This is a mirrored copy of www.essential.org/monitor/mm2000/mm0001.09.html
Multinational Monitor
Biotech Futures
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2000 · VOLUME 21 · NUMBER 1 & 2
Subscription info below
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In The Pipeline:
Genetically Modified Humans?
by Richard Hayes
Scientists have long speculated that parents would someday be able
to genetically engineer their children for appearance, physical
and mental abilities, or other traits of choice. For most people,
these predictions have seemed so far in the future, or so patently
repugnant, that they didn't need to be taken very seriously.
Such complacency is no longer possible. Well below the radar
screen of both the general public and policy makers, a concerted
campaign is underway to perfect and justify the development of the
technologies that would allow the engineering of "designer
babies."
"We've all known that the day would come when we'd have to decide
whether or not to allow the reconfiguration of human beings
through genetic technology," says Dr. David King, editor of
GenEthics News in London. "Well, that day is now."
The social and political consequences of allowing the development
and use of these technologies is difficult to comprehend, but most
likely it would entail the objectification and commodification of
human life and dramatically change the nature of human
relationships and society.
In his book, Re-Making Eden: How Cloning and Beyond Will Change
the Human Family, Princeton cell biologist Lee Silver looks
forward to a future in which the health, appearance, personality,
cognitive ability, sensory capacity and life-span of children all
become artifacts of genetic manipulation. Silver acknowledges that
the costs of these technologies will limit their widespread
adoption, so that over time society will segregate into the
"GenRich" who control "the economy, the media, the entertainment
industry and the knowledge industry," and the "Naturals," who
"work as low-paid service providers or as laborers."
Over time, society will segregate into "GenRich" who
control "the economy, the media, and the knowledge
industry," and the "Naturals," who "work as low paid
service providers or as laborers."
-Lee Silver,
Remaking Eden: How Cloning And Beyond
Will Change the Human Family
Eventually, Silver writes, the GenRich and the Naturals will
become "entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed,
and with as much romantic interest in one another as a current
human would have for a chimpanzee."
Such visions are not the fevered product of a fringe band of
futurists. Rather, they lie at the core of a new socio-political
worldview and ideology gaining hold among influential scientists,
academics, journalists and others. Last August, Ted Koppel
featured Lee Silver on ABC's Nightline, and enthusiastically
endorsed Silver's techno-eugenic vision. Authors such as Lester
Thurow and Frances Fukuyama have written approvingly of the coming
genetically engineered "post-human" era.
"The fact that noted scientists and intellectuals are advocating
genetic manipulation to enhance human traits is irresponsible in
the extreme," warns Dr. Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology
and anatomy at New York Medical College and chair of the Human
Genetics Committee of the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Council
for Responsible Genetics. "There is no way we could determine
whether such procedures would even work without massive
experimentation on human beings. But in a society obsessed with
competition and success, the worst barbarities imaginable could be
rationalized if people thought that genetic manipulation might
give their children an advantage."
Human Genetic Engineering
Genetic engineering provides the ability to add or delete specific
genes within a living cell nucleus. Gene modifications can have an
impact solely on a single person (somatic manipulation), or on a
person's children and all subsequent descendants (germline
manipulation).
Somatic manipulation seeks to change the genetic makeup of
particular body (somatic) cells that comprise the organs and
tissues -- lungs, brain, bones, etc. -- of a single person.
Diseases like cystic fibrosis, for example, may be treated by
inserting a corrective gene into malfunctioning lung cells.
Changes in somatic genes are not passed on to one's children.
Germline genetic manipulation changes the sex cells (i.e., the
sperm and egg, or germ, cells), which pass the parental genes to
the next generation. While germline engineering is sometimes
suggested as a way to prevent transmission of genetic diseases,
the same result can be achieved by preimplanation screening and
other means. Germline engineering is necessary, however, to go
beyond disease prevention and modify the genetic endowment of
children otherwise expected to be healthy.
The ability to put genes into living cells was perfected in animal
experiments conducted during the late 1970s. Proposals to begin
human gene manipulation followed shortly thereafter, and aroused
much controversy.
Scientific, religious, environmental and political leaders and
organizations generally approved of somatic gene therapy, but
strongly opposed germline manipulation. In 1983, a coalition of 58
religious leaders declared that genetic engineering of the human
germline "represents a fundamental threat to the preservation of
the human species as we know it, and should be opposed with the
same courage and conviction as we now oppose the threat of nuclear
extinction."
In 1990, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) approved somatic
gene therapy trials, but said that it would not accept proposals
for germline manipulation "at present." That ambiguous decision
did little to discourage advocates of germline engineering, who
continued to perfect their technologies using animal models and
human somatic gene therapy trials.
