Introduction
The book1 we will review in this paper is about the future developments in
biotechnology, developments that have the potential to change
fundamentally human reproduction. According to Henry T. Greely,
simultaneous developments in stem-cell technology, gene
sequencing/interpretation, and in vitro fertilization (I.V.F.) will
usher what he calls Easy PGD. PGD (pre-implementation genetic
diagnosis) is the genetic profiling of embryos before implementation.
It is currently used during I.V.F. to detect possible genetic
diseases. I.V.F. is the artificial fertilization of an egg with a
sperm in vitro (in glass), and the implantation of the resulting
embryo into the uterus of the biological mother or a surrogate. PGD
requires I.V.F. Currently, PGD is not easy to implement because
I.V.F. is an arduous process for women. Invasive procedures are used
to retrieve the eggs, and women patients are required to undergo
hormonal therapy to stimulate their ovulatory processes. On the other
hand, despite enormous progress in genetic technology, gene
sequencing is relatively expensive, and interpretation of the genes
(what kind of phenotype a certain genotype will produce) is not
very effective. Greely believes that we will see enormous progress in
the near future in stem cell and gene sequencing/interpretation
technology, and these developments will render PGD cheap and easy to
implement. They will transform PGD into Easy PGD. With Easy PGD,
parents will be able to choose from a catalog of embryos their
desired children. Greely, based on the statistics of planned
pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, present DNA screening
ratios, etc., says that ten years after the availability of Easy PGD
“somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of pregnancies in the U.S.
will have been started using it.”2 And
he adds that, “if the technology continues to be, and to seem,
effective, that percentage should increase over time,” and “[…]
in the long run, I could imagine 90 percent of U.S. pregnancies being
the result of Easy PGD.”3
Easy
PGD
Greely,
to better explain the implications of these new technologies,
describes DNA, genes, chromosomes, the mechanisms of inheritance, and
the human reproductive system. We assume that the reader knows about
these to read this review. Here, we only summarize Greely’s
conclusions from his discussion of the human reproductive system.
Greely thinks that the natural reproductive system is very
complicated, prone to infertility, and susceptible to producing
myriad forms of diseases. Many people are infertile because the human
reproductive system is prone to a myriad of malfunctions like weak
sperms, plugged fallopian tubes, the inability of embryos to hatch to
the uterus, etc. The natural reproductive system produces various
genetic diseases: heritable Mendelian genetic diseases, the errors in
multiplying or transferring of genes during meioses (missing
chromosomes, duplication or removal of some genes, etc.) These
genetic diseases and errors often create debilitating syndromes.
Greely sees the human reproductive system in its natural condition as
an ineffective mechanism prone to errors.4 He
thinks that we should improve it with artificial methods, and Easy
PGD might be the final solution to the problems of the human natural
reproductive system. It will not only solve infertility and genetic
diseases, but it will also give humanity to control its own evolution
by steering it to a desired pathway.5
How
Easy PGD will function? Gametes (sperm and eggs) will be produced by
stem cell technology from the cells that could be easily obtained,
like skin cells. Using I.V.F., these gametes will be artificially
fertilized to obtain a certain number of embryos. Embryos’ genes
will be sequenced to determine their phenotypes. The embryos that
have the desired phenotypes will be chosen to be implemented into the
uterus of the genetic mother or a surrogate. For Easy PGD to become a
reality, bioscientists should develop further the current
technologies in three areas: stem cell technology, genetic
sequencing, and interpretation of genes.
The
key development should happen in stem cell technology. Embryonic stem
cells, also known as pluripotent stem cells (PSC), can become any
other type of human cell. That means they can be used to produce
gametes (eggs or sperm). It is now possible to preserve PSCs
artificially and induce them to turn into a desired type of human
cell. However, obtaining PSCs from an adult human is tricky. There
are various ways, and one is to use a technique from cloning.
Extract a nucleus6 from
the patient, insert it into an egg cell, and turn it into an embryo.
The cells of this embryo will function as PSCs; they can be induced
to turn into any type of human cell, including sperm or egg. These
sperm and eggs could be used, in turn, to make a new embryo by I.V.F.
However, this method still requires an egg to be retrieved from an
adult human. As we said above, this is an invasive procedure and
difficult for the patient. A much easier way to obtain gametes from
an adult would be to use induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).
