Genetically engineering evolution of humans.

[irmerk]

I guess I do not know if I worded the title particularly correct, but here it goes:
As in another thread I just created, I found this video by AlienScientist particularly interesting.
Now, I would like to hear the opinions on genetically altering and modifying of humans in the future for the supposed benefit, pretty much using his presented ideas as a guideline or jump point.

 

[irmerk]

Also, I would encourage anyone who watches any of his other videos to make similar threads about them, as I have yet to watch all of them. I mean, most have some interesting concepts.

 

[GoodKat]

Wow he really went waaay off topic near the end. If we had a DNA calculating super-computer, why would we need DNA samples from alien life forms?

 

[irmerk]

Oh... I do not know, I guess... Maybe to add specific examples of DNA to the computer as models?

Anyway, the main thing I wanted this thread to be about is the 'ethics' (For lack of a better word) of genetically engineering the evolution of humans. Whether his video is all bogus or not, I am quite positive that technology is rapidly approaching.

 

[Spase]

I'm going to limit my commentary on the video because you said you want this to be about the ethics of what he's saying (not the science).. I do however have to say this: Until about halfway through the video I thought he was just well-meaning, excited, and talking about things he didn't quite understand. I was forced to abandon this conclusion when he said that alien "grays" are the inevitable product of genetic engineering.. From that point on he was in a downward spiral making less and less sense.

Moving on! The ethics of genetic changes to the human genome, experimentation, and guided evolution:

I should start by saying I think that the sort of genetic engineering that has an effect on a person's germ line (their kids) isn't in the very close future. I think the technology will pass that point long before we see it put into practice because of agencies like the FDA which isn't likely to allow a lot of human testing where the human being tested on is unable to give consent and is by pretty much anyone's measure, incapable of making an informed choice. By that I mean genetically engineering an egg or sperm cell (human) and then growing it to term has the problem that you're trying out experimental science on a person who will have to live with the results, positive or negative, for the rest of their life. There might be government labs in places like China doing this but it isn't going to become a widespread phenomenon where you can go in and shop for what you want your kid to look like for awhile. Yes, this is a prediction about the future and is therefor my opinion... who knows. I might be completely wrong.

On the other hand the technology of gene therapy where a viral vector is used to change the DNA in a person who's already alive and able to consent seems more likely. The technology involved in this process is much more advanced but there are clear ethical ways of doing it and also cases where it is ethical to use potentially deadly experimental methods on people. People can have genetic disorders that would be deadly without treatment and I think it will be situations like those that drive innovation in the field. As mentioned in the video we're already using recombinant genetics to engineer things like those goats (which by the way were represented horribly I though in the video).

I honestly doubt that alien DNA will be useful to us in terms of reverse engineering new features onto the genome in the more long term future. The field is advancing very quickly and humans have historically been very imaginative when it comes to engineering things to give us abilities nobody had ever dreamed of before. If we already know what we want it's likely that using earthly derivative material will be more straight forward.

What makes a person human? I think it's a good question. I've always hated the definition of species that people use where they claim it means being able to have viable offspring. I think the term species is pretty silly in the end. It's a very useful colloquial means of categorizing things but scientifically I think it is fuzzy at best. The fact that evolution is happening in a population at any given time makes the idea of a species as stable, or even stranger, the idea that there is a clear line that once crossed makes one species into another misleading. The concept of species is very fluid and I'm not really in favor of randomly deciding not to call people human anymore based on some arbitrary distinction.

An interesting facet of the conversation (in my opinion) is that if we create people who are vastly more intelligent than us we are essentially replacing ourselves. My ex thought that this was not only a bad idea but actually thought it was immoral because she felt that having had to work very hard to earn her expertise the idea that someone might be born able to do things she would never be able to do unfair. I think it's a scary idea... but I don't think it's reasonable to call it unfair. What're other peoples thoughts on this?

I'm in favor of making changes. I don't think there is some philosophical reason to maintain our "humanity" any more than there's a reason to not remove your appendix if it bursts. We have been improving more and more on what nature provides us with as medical technology and understanding advances. I see working out bugs in our code and even adding new functionality as the logical progression of what we've been doing ever since we put on clothing because our hair wasn't enough to keep us warm.

On a somewhat more sober note... I'd like to add that the genotype to phenotype problem has not been solved. By that I mean we are not at the point where we can determine specific causes of specific features in individuals. We expected the problem to be a very simple one when it was first considered. You just sequence a bunch of people's genomes, you make a database with their physiology then you cluster people based on common features and look for common mutations, or you cluster by their genetics and then see if you're segregating them based on physical features. An ever clearer approach should be to take everyone with a common trait and then find a set of mutations that are common to them and not found in other people...

No luck with it all really though. We have improved a lot. The latest (that I know of) are systems approaches where using gene expression matrices you look at differential expression of different genes, cluster them into groups and build them into a directed graph. The directed graph represents gene interactions where members of a cluster might influence expression in some number of members of another cluster. It gets better... but we still can't point and say, "See, that's why you got your mom's acne." Progress is following an exponential curve though (depending on what you're measuring) that is supported by increases in computing power and also importantly, sequencing technology.

I don't know if any of that was what you were thinking when you said ethics of genetics.. and I realized I got carried away talking about some of the more technical details but I tried to include the ethical things I've considered.