By the late 1990s, proponents of germline manipulations were ready
to begin a concerted effort to generate public support. In 1998,
nearly 1,000 people attended "Engineering the Human Germline," a
major conference held at UCLA. The conference received front-page
coverage in the New York Times and Washington Post.
Four months later, W. French Anderson of the University of
Southern California, a pioneer of human somatic gene therapy,
submitted a proposal to the NIH to begin experiments involving
human germline manipulation. Anderson anticipates being ready to
begin human trials as early as 2003.
The campaign for techno-eugenics
Supporters of the techno-eugenic future are working diligently on
a number of fronts to advance their cause. The broad strategy, as
discussed at a members-only conference held by the Extropy
Institute in Berkeley, California last summer, includes the
continued development of genetic manipulation technologies,
mobilization of a credible and vocal minority of the public to
actively embrace and call for a techno-eugenic future and
persuading the majority of the public that attempts to restrict
the use of human genetic technologies would be an infringement of
individual rights.
Human germline engineering is at least a decade away from being
ready for commercial marketing, and the large biotech firms do not
yet have the billions of dollars invested in it that they do in
genetically engineered crops or pharmaceuticals. However, a few
small but aggressive firms, with the support and encouragement of
established companies such as Novartis, are speeding development
of the most controversial technologies. Among the key firms:
* Geron Corporation, based in Menlo Park, California, is
refining the key technologies that would allow human cloning
and germline manipulation. Geron holds patents on techniques
to engineer cells from aborted fetuses or "surplus" human
embryos obtained from fertility clinics. Early in 1999, Geron
acquired Roslin Bio-Med, the Scottish firm that owned the
patents to the technology that produced the first cloned
sheep.
Geron wants to use these technologies to grow healthy tissues
and organs that could be used to replace diseased ones.
Some approaches to this goal are non-controversial, but
others would establish the practical means for germline
manipulation and could lead to industrial scale production
and commercialization of human embryos.
Geron has appointed an in-house Ethics Advisory Board
comprised largely of local "bioethicists" sympathetic to
human genetic modification and cloning. The board's first
report found the company's plans, including the possible
cloning of human embryos, ethically acceptable. But three
noted health law and ethics professionals, writing in the
December issue of Nature Biomedicine, were scathing in their
criticism of the board's report, noting that it "seems more
like ?ethical cover' rather than ethics that can be taken
seriously."
* Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT), of Worcester,
Massachusetts, announced in November 1998 that it had created
an embryo by implanting the nucleus of a human cell into the
egg of a cow. The stated intent was to test techniques that
would allow harvesting of embryonic cells from which to grow
replacement tissues for humans. No laws exist that would have
prevented such a cow-human embryo from being implanted in a
woman's uterus to produce a child. ACT's experiment was
widely condemned, and President Clinton asked the National
Bioethics Advisory Committee to investigate.
* Chromos Molecular Systems, founded in 1996 and located in
British Columbia, is developing what could be the most
powerful genetic engineering technology to date: artificial
chromosomes, which would enable the engineering of multiple,
complex human traits. Chromos already markets its patented
"Satellite DNA-based Artificial Chromosomes," or SATACs, to
create transgenetic animals, and commercial human SATACs are
under development. The use of artificial chromosomes for
germline engineering would arguably be tantamount to the
creation of new species of humans. People who were engineered
with artificial chromosomes, and who wanted to pass these
chromosomes to their children intact, would only be able to
mate with one another.
* Celera Genomics, based in Rockville, Maryland, has built the
largest gene-analyzing laboratory in the world, involving a
bank of 300 high-powered sequencing units and a computer
system comparable to those used to model nuclear explosions.
Celera is locked in a race with the federally sponsored Human
Genome Project to sequence the complete human genome. Celera
hopes to profit by marketing access to its gene sequence data
banks. It recently signed a five-year agreement allowing
Pharmacia & Upjohn (now merging with Monsanto) access to
Celera's human genome databases.
Celera President Craig Venter has also initiated a separate
project, sponsored by The Institute for Genome Sciences
(TIGR), that could lead to the creation of a living creature
by assembling its gene sequence from off-the-shelf molecules
and supplying it with a chemical coat.
The Techno-Eugenic Lobby
Recognizing the controversial nature of their broad project,
supporters of the techno-eugenic future have set up a number of
programs and institutes whose function is to encourage public
acceptance of the new techno-eugenic technologies. These include:
* UCLA Program in Medicine, Technology and Society (MTS). MTS
director Gregory Stock organized the 1998 conference that
removed the taboo from advocacy of germline engineering.
Stock is now organizing a series of conferences, publications
and awards to support the notion that human aging is a
disease, and can be cured by genetic engineering. Stock's
initiatives have received repeated favorable front-page
coverage in stories by Gina Kolata of the New York Times.
