Good thoughts Keith,
There is another side to this as well. People who want for genetics to
do it all rarely have the discipline to teach their children. I've had
some very wealthy people in my studio at various time. Many very talented,
some superbly talented. But there is a door beyond which they will not go.
Realizing that this could be a stereotype, I hasten to add that other economic
classes have the tenacity to move beyond and through that "crack in the Cosmic
Egg" of creativity. It is rare for second generation wealth to be willing to
spend the money and time to break ground. Long term planning seems beyond them
and without the time, resources and access to staff they simply can't function.
It is often pointed out, in America, that the wealthy,i.e. the one's who can
afford the expensive eugenics as well as to train their children in the culture
of wealth at expensive schools, are the one's who volunteer for pro-bono work in
the charities and the arts. The same is true in the fundamentalist churches
where they make up the bulk of the unpaid workers in choirs and on committees.
They do facilitate wealth and are exceptional fundraisers but that is not
reaching beyond that door but living within the culture of their parents. It
is a far cry from the farmers whose children become Doctors or Rocket
Scientists. And is even further from the children of peasants and gypsies who
became advanced professionals in the old Soviet System of education.
Some will even create a myth around poverty as a great creator of wealth and
expertise. To some degree that has been my experience in their tendency to be
more open to discovery and the joy of it. I have found people on the very low
end of poverty to be blocked by incorrect mental models and those on the upper
end of affluence to suffer similar blocks. So I'm just saying that it isn't so
simple as genetics would make it seem.
The one stubborn wealthy person that I did have, stubborn enough to stick it out,
had lost her wealth and suffered from a lack of talent. But she was magnificent
in her determination and had more satisfaction than almost anyone I knew. I am
now going to teach a 78 year old retired sanitation worker whose voice has grown
magnificently over the last few years. He is far beyond what anyone would have
been able to genetically expect from him and many have alread died while he has
practiced 50 songs a day and played basketball. His son is a successful artist
and his brothers are all professionals. Their background is difficult.
Come to think of it I grew up on a reservation, my grandparents were depression
area farmers and I've made a living in the arts in NYCity for 30 years. I also
grew up on the number one toxic waste dump in America with lead, zinc and cadmium
in my bones. I must have good genes or something?
Ray Evans Harrell
Keith Hudson wrote:
> Sally,
>
> I'm surprised -- or perhaps I shouldn't be -- by the way this issue of
> eugenics has already become polarised.
>
> You write >Some issues to be thinking about, before it "just happens"<.
>
> It seems to me, though, that it has already "just happened". By means of
> amniocentesis, tens of thousands of putative parents in the Western world
> have already decided whether to abort foetuses with an extra chromosome 21
> (Down Syndrome). Much less widespread is the voluntary practice of
> Ashkenazi Jews in America and England to test the DNA of couples who just
> are beginning "to go steady" for evidence of the recessive gene for
> Tay-Sachs disease (cystic fibrosis). This voluntary practice has been so
> successful that this dreadful disease has been almost eliminated in the
> last 15 years. There is also the case of the ongoing extinction of the
> equally dreadful Huntington's disease (premature senility) which had
> implanted itself into several small pockets around the world in England,
> America and Venezuela.
>
> The debate about eugenics is going to become awfully confusing because the
> voluntary practices as described above are going to become confused with
> previous State-driven eugenic campaigns as practised by Nazi Germany,
> Sweden, America and several other European countries half a century ago
> (and as still practised in China today).
>
> In its true sense, I don't see how eugenics can be stopped. There are
> something like 1,300 errant genes in the human gene pool causing
> distressing disease and, as DNA testing becomes cheap and more widespread,
> most parents all over the developed world will be asking for their foetuses
> to be tested for these genes.
>
> Indeed, I think that there is no doubt that within a generation it will be
> common practice for young middle-class individuals to have themselves
> tested, and for intending couples to have their DNA profiles compared by
> geneticists before deciding whether to form a serious relationship from
> which children may issue. I don't think there will be any greater danger
> from this than the practice that has been going on from time immemorial in
> human affairs -- rich and economically powerful males marrying the
> best-looking females they can find, even if they're poor. In both cases,
> such social separation, whether genetic or economic, largely disappears
> after two or three generations.
>
> I see no reason whatsoever to condemn voluntary eugenics at what can be
> called a cosmetic/physiological level in the same way that we have
> practised eugenics in the breeding of cows for more milk or better T-bone
> steaks. There will be relatively few genetic factors involved (for height,
> muscularity, boob size, slimness, colour of hair, etc) and I cannot see how
> this is going to be prevented unless there is State control over the
> knowledge of our own DNA.