IPSCs are types of pluripotent stem cells that can be generated from
somatic cells. That means PSCs could be obtained even from the skin
cells of a person. That would preclude the necessity of obtaining an
egg from a person to produce gametes. A skin cell donation, which
could be done quite easily, would be enough. Skin cells would be
turned into PSCs; PSCs would be induced to turn into sperm or eggs,
and these gametes would be artificially fertilized by I.V.F. to
create several embryos. At
this stage, another crucial technique in Easy PGD will come into
play. The genomes of these embryos will be sequenced to determine
what kind of phenotypes they will produce. The parents will be
provided with a catalog of embryos with their possible traits, and
they will choose their children from this catalog.
As
we can see, Easy PGD requires three technologies to be developed
further: whole genome sequencing, DNA interpretation, and the ability
to turn skin cells (or any other cell type that is easy to obtain
from the patients) into gametes. The other crucial technology for
Easy PGD, I.V.F., has been in mass use for several decades. In 2006,
Shinya Yamanaka succeeded in de-differentiating mouse somatic cells
into pluripotent stem cells. In 2007, he announced that he did the
same with human somatic cells. However, this method has some
uncertainties. The initial method to induce somatic cells to turn
into PSCs was a gene therapy, and those genes are known
to cause tumors in humans. So, iPSCs obtained
with these genes could become cancer cells themselves. Later, a new
technique was developed
to de-differentiate somatic cells into PSCs. This method doesn’t use
genes; it uses proteins. According to Greely, “continuing research
comparing hESCs7
and iPSCs has shown that iPSCs generally react, in gross terms,
like hESCS.”8 On
the other hand, the productive use of iPSC technology has only
happened in mice. The team of Mitinori Saitou produced sperm and eggs
both from PSCs (natural embryonic stem cells) and iPSCs. Although
both methods worked, PSCs worked much better. According to Greely,
“far more of the ESC (normal embryonic stem cells) colonies gave
rise to sperm […] Even worse, although most of the mice born from
ESC-derived sperm were healthy, two of the five mice born from the
iPSC-derived sperm died young from odd cancers.” Greely claims,
despite these problems, “several decades to work on it, [iPSC]
should improve greatly.” He says that this improvement will not
come for the sake of its reproductive potential. Other uses of this
technology in treating numerous diseases (like its potential in organ
transplants and its scientific potential in observing and analyzing
various diseases) will provide enough incentives to develop this
technology further.
The
other crucial technologies for Easy PGD are DNA sequencing and
profiling. DNA sequencing should be done more accurately, faster, and
much cheaper. The cost of whole genome sequencing has dropped
enormously. Sequencing the first whole human genome cost $ 500
million.9 In
2009, according to a report by Steve Quake, the cost fell to $
48,000.10 In
2010, Complete Genomics, a private firm, announced that it would
sequence whole human genomes for $ 5,000. By 2015, various firms
sequencing human genomes were providing these services for $ 1,500 to
2,000 dollars. According to an article in 2022, “Ultima Genomics
stated that its machine could sequence the genome for as little as $
100.”11 Greely
predicted in 2016 that the cost of sequencing would drop to $ 50 in
20 years.12 According
to Greely’s prediction, 100 embryos could be wholly sequenced for $
5,000 soon. Speed is also crucial
because, after the sequencing, the phenotypes of the embryos should
be determined to be chosen by the parents. Greely predicts that soon
(twenty to forty years), the time to produce a whole genome sequence
will fall to a few hours, and it will be possible to use five-day-old
blastocysts for sequencing and implant the desired one on the sixth
day.
What
could a whole genome sequence reveal about the person? As of now,
genome sequencing reveals five categories of conditions or traits
linked to DNA: serious early onset genetic
diseases, other diseases influenced by DNA variations, cosmetic
traits, behavioral traits, and “boy or girl.”
Early
onset genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs disease, Lesch-Nyhan
syndrome, trisomy 13, etc., are Mendelian13 or
a result of chromosomal abnormalities. Since these diseases are
directly associated with a single gene or an
abnormality in chromosomes, they could be accurately diagnosed with
whole genome sequencing. Easy PGD will be most effective against such
diseases.
Other
diseases are not early onset, highly penetrant, and serious. The
predictability of such diseases ranges from strong to weak because
they are not determined by a single gene. Huntington’s disease or
early onset Alzheimer’s could be predicted pretty accurately by
genome sequencing. But we can only say something about the risk of
being diagnosed with juvenile or adult-onset diabetes, breast or
colon cancer, or regular onset Alzheimer’s. Greely says that the
ability to predict diseases from DNA will increase in the future. And
this progress will come not to perfect Easy PGD, but from the studies
that will try to learn more about such diseases. The predictive power
of genome sequencing will benefit from such studies.
