Radical Noesis - Thinking outside the box

The National Academies is releasing their Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research which focuses on just how human DNA is manipulated. While stem cell research issues are finally starting to leak to the public, this is not a new issue. transgenic research has been going on for some time. According to this report, since 1980. The original database of transgenic research was stored at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and is still searchable, but the current database is stored at Johns Hopkins. (You might be interested in looking at this search page).

Romanticizing of such research by calling them "chimeras" does not change the underlying issues, ethics or risks. Whether we are discussing the infusing of human DNA into animal DNA, or whether we are talking about doing the same thing from the stem cell level, we are still in an area that is as rife with problems as it is with potential. The potential lies in addressing a number of human disorders, diseases, and injuries. These range from the curing of cancer, to genetic defects, to regrowing nerves, organs, and limbs. (And I should not leave out expanding the human life span). Even the most basic types of this research pose fundamental questions and issues that the public (of any nation) has yet to address.

At the most basic level lies the issue of eugenics. Should we attempt to create "perfect" humans? And if we say "yes," who determines the template of "perfect?" While this research would reside within the human genome, the testing will certainly take place in animals. That will require transgenics. Does anyone truly believe that transgenics is only one way? In other words, that animals will be "crossed" with humans" for various research purposes, but that humans will not be "crossed" with animals? This has already happened with plants:

GM Industry Puts Human Gene Into Rice Scientists have begun putting genes from human beings into food crops in a dramatic extension of genetic modification. The move, which is causing disgust and revulsion among critics, is bound to strengthen accusations that GM technology is creating "Frankenstein foods" and drive the controversy surrounding it to new heights.

...

In the first modification of its kind, Japanese researchers have inserted a gene from the human liver into rice to enable it to digest pesticides and industrial chemicals. The gene makes an enzyme, code-named CPY2B6, which is particularly good at breaking down harmful chemicals in the body.

So the research can and is going the other way. The modifications are not simply "testing" in other species which are then thrown into the trash bin, but "put on the market." In the search for "health" and commerce, it seems likely that infusing other species' genetic material into humans might be beneficial and profitable. I can think of some handy ones off the top of my head (though perhaps far fetched). For example how about bat DNA for hearing problems, or worm or lizard DNA to regrow lost limbs (this is already being studied).

I am focusing on the human - other research possibilities, but obviously there is much more transgenics going on outside the human genome. In fact, it is already on the market - genetically modified food crops.

It is critically important to understand that this revolution is being driven by capitalism and profit - and under that - power and control. Overwhelmingly, the crop modifications have been concentrated on improving resistance to herbicides and pesticides, and improving shelf life of goods. By and large, the modifications have not been to improve the food itself. Some of the "enhancements" have had medical possibilities. The most notable of these is Golden Rice. Golden Rice was genetically engineered to produce beta-carotene which would hopefully help with blindness and other diseases found among starving populations. It has not fulfilled that hope because, in order to "work" people need a diversified diet - which those impacted do not.

The profit and control motives will drive both direction and access. The "cures" that may come from transgenics will be available for those who can pay for them. They will not "aid humankind." The ones most likely to "make it to market" will be those with the greatest commercial return. The push to move from "research" to "product" is intense, and this has already caused problems - and deaths. So aside from the most obvious human applications that might be profitable (such as growing replacement organs) what might be other "profitable endeavors? One that immediately jumps to mind is "exotic pets" (Bioengineered Pet Fish Are A Reality in Taiwan - Dow Jones News Service).

We apparently live in a time where the presumed ends justify the means in all areas of our existence. This is a very sorry place for humanity to be in my opinion. The means and driving forces do significantly impact the "ends." In fact, they largely predetermine what those ends will be. That is very likely to be the case with transgenics.

With all the research that is going on, and the products already making it to market, people assume that "we" know a lot. The reality is that we don't know (or understand) far more than we do know. Genomes are still being mapped - much less understanding how they work and interact - and the pressure is on to "develop" applications. Doesn't anyone wonder what we might be creating that we truly do not understand ... or be able to contain? Pandora's box indeed, but not someplace we haven't been before. Some glaring examples are both the chemical and nuclear revolutions. Technology is neither neutral or an answer, and haste does not just make waste, but can make devastation as well. When that technology is transforming the very stuff of life, do we really think that the possibility for unimaginable disaster does not lurk under "the promise?"