>
> However, the matter of intelligence -- which is the biggest issue in the
> debate -- is far more complex. We have something like 100 chemical
> inter-neuronal chemical transmitters in various parts of our brain, the
> production of each one of them controlled by at least one separate gene
> (and probably several) so that choosing DNA profiles for intelligence
> (whatever that means, and surely a moving feast as mankind moves from one
> period to another), by selecting permutations from among the genes
> concerned (once they're identified) would be an immense computation. It is
> likely to be either technically impossible or exhorbitantly expensive --
> and will not be able to creep upon us as some are fearing.
>
> I wouldn't say that this type of eugenics will never be practised. But the
> problematique is quite beyond the present level of bioscience or
> constructive public debate.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> At 12:05 18/07/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >Some issues to be thinking about, before it "just happens".... Sally Lerner
> >
> >>Would you believe......
> >>
> >> Genetically Modified Humans?
> >> Genetically Modified Humans?
> >> Genetically Modified Humans?
> >>
> >>
> >>From: "bruce katz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Subject: Fw: sfp-184: The New Eugenics: Genetically Modified Humans
> >>Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:21:32 -0400
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Eric Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Date: 17 juillet, 2000 16:24
> >>Subject: sfp-184: The New Eugenics: Genetically Modified Humans
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>The New Eugenics: The Case Against Genetically Modified Humans
> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>By Marcy Darnovsky, WHO works with the Exploratory Initiative on the New
> >>Human Genetic Technologies, and teaches courses in the politics of
> >>science, technology, and the environment in the Hutchins School of Liberal
> >>Studies at Sonoma State University, California.
> >>
> >>At the cusp of dot-com frenzy and the biotech century, a group of
> >>influential scientists and pundits has begun zealously promoting a new
> >>bio-engineered utopia. In the world of their visionary fervor, parents
> >>will strive to afford the latest genetic "improvements" for their
> >>children. According to the advocates of this human future (or, as some
> >>term it, "post-human" future), the exercise of consumer preferences for
> >>offspring options will be the prelude to a grand achievement: the
> >>technological control of human evolution.
> >>
> >>My first close encounter with this techno-eugenic enthusiasm was in a 1997
> >>book written for an unconverted lay audience by Princeton geneticist Lee
> >>M. Silver. In Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World (New
> >>York: Avon Books), Silver spins out scenarios of a future in which
> >>affluent parents are as likely to arrange genetic enhancements for their
> >>children as to send them to private school.
> >>
> >>Silver confidently predicts that upscale baby-making will soon take place
> >>in fertility clinics, where prospective parents will undergo an IVF
> >>procedure to create an embryo, then select the physical, cognitive, and
> >>behavioral traits they desire for their child-to-be. Technicians will
> >>insert the genes said to produce those traits into the embryo, and implant
> >>the embryo in the mother's womb. Nine months later, a designer baby will
> >>be born. After a few centuries of these practices, Silver believes,
> >>humanity will bifurcate into genetic ubermenschen and untermenschen--and
> >>not long thereafter into different species. Here is Silver's prediction
> >>for the year 2350: "The GenRich--who account for 10 percent of the
> >>American population--all carry synthetic genes. Genes that were created in
> >>the laboratory....The GenRich are a modern-day hereditary class of genetic
> >>aristocrats....All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment
> >>industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the
> >>GenRich class."
> >>
> >>How do the other 90 percent live? Silver is quite blunt on this point as
> >>well: "Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers." That
> >>rich and poor already live in biologically disparate worlds can be argued
> >>on the basis of any number of statistical measures: life expectancy,
> >>infant mortality, access to health care. Of course, medical resources and
> >>social priorities could be assigned to narrowing those gaps. But if Silver
> >>and his cohort of designer-baby advocates have their way, precious medical
> >>talent and funds will be devoted instead to a technically dubious project
> >>whose success will be measured by the extent to which it can inscribe
> >>inequality onto the human genome. Silver pushes his vision still further:
> >>"[A]s time passes,...the GenRich class and the Natural class will become
> >>the GenRich humans and the Natural humans--entirely separate species with
> >>no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each
> >>other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee."
> >>
> >>Silver understands that such scenarios are disconcerting. He counsels
> >>realism. In other words, he celebrates the free reign of the market and
> >>perpetuates the myth that private choices have no public consequences:
> >>"Anyone who accepts the right of affluent parents to provide their
> >>children with an expensive private school education cannot use
> >>`unfairness' as a reason for rejecting the use of reprogenetic
> >>technologies....There is no doubt about it...whether we like it or not,
> >>the global marketplace will reign supreme."