We
do currently know
that skin, hair, eye color, hair type, nose shape, male pattern
baldness, early gray or white hair, and many other traits are highly
influenced or almost entirely determined by genes. However, the exact
genes that determine such characteristics have not been found yet
because these traits are not very important compared to the diseases
mentioned above. As a result,
they don’t attract much time and attention. We know that these
traits are strongly determined by genes from the results of studies
that have been conducted on some diseases like melanoma skin cancer.
For example, studies on that disease uncovered a particular redhead
allele that causes people to have red hair and a freckled complexion.
We will know more and more about the relationship between cosmetic
traits and DNA as sequencing becomes
cheaper and more and more complete genomic sequences are produced to
be compared and analyzed.
The data on genes that determine
certain cosmetic traits will be in the computer databases to be
provided to prospective parents.
Behavioral
traits are such characteristics as aptitude in mathematics, music,
sports, IQ level, and personality types such as shyness, introverted
or extroverted, diligent or carefree, etc. Today, behavioral genomics
can only make strong associations with the genes at the pathological
extremes (in cases like Lesch-Nyhan syndrome or pathologically low
levels of intelligence). Our knowledge about the genetic variation in
normal and above-normal behavioral traits is non-existent today.
These variations are not straightforwardly determined by one gene.
Their relationship with DNA is quite
complicated because they are determined by the combinatorial effects
of many genes and their relationship with the environment. Greely
says that various studies indicate that a large part of the variation
in IQ comes from genetic variations. However, demonstrating which
variations are responsible has been impossible until now.14 In
the coming decades, the interpretation of DNA for behavioral traits
could become more accurate. However, according to Greely, even in 20
to 40 years, we won’t be able to predict the exact IQ level of an
embryo. We will only be able to say something about the probability
of having a certain amount of IQ. The sex of the embryo, on the other
hand, could be easily and accurately determined by DNA analysis.
During
Easy PGD, a certain number of embryos will be created (this number
could be anywhere from ten to a hundred depending on how broad a
choice you want to have and how much money you are willing to pay), and their DNA will be sequenced. Parents will be provided with a catalog
of choices like the below:
Embryo
1
• No
serious early onset diseases, carrier for Tay-Sachs, PKU.15
• Higher
than average risk of coronary artery disease, colon cancer,
type
1 diabetes
• Lower
than average risk of schizophrenia, breast and ovarian cancer, type 2
diabetes, asthma
• Dark
eyes and hair, graying early in life; moderately tall, straight
hair,
thin build
• 55
percent chance of top half in SAT tests, much lower chance
than
average of being an athlete, good chance of above-average
musical
ability
• Girl
Embryo
2
• No
serious early onset diseases, carrier for PKU
• Higher
than average risk of type 2 diabetes, cataracts, colon cancer,
prostate cancer
• Lower
than average risk of asthma, autism, pancreatic cancer, gout
• Dark
eyes and light brown hair; male pattern baldness; medium
height,
straight hair, medium build
• 40
percent chance of top half in SAT tests, likely to be introverted,
good
chance of above-average musical ability
• Boy
Embryo
3
• No
serious early onset diseases, carrier for PKU
• Higher
than average risk of bipolar disorder, rheumatoid arthritis,
lupus,
colon cancer
• Lower
than average risk of leukemia, autism, gout, Alzheimer’s disease
• Blue
eyes and light brown hair; medium height, curly hair, heavy
build
• 65
percent chance of top half in SAT tests, good chance of above average
athletic ability, likely to be anxious
• Girl
Embryo
4
• No
serious early onset diseases, carrier for Tay-Sachs
• Higher
than average risk of bipolar disorder, cataracts, autism,
prostate
cancer
• Lower
than average risk of schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s disease,
asthma,
pancreatic cancer
• Dark
eyes and hair; early graying; above-average height, straight
hair,
medium build
• 50
percent chance of top half in SAT tests, average athletic ability,
above-average
chance of exceptional musical ability
• Boy
Embryo
5
• No
serious early onset diseases, carrier for Tay-Sachs, PKU
• Higher
than average risk of coronary artery disease, type 1 diabetes, lupus,
colon cancer
• Lower
than average risk of schizophrenia, leukemia, autism, pancreatic
cancer
• Blue
eyes and dark hair; average height, curly hair, heavy build
• 45
percent chance of top half in SAT tests, above-average chance
of
exceptional athletic ability, likely to be extroverted
• Boy
Greely
says that choosing from these alternatives will be difficult for the
parents. There are many variables to consider. People will be at a
loss in the face of these alternatives. What would these percentages
signify for their children? Which alternative would have the best
chance of success and happiness in his/her life? To answer these
questions, Greely says, a new occupation will arise: Genetic
counseling. “Experts” will counsel parents; they will guide them
to choose the “best” possible embryo. That would mean that
characteristics of the future generations would be chosen by
“experts.” The evolution of humanity would be tried to be shaped
according to the values and worldviews of these “experts.”
