The good news is, we took a huge leap forward in our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. The bad news is, don't expect to see the benefits of that leap for another couple of decades at least.
Advanced technology almost always works that way. Profound breakthroughs lead to promising new directions for research, which lead to, at first, modest gains, then, over time, exponentially greater gains.
Sorry, but that's just the way this kind of thing typically works.
Here are a few essential points to remember:
- "Simple Solutions" Thinking - People seem to think that simple genetic enhancements can be made with few, if any, resulting effects on other systems. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nature has shown us already that extremes can carry radical effects which are both positive and negative. So, we engineer a smarter baby, but they all die in the first five years of life from the common cold. That scenario is far more likely than the rosy one painted by Mr. Garreau.
- "Intelligent Design" vs. "Engineered Evolution" - Mr. Garreau seems to think that we are now poised to "self evolve." But examples like the one mentioned are a better argument for "Intelligent Design" than for any form of evolution. That's what we are talking about here, manipulating our genetic makeup with a special plan or design in mind, which is exactly what some scientists are now calling Intelligent Design Theory. I love debating on this issue because, almost invariably, people will say something like, "by manipulating genes and other structures in certain organisms, or even by breeding out special populations of dogs, horses, cows, sheep, etc., we demonstrate how evolution works." My reply? "Ummm... Actually, you are demonstrating how Intelligent Design works. All those changes occurred solely because they were manufactured. So how does manufacturing an outcome prove that a blind, mindless process could create similar changes?" Funny, I never seem to get a good answer to that question.
- Simplifying the Complex & Vice Versa - People LOVE to make simple things complex and complex things simple, don't they? Our genetic makeup is enormously complex, yet we think we can tweak a gene here and there and get EXACTLY the results we want. Dream on! On the other hand, with simple issues, like the First Amendment, which is all of one sentence, we have created enormous complexity. The press should get unlimited freedom, and pornographers too, but people of faith can only express their views at home. We all have the right to express our point of view, unless it offends someone, then you've crossed the lines of free speech.
Overall, I think we need to avoid both the kind of arrogance that has led to ecological disasters throughout the world as well as undue optimism regarding what the short and long-term benefits of new genetic technologies will bring. In the end, it's more likely that most of the benefits we realize won't be what we had intended in the first place.
Article comments
1 - JR
If we were intelligently designed, why are we finding so much room for improvement?
2 - Duane
For now, my money remains on the good old "Mark I" human.
That's no more significant than some guy in 1840 patting his horse, and saying, "For now, my money remains on good old Bessie," smugly responding to his neighbor's interest in the promise of the internal combustion engine.
I'm sure the author is overconfident with regards to the timeline involved, but it will happen eventually.
3 - David Flanagan
Duane,
Isn't that exactly what I just said in my post?
David
4 - Phillip Winn
Duane, the guy in 1840 was probably right, too. For now (then), he was better off with his horse!
5 - bhw
Okay, I've gone on long enough. Suffice it to say, our children -- and our children's children too -- will NOT be coming to us crying because those "enhanced" children are outperforming them.
Something as simple as steroids already causes this to happen. So does Lasik eye surgery. Other types of enhancements are are just around the corner.
6 - Temple Stark
>>If we were intelligently designed, why are we finding so much room for improvement?
hee hee.
Good post David. bhw makes some good points, however. A lot more than perhaps you realize or remember is already here. And not making any sense at all, I approve of some, not others (though perhaps that's because of the reasons behind it. Fake boobs? Bad. Very bad.
7 - Temple Stark
However, of course, your post is specifically about DNA and the underlying rather than the surface
In-vitro parents can already pick out hair color, sex, IQ, and whether to have a child with deformities.
8 - Duane
David asks: Isn't that exactly what I just said in my post?
Uh, sure, OK. Sorry. I developed a sudden brain cloud when I got to the part about Intelligent Design.
9 - TerriO
Temple,
Sorry, I have to disagree. While it is possible to know the sex of the embryo and whether or not it has a genetic defect, there is no way to determine the other attributes.
Most reputable IVF centers don't allow sex selection unless there is a sex-linked disease in the father. What the parents decide to do with that knowledge is their choice.
10 - JR
Temple Stark: Fake boobs? Bad. Very bad.
I agree. The whole point is variety. If all boobs end up looking the same, you might as well just stay with one chick.
11 - Nancy
Or with one guy, JR, since all 'boobs' look the same?
12 - JR
Heh. Excellent point.
13 - Nancy
Sorry, couldn't resist the pun, if not the insult, but just heard one of 'my' guys here at work call another a boob, so it was timely....
14 - Joel Garreau
Hi, this is Joel Garreau, the author of the L.A. Times article mentioned here, and the book "Radical Evolution" on which it is based.
I am a Washington Post reporter and editor, so I understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I'm sad that a 1,000-word newspaper column didn't allow me to present much of the four years of reporting that went into the book. But three sample chapters are posted on my webs site at:
http://www.garreau.com/main.cfm?action=book&id=2
I make few if any predictions in "Radical Evolution". All I do is report what's in the labs and about to come to market. I spent the better part of a year, for example, at DARPA, the research arm of the Pentagon that is at the forefront of human enhancement. I think you may find it remarkable how far the genetic, robotic, information and nano technologies have already gone toward re-engineering the "Mark 1" human. The significance of this is not the gee-whiz gear, though, although there is plenty of that. (Within five years, more than half of all pharmaceuticals will be based on genetic technology, for example.)
The big deal is that we are demonstrably at a turning point in history, in that our technologies are increasingly aimed inward at modifying our minds, memories, metabolisms, personalities, progeny. What will this mean to our culture and values, and the things we value from democracy to our families? That's what the book's about.
Hope you find the book more useful than the 1,000-word column reviewed here. Hope you review the actual book, for that matter. Feel free to contact me. Thank you.
Joel
15 - Eric Olsen
thanks very much for the input Joel and we would be very interested in reviewing your book!