|
Human perfection?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sarcoman |
When I went to University (I just graduated last year), most of my courses were in cellular biology, molecular biology, and genetics. James Watson is one of the guys that discovered DNA in the 1950's. However, what he says here scares me. He came to the University of Toronto recently to attend an awards ceremony.
Essentially, I dont think that humans should be modifying their genetics to make a "perfect" person. I think that the differences between humans is one of the things that makes us interesting. To say that being shy is wrong, and needs to be 'corrected', or being short, or fat, or whatever. It could lead to a completely new breed of prejudice. Sort of like in the movie Gattaca. Not saying that this is going to happen, cause it isnt, but I just dont agree with what he is saying. And he is one of the most respected men in science.
| quote: | Gene pioneer urges dream of human perfection
By CAROLYN ABRAHAM
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
James D. Watson, the grand duke of DNA, described one of his greatest fears yesterday to a packed auditorium: that society will be too scared to use genetics to make people as perfect as they can be.
Dr. Watson is one of the founding fathers of modern genetics. He was in Toronto for the respected Gairdner Foundation awards, which this year honoured the scientists who unravelled the human genome. He said the information will allow society to eradicate and prevent not only diseases but any other traits that might be deemed undesirable.
"Going for perfection was something I always thought you should do," said the 74-year-old Dr. Watson, peppering his radical perspectives with trademark humour. "You always want the perfect girl."
Would it be wonderful to turn the shy into extroverts? Calm down the hotheaded? Turn cold fish into warm human beings? As Dr. Watson sees it, the genetic revolution puts all these issues on the table.
"We'll be able to make correlations between genes and certain professions, genes for the undertaker — they really don't cry very much," he said, "or the sprinter.
"It will be an absolute flood that will start to explain everything ... even the cold fish."
Dr. Watson was younger than many of the students who came to hear him when, in 1953, he and Francis Crick discovered the molecular shape of deoxyribonucleic acid, known for short as DNA, at the famed Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University.
The double helix soon defined modern medicine, opened the field of molecular biology and transformed criminal justice with DNA fingerprinting that has convicted the guilty and exonerated the innocent, and that remains one of Dr. Watson's greatest prides.
But those are the field's obvious merits. The gangly, white-haired Dr. Watson, Nobel laureate, past Gairdner winner, author of seven books and recipient of 32 honorary degrees, was not at the University of Toronto's MacLeod Auditorium to rehash highlights or to reminisce.
He had come to talk about the future and the thorny issues facing society now that it has the human-genome map, which contains the precious instructions to build and operate us all: the fruit fly, the family pet, and even, Aunt Mary.
Dr. Watson took aim at scientists for not openly discussing where genetic progress may carry us.
"It's my impression that none of the genome-project leaders have gotten up and said, 'What we are going to do with this information; I think we should use it,'" he said. "Maybe they're afraid of offending people."
Never veering from controversy, Dr. Watson believes that women and their right to make reproductive choices could create the ideal future, where prenatal genetic screening keeps the sick or handicapped from ever being born and disease from being a serial killer.
In an interview earlier in the week, Dr. Watson mused that hang-gliding accidents might one day be the leading cause of death.
He is also a proponent of so-called human-germline engineering, in which doctors could add or delete elements from egg and sperm cells that will be passed down to future generations.
Perhaps adding genes that will turn slow learners into whiz kids, he said, or those to prevent smokers from ever developing lung cancer, or genes making people HIV-resistant, might be part of the future.
"But laws all over prevent DNA additives to the germlines," Dr. Watson lamented. "I'm sort of distressed when people say enhancement is bad -- the question, they wonder, is 'Who will we enhance?'"
Some of Dr. Watson's comments are unlikely to calm anyone with those thoughts, particularly when it comes to people's appearance. The Chicago-born scientist — a well-known admirer of attractive women (he titled one of his books Genes, Girls and Gamow) who keeps a 2002 calendar of tennis bombshell Anna Kournikova in his New York office — said nature can be cruel: "Who wants an ugly baby?"
Yet he admits people accuse him of wanting to use genetics "to produce pretty babies or perfect people.
"What's wrong with that?" he countered. "It's as if there's something wrong with enhancements."
Dr. Watson stressed his vision is not a bleak one. He too was haunted by the world portrayed in the 1997 film Gattaca, where genetically perfect members of an elite, conceived in labs, reign over the genetically "invalid," created naturally and condemned to society's lowest jobs.
The movie theme echoes concern that genetic enhancements will be available only to the wealthy, widening the gap between haves and have-nots. But Dr. Watson has more faith in the species: "Most humans are programmed by their genes to have compassion for their fellow man."