* The Extropy Institute, based in Los Angeles, was established
to "challenge conventional thinking about human limits." It
calls for a trans-human future that embraces genetic and
other technologies to engineer new forms of human beings. Its
1999 annual conference in Berkeley included strategy sessions
on how to advance the techno-eugenic agenda politically, and
how to talk to the press and public about human genetic and
technological modification in ways that build support and
diffuse opposition. Calvin Harley, chief scientist for Geron
Corporation, was a featured speaker at this conference.
If China uses genetic enhancements while the West
either bans them or pursues a politically correct
re-engineering of human nature, the inevitable result
within a few generations would be Chinese economic,
and thus military, global hegemony. ...Those serious
about either preventing or mandating genetic
engineering should start planning a preemptive
nuclear strike on China -- soon.
-Steven Sailer
Human Biodiversity Institute President
* The Foresight Institute, based in Menlo Park, California, was
established by K. Eric Drexler to advance the development of
nanotechnology, the anticipated ability to engineer
individual molecules and atoms. Drexler has proselytized on
behalf of nanotechnology since the mid-1980s, placing it at
the center of a fully formed ideological vision grounded in
hyper-technology, techno-eugenic transformation and
libertarian political values. The Foresight Institute holds
conferences and workshops that bring together leaders in
science, business, academia, journalism and other realms to
develop and promote this vision.
MTS, Extropy and Foresight differ in style but share a common
commitment to the transformation of human beings through
genetic engineering. At the 1999 Extropy conference,
Foresight President Chris Petersen said, "Foresight is
perhap[s half-way between Extropy on the more radical side
... and on the other side there's something like Greg Stock's
operation over at UCLA."
* The Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI) is one of several
libertarian think tanks promoting a social and political
vision grounded in human evolutionary biology.
In December 1999, HBI president Steven Sailer briefed an
elite gathering convened by the Hudson Institute, including
former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, on the "long run
impact of the human biotechnology revolution."
Sailer suggested that "progressive pressure groups" may try
to ban human genetic engineering, but that the exportability
of the technology and the difficulty of enforcing global bans
will cause them to fail. Sailer said these groups might then
change their position and try to mandate "politically
correct" human genetic engineering, in order to prevent an
explosion of inequality.
Sailer argued that China, with fewer scruples, might simply
compete for superiority. "If China uses genetic enhancements
while the West either bans them or pursues a politically
correct re-engineering of human nature, the inevitable result
within a few generations would be Chinese economic, and thus
military, global hegemony," Sailer told the Hudson Institute
gathering.
"Thus, those serious about either preventing or mandating
genetic engineering should start planning a preemptive
nuclear strike on China -- soon." Sailer illustrated his
argument with a colorful slide of a hydrogen bomb explosion.
These and other institutes have benefited from support from many
of the new info-tech and dot.com rich with strong techno-eugenic
political sympathies. Nathan Myrvold, the recently retired
research director of Microsoft (age 39; net assets: $250 million),
has been a vocal advocate of human cloning and genetic
enhancement. Arizona billionaire John Sperling, founder of Phoenix
University, recently donated $20 million to a group that is
supportive of efforts to extend the human life span by decades or
centuries via genetic engineering. The grant will establish a
chain of high-tech anti-aging centers across the United States.
Sperling is also reported to be the source of the $2.3 million
grant to Texas A&M to have a pet dog, Missy, cloned.
Nearly every industrialized country, with the exception of the
United States, has already banned germline manipulation and
cloning.
Article 13 of the 1996 Council of Europe Convention on Human
Rights and Biomedicine, for example, signed by 23 countries,
states: "An intervention seeking to modify the human genome may
only be undertaken -- if its aim is not to introduce any
modification in the genome of any descendants." This allows
somatic engineering but precludes germline engineering.
And UNESCO, the UN agency, has proposed a global treaty that would
ban germline engineering and cloning.
But these international agreements and proposals have not dampened
the enthusiasm or slowed the momentum of germline engineering
proponents.
No one can be sure how the technology will evolve, but a
techno-eugenic future appears ever more likely unless an organized
citizenry demands such visions be consigned to science fiction
dystopias.
Richard Hayes is director of the Exploratory Initiative on the New
Human Genetics Technologies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscription Information
Annual Subscription Prices:
* Personal --$25
* Non-Profit institutions -- $30
* Business institutions -- $40
Foreign subscriptions:
* Canada and Mexico -- add $10 to cover first class mail
* All other countries -- add $15 for airmail
Single copy price
* $3.00
Send a check or money order to:
Multinational Monitor
PO Box 19405
Washington, DC 20036
Or, if paying by Visa or Mastercard, please include:
* Card type (Visa or Mastercardh
* Account number
* Valid cardholder's signature
* Card's expiration date
Distributors and bookstores, contact the MM office at (202) 387-8030.
(All funds in U.S. dollars)