> >>
> >>When I first read Silver's book, I imagined that these sorts of bizarre
> >>prognostications must be the musings of a lab researcher indulging in
> >>mad-scientist mode. I soon learned differently. They are not ravings from
> >>the margins of modern science, but emanations from its prestigious and
> >>respected core. Silver vividly and accurately represents a technical and
> >>political agenda for the human future that is shared by a disturbing
> >>number of Nobel laureate scientists, biotech entrepreneurs, social
> >>theorists, bioethicists, and journalists.
> >>
> >>Since the late 1990s, this loose alliance has been publicly and
> >>energetically promoting the genetic technology known as "human germline
> >>engineering"-- modifying the genes passed to our children by manipulating
> >>embryos at their earliest stages of development. Such genetic
> >>modifications would be replicated in all subsequent generations, providing
> >>supporters with the basis to claim that "we" are on the brink of "seizing
> >>control of human evolution." Frank about their commitments to control and
> >>"enhancement," advocates of human germline engineering claim that the
> >>voluntary parental participation they foresee refutes any characterization
> >>of their project as "eugenic." With public conferences, popular books,
> >>scholarly articles, websites, and mainstream media appearances, they are
> >>waging an all-out campaign to win public acceptance of their
> >>techno-eugenic vision.
> >>
> >>The promoters of a designer-baby future believe that the new human genetic
> >>and reproductive technologies are both inevitable and a boon to humanity.
> >>They exuberantly describe near-term genetic manipulations--within a
> >>generation--that may increase resistance to diseases, "optimize" height
> >>and weight, and boost intelligence. Further off, but within the lifetimes
> >>of today's children, they foresee the ability to adjust personality,
> >>design new body forms, extend life expectancy, and endow
> >>hyper-intelligence. Some even predict splicing traits from other species
> >>into children: In late 1999, for example, an ABC Nightline special on
> >>human cloning speculated that genetic engineers would learn to design
> >>children with "night vision from an owl" and "supersensitive hearing
> >>cloned from a dog."
> >>
> >>How plausible are such scenarios? Because human beings are far more than
> >>the product of genes--because DNA is one of many factors in human
> >>development--the feats of genetic manipulation eventually accomplished
> >>will almost certainly turn out to be much more modest than what the
> >>designer-baby advocates predict. But we cannot dismiss the possibility
> >>that scientists will achieve enough mastery over the human genome to wreak
> >>enormous damage--biologically and politically.
> >>
> >>Promoting a future of genetically engineered inequality legitimizes the
> >>vast existing injustices that are socially arranged and enforced.
> >>Marketing the ability to specify our children's appearance and abilities
> >>encourages a grotesque consumerist mentality toward children and all human
> >>life. Fostering the notion that only a "perfect baby" is worthy of life
> >>threatens our solidarity with and support for people with disabilities,
> >>and perpetuates standards of perfection set by a market system that caters
> >>to political, economic, and cultural elites. Channeling hopes for human
> >>betterment into preoccupation with genetic fixes shrinks our already
> >>withered commitments to improving social conditions and enriching cultural
> >>and community life.
> >>
> >>Germline engineering is now common in laboratory animals, though it
> >>remains at best an imprecise technology, requiring hundreds of attempts
> >>before a viable engineered animal is produced. Human germline manipulation
> >>has not been attempted: The only kind of human genetic procedures
> >>currently practiced involve efforts to "fix" or substitute for the genes
> >>of somatic (body) cells in people with health problems that in some way
> >>reflect the functions of genes.
> >>
> >>In about five hundred "gene therapy" clinical trials since the early
> >>1990s, doctors have tried to introduce genetic modifications to patients'
> >>lungs, nerves, muscles, and other tissues. These efforts have been largely
> >>unsuccessful. In late 1999, their safety was also called starkly into
> >>question by the death of an 18-year-old enrolled in a clinical trial, and
> >>by ensuing revelations of almost 700 other "serious adverse effects" that
> >>researchers and doctors had somehow failed to report to the proper
> >>regulatory authorities. Some observers have commented that gene therapy
> >>would more accurately be called "genetic experiments on human subjects."
> >>
> >>Many people are reluctant to oppose human germline engineering because
> >>they believe that "genetics" will deliver medical cures or treatments. But
> >>there is no reason that we cannot forgo germline engineering and still
> >>support other genetic technologies that do in fact hold promising medical
> >>potential. In fact, the medical justifications for human germline
> >>engineering are strained, while its ethical and political risks are
> >>profound.