Dr. Watson's speech thrilled students in the audience: "It was the best lecture of the series," Seema Nagaraj, a biomedical-engineering student, said. "I appreciated his candour, that he was not afraid to state his views."
|
The Globe and Mail is a Canadian National Newspaper.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet...BN/breakingnews |
|
|
| Essential1 |
| I dunno, that guy sounds a little too much like hitler. |
|
|
| quddha |
Just because he discovered that a DNA molecule is a double helix, doesn't make him ethically or morally superior than you or me. His social and ethical views need to be recalculated...
As for what he suggests, as a society, I don't think we'd allow for that yet. We're still iffy about testing for hereditary diseases. |
|
|
| Dmatrox |
What happened to francis crick? is he still around?
I think its perfect that humans are imperfect people and very different. We should not be in a world like Gattaca. Perfection through genetics is not a good idea since everyone will want to strive for the same genetic enhancements and eventually people will be too perfect. This is not the way we are intended to be. Independent assortment, crossing over and random fertilization keeps our species alive. Without wonders through meiosis, we would be very similar. The point im getting at is, since we understand that we all have different genetics, therefore different skills, abilities, and weaknesses, changing peoples genetics to be perfect would violate natural selection. Everyone will eventually have the same strengths etc. If a virus came along and infected people in a population with similar genetics, the species would be wiped out. Thats why random mating and natural selection makes sures that a selection of a population will survive if there was an epidemic
personally, i think molecular bio and genetics is great to learn and research, but making humans perfect is wrong. |
|
|
| Essential1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dmatrox
personally, i think molecular bio and genetics is great to learn and research, but making humans perfect is wrong. |
It's impossible to make "perfect humans" b/c every1 has a different idea of what is perfect. What would u consider perfect? black/white/asian? blonde/brunette/red-head? blue-eyed/brown-eyed/green-eyed? Is ur perfect the same as my perfect? exactly.
Do u see where I'm going? It's impossible to make a perfect human being when each of us has a different idea of what is perfect.
That watson guy is a tool. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| Even the perfect architect cannot build a perfect house because there are no perfect materials. |
|
|
| Dmatrox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Essential1
It's impossible to make "perfect humans" b/c every1 has a different idea of what is perfect. What would u consider perfect? black/white/asian? blonde/brunette/red-head? blue-eyed/brown-eyed/green-eyed? Is ur perfect the same as my perfect? exactly.
Do u see where I'm going? It's impossible to make a perfect human being when each of us has a different idea of what is perfect.
That watson guy is a tool. |
Perfection universally, not culturally.
Perfection of strength, speed, intelligence, these are what i mean, not perfection of race or color because thats racist. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| davinox |
| we will be enhanced, but not 'perfect'. |
|
|
| DJ Chrono |
oh-no,
i did a 75 min presentation on eugenics last year in english.. this is an extreemly complicated area.
some people dont want to alter any genetics.
but then we can question, if we have the power to prevent things like genetic deffects, retardation, low iq, and even cells that control someone's ability to determine right from wrong (this includes genetic apathy to killing), then should we not use it?
Would you seriously want your child to have a retardation or serious disease if you could prevent it?
Would you want your child to be stupid, if they cells could be modified to increase their IQ?
Perhapse premature balding is a family trait, and you could prevent it from being passed down to your child.
you will eventually be able to 'customize' your children. eye colour, hair colour, gender, and even personality characteristics.
Where do you draw the line? :( |
|
|
| AnotherWay83 |
great posts in this thread.
there is nothing wrong per se in eliminating diseases in babies before they are born, or enhancing humans, or even striving to create that "perfect" human being.
but the fact of the matter is that things just aren't so simple. as has already been stated in previous posts, defining "perfection" is itself a difficult task, and i'm pretty sure that this technology will sooner or later be abused by ppl. hoping to get ahead of others, for instance in sports, the military, etc. etc.
the key question as watson himself says is WHO will be chosen to be enhanced, and like everything else, it's gonna come down to the wealth and power of a person's parents... |
|
|
| Michael Russo |
This is where things get scary...
There are some things that you shouldn't meddle with. And I don't trust scientists like this... so smart, yet so dumb. |
|
|
| DJ Chrono |
plus we dont know the long term consequences for altering genes.
the scientific community will not wait to find out before implementing it, that's for sure.
Every day something pops up, that they just 'discovered'
like.. now deep fried foods, bread, and every food exposed to very high temperatures, contains carcinogens. and they just found this out now, after we've been eating this stuff for a very very long time. |
|
|
|
|
