Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I refer to John McLarens message of 16:11 19/07/00 -0400:
>(KH)
>>> 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.
[...]
>
>>Is it right, or is it wrong? If it's wrong, it must be
>>opposed, just as those who practise(d) eugenics
>>involuntary on their victims must be condemned.
>
>As I forewarned (or tried to), John has fallen into the trap of equating
>voluntary eugenics with coercive eugenics as carried out by State
>governments (and at a stage when eugenic knowledge was, and remains, fairly
>primitive). How I tire of such black-and-white moralistic statements. There
>are many practices which are perfectly moral if done voluntarily but which
>are immoral if enforced by others.
[...]
>I'm not saying that eugenics shouldn't be debated. It's just that we should
>be cautious because many scenarios that are being discussed are way beyond
>our present understanding. Taking up declamatory stances on this huge and
>complex issue is altogether premature and unproductive. Meanwhile, certain
>specific instances (the extinction of Tay-Sachs' and Huntington's diseases)
>>will quietly proceed step by step by individual voluntary decisions, just
>as we try to eradicate the mosquito which carries malaria (which itself has
>repercussions in the human gene pool).
This debate has a lot of aspects, most of which I've no wish to get
entangled in. However, I think something here needs clarifying: I see
a great difference between, on the one hand, using DNA information to
guide one's decisions on choosing a mate, choosing to have children,
or even prescreening one's embryos, in the interests of the health
and soundness of the child, and on the other hand, making use
of some near future technology, at great expense, to physically alter
the genome of embryos to insert arbitrary enhancements of varying
degrees of artificial nature, as the original article was discussing.
One might imagine, depending on the form of enhancement chosen on
the whim of the trendy, upwardly striving parents, that the latter
could be regarded as a form of prenatal readymade child abuse. It is
certainly not an equivalent to the former level of intervention.
And I have no doubt that when people are required to make policy
decisions regarding these issues, the distinction will be clear
to them.
This is not to say that such a level of genetic intervention
will always be regarded as beyond the pale. It has occurred to
me lately that it is likely inevitable that peoples' attitude
towards gene manipulation will change with time and familiarity,
and successful advances in the technology (assuming they arrive,
without any great catastrophes from careless premature applications,
still a distinct possibility). I'm thinking here of longer timescales,
like +50 years ahead, our descendants may think nothing of radically
reconfiguring their genome. However, I don't expect public opinion
to look favourably on that sort of thing till most of us alive
now are gone to dust.
-Pete Vincent
