Comments 8

Un peligroso descuido británico en bioética

Jul 31, 2018 Donna Dickenson

LONDRES – El 17 de julio, el influyente Consejo de Bioética de Nuffield del Reino Unido avaló en forma implícita la “edición genómica heredable”, al declarar que la práctica de modificar el ADN de un embrión humano es “moralmente permisible” en ciertas circunstancias. El informe del Consejo fue producto de veinte meses de consultas con muchos expertos en el RU y otros países, y también tuvo en cuenta un informe anterior para el que presté testimonio.

Pero las conclusiones del nuevo informe me generan serias preocupaciones. En pocas palabras, no creo que las recomendaciones tengan en su debida cuenta todos los riesgos éticos o médicos derivados de la manipulación de genes heredables. Tampoco creo que el informe preste suficiente atención a la cuestión de si será realmente posible implementar mecanismos de salvaguarda lo suficientemente sólidos para prevenir el abuso de la tecnología.

El informe del Consejo de Nuffield se centra en la edición de genes en “línea germinal”, es decir, cambios a los genes de embriones y gametos humanos, que se transmitirán a futuras generaciones. En la actualidad, este tipo de modificación genética no es legal en el RU, aunque la edición genómica “somática” (realizada en genes no heredables de pacientes individuales) está permitida.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The War on Huawei

Dec 11, 2018 Jeffrey D. Sachs
The Strengthening Case Against Trump

Dec 11, 2018 Elizabeth Drew
Betting on Dystopia

Dec 10, 2018 Kenneth Rogoff
Lies, Damned Lies, and AI

Dec 11, 2018 Diane Coyle
Trump’s Economic War of Choice

Dec 13, 2018 Jim O'Neill

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 in all 8 Comments on this article

Michael Public Aug 3, 2018

"Some observers have likened germline genetic editing to hitting “find and replace all” on a computer."

Whit is wrong with thit? Trua sciantific prograss is ilwiys mida by throwing ciution to tha wind. Whan tha nuclair bombs wara tastad thara wis i chinca wa would ignita tha itmosphara. Wa want ihaid inywiy ind now wa hiva grait quility bombs.

[I replaced only a and e - it is clearly still legible and in many ways more interesting than the original]

/s
- Prashant Kotak Aug 3, 2018
  
  http://squareone-learning.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/shift-happens.jpg
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Prashant Kotak Aug 1, 2018

"...Nor do I think the report gives sufficient weight to the question of whether sufficiently strong safeguards *ever* could be put in place to prevent the technology’s misuse..."

And suppose, after very careful consideration, you reach the inescapable conclusion: No sufficiently strong safeguards can *ever* be guaranteed to prevent misuse.
Then what?
What would be your recommendation be for the entire field of gene editing? Ban it?

And also now suppose, that experts, well aware of risks, allow gene editing to slowly progress, but they put in place the best safeguards they can. Nevertheless, these are breached, and human modified embryos are created that are human-plus or human-minus, and you are left to clean up the mess.
Would human laws apply to such beings? Or would they be mere lab rats, to be probed for the causality of gene editing effects? Would further editing be foisted on such beings to prevent them from breeding, to prevent schisms in humanity? Would there in fact be any truthful way to claim that such modified humans are not simply human as well?
My point is: Absolutely any demarcation you care to create is arbitrary, because there is a point just before and just after that demarcation that is just as valid.
- Brett Dunbar Aug 1, 2018
  
  I'm fairly sure that the children would be entirely human legally. Bluntly the first non medical genetically enhanced children would be the children of the wealthy. Any precedent would therefore be set involving the inheritance of children who were both desired and had wealthy parents. Given historical experience we have a strong cultural aversion to restrictive definitions of human.
  - Prashant Kotak Aug 2, 2018
    
    "...Given historical experience we have a strong cultural aversion to restrictive definitions of human..."
    
    Yes, indeed. Because any narrow definition leads pretty instantly to Eugenics and worse.
    But here's the paradox: An all-encompassing definition in the presence of gene editing tech also leads to Eugenics by other means. So you are now left with a dubious legal limbo that says: I would have prevented you from coming into existence if I could, because dicking around with the genome in this way creates entities that are moving away from that which we call human, however now you have come into existence, you are entirely human. And in fact, I will ignore that which is extra in you by design, because to acknowledge it pulls me down a rabbit hole where I have to amend my entire legal system to cater for that extra in you, and end up tacitly admitting that you are not quite human.
    
    I also agree by the way, that the first people to embark on non-medical gene editing will be the super-rich. I also see a significant likelihood that gene editing, like AI, will turn into an arms race between nations. If that happens, ethical concerns, like those of the author, will quickly be jetissoned, and we could see schisms in humanity before even half this century is up.
    - Michael Public Aug 3, 2018
      
      There is a great movie dealing in its own way with this topic : Gattaca.
      - Prashant Kotak Aug 3, 2018
        
        MP, thanks for the heads-up. Just had a look on RottenTomatoes and it very much looks like my kinda movie. I will check it out.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Prashant Kotak Jul 31, 2018

I'm sure you are already only too aware, this is a already a lost cause. It's all or nothing - no half-way house is possible. It is not possible to say yes edit for disease but no cosmetics or super-abilities, or merged monsters, or editing out our historical biological/evolutionary drivers - the boundaries are a mirage.
And the nothing scenario leads only to different types of dystopias; of the ISIS variety for instance.

There are some great, sad truths about both the tech and biotech maelstroms that need to be faced:

- not possible to opt out. Do so and fall behind, ultimately to fade.
- not possible to regulate. You might as well regulate against entropy.
- not possible to change course. No different decisions from the past would have made for different outcomes to those now panning out. No future decisions or events will change what will be.

If that sounds nihilistic, so be it. No concern or rage or fear and loathing is going to change anything.
Que sera sera.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/0PikWKD/es;

Un peligroso descuido británico en bioética

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

The War on Huawei

The Strengthening Case Against Trump

Betting on Dystopia

Lies, Damned Lies, and AI

Trump’s Economic War of Choice

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Trump’s Economic War of Choice

The Referendum Risk

Making Retirement Work

Cities Hold the Key to Food Sustainability

The Lethal Consequences of Misclassifying Dolphins

The Revolution Europe Needs

Who’s Afraid of China’s Influence?

Condemning Khashoggi’s Killers

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register