> >>
> >>Fortunately, the distinction between human germline engineering and other
> >>genetic technologies (including somatic genetic engineering) is a
> >>reasonably clear technical demarcation. In many countries, this
> >>demarcation is being drawn as law. Legislation that would ban human
> >>germline engineering and reproductive cloning is making its way through
> >>the Canadian parliament. Germany's Embryo Protection Act of 1990 makes
> >>human cloning and germline engineering criminal acts, and the Japanese
> >>legislature is considering establishing prison terms for human cloning. A
> >>number of other European countries forbid cloning and germline engineering
> >>indirectly by outlawing non-therapeutic research on human embryos.
> >>Twenty-two European countries have signed a Council of Europe bioethics
> >>convention that includes similar restrictions. In the United States,
> >>however, neither federal law nor policy forbids human germline engineering
> >>or cloning, though federal funds cannot be used for any kinds of human
> >>cloning experiments.
> >>
> >>In order to bring the new human genetic technologies under social
> >>governance, strong political pressure and a broad social movement will be
> >>necessary. Though no such movement currently exists, efforts to alert and
> >>engage a variety of constituencies are getting underway.
> >>
> >>The movement that this work aims to catalyze will need to draw in a wide
> >>range of constituencies, and encompass a variety of motivations. Some
> >>participants will base their opposition to a techno-eugenic future on
> >>their commitments to equality and justice, and to human improvement
> >>through social change rather than technical fix. Others will be moved by
> >>the threats to human dignity and human rights, and the horror of treating
> >>children as custom-made commodities, that germline engineering and cloning
> >>entail. Still others will find their primary inspiration in the
> >>precautionary principle, or their wariness of techno-scientific hubris and
> >>a reductionist world view, or their objections to corporate ownership of
> >>life at the molecular level, or their skepticism about the drastic
> >>technological manipulation of the natural world.
> >>
> >>It will be far easier to prevent a techno-eugenic future if we act before
> >>human germline manipulation develops further, either as technology or
> >>ideology. This is a crucial juncture: a window that the campaign for human
> >>germline engineering is trying to slam shut. Your participation is
> >>urgently needed.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>(This article is appearing as a Different Takes issue paper from the
> >>Hampshire College Population and Development Program. A longer version is
> >>forthcoming as "The Case Against Designer Babies: The Politics of Genetic
> >>Enhancement," in Brian Tokar, ed. Redesigning Life? The Worldwide
> >>Challenge to Genetic Engineering, Zed Books.)
> >>
> >>RESOURCES
> >>~~~~~~~~~
> >>The Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic Technologies (466
> >>Green Street, San Francisco, CA 94133, USA, phone: 415-434-1403) is
> >>working to oppose genetic technologies especially human germline
> >>engineering and reproductive cloning, that foster eugenic ideologies and
> >>objectify and commodify human life. To subscribe to its free on-line
> >>newsletter, or for other inquiries about becoming involved, please e-mail
> >>Marcy Darnovsky at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> >>
> >>Books opposing techno-eugenics:
> >>
> >>Andrews, Lori. The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive
> >>Technology. New York: Henry Holt, 1999.
> >>
> >>Appleyard, Bryan. Brave New Worlds: Staying Human in the Genetic Future.
> >>New York: Viking, 1998.
> >>
> >>Hubbard, Ruth and Elijah Wald. Exploding the Gene Myth. Boston: Beacon
> >>Press, 1997.
> >>
> >>Kimbrell, Andrew. The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and
> >>Marketing of Life. New York: HarperCollins, 1993.
> >>
> >>Rifkin, Jeremy. The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking
> >>the World. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher / Putnam, 1998.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Books supporting techno-eugenics:
> >>
> >>Pence, Gregory E. Who's Afraid of Human Cloning?
> >>Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998.
> >>
> >>Silver, Lee. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a
> >>Brave New World. New York: Avon, 1997.
> >>
> >>Web sites opposing techno-eugenics:
> >>Council for Responsible Genetics <http://www.gene-watch.org>
> >>Campaign Against Human Genetic Engineering
> >><http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~cahge> Genetic
> >>Engineering and its Dangers
> >><http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/gedanger.htm>
> >>
> >>Web sites supporting techno-eugenics:
> >>UCLA Program on Medicine, Technology and Society (GregoryStock, director)
> >><http://research.mednet.ucla.edu/pmts/germline> Extropy
> >>Institute <http://www.extropy.org>
> >>
> >>
> >>-------------------------------------------------------
> >>To [remove]add your address to this list, email:
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] with no message in the text
> >>and Subject: [unsubscribe]subscribe sfpcan. Messages
> >>are posted on http://scienceforpeace.sa.utoronto.ca/
> >>------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> .............................................
> >> Bob Olsen, Toronto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> Freedom is participation in power
> >> .............................................
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ________________________________________________________________________
