It is generally agreed that genetically determining one's child's hair colour would be frivolous and excessive, but does that make it morally wrong? Or should we just label it cosmetic surgery and not cover it under Medicare ? Hair colour seems like a rather small detail in such a big issue, but what about altering a child's sex... or sexual orientation? In China, where families are assigned a quota of only one child each, thousands of baby girls are abandoned to die every year. Allowing parents to pre-select the child's gender would solve this terrible problem (however it might cause equally severe social problems twenty years in the future). The issue of sexual orientation is even more touchy these days. There is no question that homosexuality is, evolutionarily speaking, a negative mutation, but gay individuals continue to make up a relatively constant portion of our population even though they tend to have less children than heterosexuals; the reasons for this are technical and I would like to establish a bit of background material before I discuss them. One might guess from prevalent attitudes that some heterosexuals would prefer to have straight children (and perhaps the opposite is true of gays?), but any attempt to control factors like these through genetic engineering is going to cause a huge debate. Perhaps a fair definition of a dehabilitating mutation (one that needs to be corrected or, perhaps, aborted) is one that seriously detracts from the quality of life or chance of survival of the child. But even this distinction is vague and subject to the whims of society. It might be argued that being born black in Georgia in the days before slavery was abolished would have seriously detracted from one's quality of life. So even this argument is not purely black and white.
One of the key factors in the process of evolution is mutation. Natural selection guides adaptive traits towards maximal survival and reproductive capabilities but there has to be an initial mutation that introduces the trait into the gene pool. There are essentially two types of mutation. One type occurs when the DNA within a cell is damaged. One way this can happen is if a radioactive carbon 14 within the DNA spontaneously decays into a stable nitrogen isotope (carbon 14 can be produced by cosmic rays or nuclear fallout). Normally this mutation will be confined to one particular cell - unless it causes that cell to become cancerous, - but if the mutation occurs in a sperm or an egg then it will affect every cell in the child's body. The other type of mutation arises from a deliberate action of the human reproductive process. The chromosomes that make up our sex cells contain samplings of both our parents' genes in long strips. Occasionally, the dividing line between these sections occurs in the middle of the encoding of some important trait, causing unpredictable results.
The general rule in genetics is 'use it or lose it'. While some mutations produce useful or benign results, the vast majority of them are harmful; natural selection is not only the driving force behind evolution, it is also the process that keeps our genes from decaying into randomness. Unfortunately, the luxuries of modern technology and medicine have altered the process of natural selection so that they are no longer on our side. Instead of favouring the physically fit or the mentally superior, nature now discriminates against the socially inept. Even this lofty barrier has not prevented humans from taxing the Earth's resources. But, because we have achieved unchallenged domination over the world, our race is weakening. After millions of years of living underground, mole rats have lost their ability to see. They still have eyes, but they are useless relics, the mole rat equivalent of wisdom teeth. When you think about how many people wear glasses you have to figure that our eyesight didn't used to be this bad in the times when we had to depend upon it for our survival. There are only three pro-active ways to counteract this downward trend: selective breeding (B.F. Skinner's choice for his Walden 2 utopia), selective murder of the unfit (i.e. selective breeding), and genetic engineering. When you look at it from this perspective, genetic engineering seems by far the least intrusive of the three choices.
So far I have only discussed the preventative benefits of this technology. We could also use genetic engineering to speed up the progress of evolution. Although we are fairly well adapted to our environment, we still have nagging remnants of our collective past. One of our greatest flaws is that our brain does not control our bodies at a conscious level. We have a tendency to over-eat, left over from the days when we didn't know where the next day's meal was coming from. We are crippled by pain even after it has served its purpose as a warning sign. We cannot consciously suggest to our bodies that they heal themselves, yet we often respond to placebo drugs. As our understanding of our genetic code progresses, we may be able to cure psychological illnesses before they start and even create a new breed of humans that are better adapted to our present environment than we are. On the other hand, we could create a race of slaves who enjoy obeying our every command.
But we must be careful. Before we make sweeping changes to the biology of the human race we must be sure that we understand the full effects of our actions. For example, one of the genes that has been linked to sickle cell anemia is also known to protect against malaria. The aforementioned experiments in dog breeding are proof that unchecked cosmetic manipulation can have undesirable consequences. Breeding Collies to have narrow heads has caused them to become exceedingly stupid; breeding Bulldogs to have large heads has necessitated a large number of Cesarean births. Breeding Great Danes for their size has made them susceptible to heart attacks; breeding Chihuahuas for their size has shortened their vocal cords, making them yappy and annoying. We may also want to consider the impact of our experiments on society. The quote at the top of the article is from the movie Frankenstein Unbound. Raul Julia plays a scientist who discovers the secret of creating life and uses it to create his monster. But he is no madman; he is Prometheus, who would give knowledge to man not caring how it is used. In his mind, the means justifies the end. Those who have seen the film may have noticed that it also alludes to the development of the nuclear bomb.
I would like to close, as I promised earlier, by speculating on the causes of homosexuality. Although I do not expect that it is possible to discuss a controversial topic without upsetting someone, I would like to state clearly that I am confining my discussion to the biological causes of homosexuality without making any sort of moral judgment. One of the intriguing things about genetics is that men and women differ in so many different ways even though we share 45 of our 46 chromosomes. Not only are we physically different, but there are many psychological differences as well. There are genes that cause men to be attracted to women and vice-versa. What is more interesting is that, since women have two X chromosomes and men have one, men's genes contain all the requisite information to develop into women (just clone the X chromosome and save thousands of dollars in operations), including the tendency to be sexually attracted to other men. Obviously, this trait is normally suppressed somehow by the presence of the Y chromosome, probably because it is regulated by hormone levels inside the body. But, in a system as complicated as human sexuality, mutations are bound to occur. Some mutations might change hormone production levels; others might change the triggers that cause sexual attraction. So homosexuality is a mutation; should that change our attitudes? Blond hair is a mutation; there was no need for dark hair in northern climates so the genes that produced the pigment gradually eroded. But, reproductively speaking, homosexuality is unquestionably disadvantageous, so we should expect our bodies to have natural defense mechanisms. One of those mechanisms is guilt. Due to the natural erosion of our genes we are probably all a little bit bisexual, but hard-coded guilt (which can also be manifisted as hate) keeps most of us on nature's course.
So that's the choice we must make. Genetic engineering offers us the chance to repair the defects in our bodies that pure reactive medicine cannot cure, but it also gives us limitless opportunities to modify the design of the human form: to be not only the parents of our children, but also their creators and their gods. Questions have already been raised about the use of genetic engineering to create new strains of vegetables that are resistant to disease; the debate surrounding modification of human DNA will be even more furious. Regardless, modern medicine, pesticide use in farming, and selective breeding have already caused us to stray from the 'natural path' of evolution. The question is... how far do we want to go?
