemy The Island of Doctor Moreau.
Editorial on 11/27/2018