Direct
Gene Editing
Another
technology could be used during I.V.F., a technology
that could produce
even
greater
consequences: CRISPR/Cas9. CRISPR/Cas9 is a genetic engineering
technique that makes it possible to change the genomes of organisms.
This method signifies a substantial improvement on the previous
genome editing techniques and makes the editing of genes cheap, easy,
and fast. Greely discusses this technique in passing in his book,
probably because CRISPR/Cas9 was relatively new when Greely’s book
was published in 2016. CRISPR/Cas9 signifies a possibility of a more
direct intervention into the founding blocks of living organisms; it
makes it possible to create, from scratch, brand-new genes. Easy PGD,
as Greely defines it in his book, is not about “designer babies.”
During Easy PGD, various amounts of embryos are produced, their DNA
is sequenced, and the “best” option from these alternatives is
chosen. In this method, embryos will carry the genes of their
parents; they will be already existing genes. Easy PGD, in other
words, creates more than one possible embryo to increase the chances
of producing a “better” combination of genes from existing DNA.
With CRISPR/Cas9, on the other hand, it becomes possible to put into
the genome of the embryos new genes that the parents don’t have. It
even makes it possible to design totally new genes that don’t exist
in Nature.
CRISPR/Cas9
needs to surmount some obstacles to become applicable in humans.
First, there is the mosaicism problem. CRISPR/Cas9 may edit some
cells successfully while leaving other cells untouched. That would
create a mosaic of DNA within the same organism; the organism would
have different DNA in its different cells. The other problem is that
CRISPR/Cas9 doesn’t always edit DNA as intended; it sometimes
creates different genes. Perhaps a more complicated obstacle than
those two is that many genetic traits (such as the behavioral
characteristics discussed above) are expressed not by one gene but as
a combination of many genes. Moreover, many of these traits cannot be
explained by genetics only. Environmental factors heavily affect the
genes that influence such characteristics. So, modifying a gene in
the organism, let alone introducing a completely new gene, could
create unexpected consequences.
One
can apply CRISPR/Cas9 in two ways: germ-line editing and the editing
of the somatic cells. The first kind of editing would make the
changes heritable. The edited organism would transmit those changes
to its offspring. If CRISPR/Cas9 is used during I.V.F. on the embryo,
this will be germ-line editing. Such an intervention wouldn’t be
limited to the organism edited; the edited genes would spread through
the gene pool as the edited organism reproduces. If the somatic cells
are edited, the changes won’t be heritable. Germ-line editing seems
more dangerous than the editing of the somatic cells because the
introduced changes could spread through the gene pool. Germ-line
editing also presents some “advantages.” It could be done during
I.V.F. at the embryo level. That could help surmount the mosaicism
problem because, at this stage, the number of cells that will be
edited would be low. Moreover, somatic editing wouldn’t prevent
genetic diseases before birth. The person would first be born with
the disease, and the treatment would be done afterward to his/her
somatic cells. In such a case, he/she would continue to transmit the
deleterious genes. In contrast, germ-line editing would prevent the
condition before birth and prevent the person from transmitting the
deleterious alleles to his/her offspring. If it could be done
successfully, it could eradicate these diseases at their root.
After
the publication of Greely’s book, He Jiankui edited the genomes of
three human embryos in 2018. He used CRISPR/Cas9 to delete the
gene CCR5 when
his subjects were only a single cell. That caused a great uproar in
the field of biotechnology. His fellow scientists reprimanded him for
being irresponsible. The Chinese government closed his lab, and he
was placed under house arrest. In 2019, he was sentenced to three
years in prison and fined half a million dollars. Don’t misread
such reactions though. Those reactions of scientists and governments
weren’t against the human genome editing per se. They didn’t
criticize Jiankui because he violated the wild character of humans or
because they were repulsed by the idea of an artificially produced
human. They are against the rushed use of this technology. Before being used on humans, the technology
should become as perfect as possible. Problems mentioned above, such
as mosaicism or the unintended editing of neighboring genes, should
be solved. Otherwise, a spectacularly negative consequence of this
technology on a human could tarnish the technology, create a backlash
in public, erode the funding of research, and doom the further
improvement and mass application of it.
The
novel technologies sometimes need a seasoning period. The public
should get accustomed to them. Some people’s concerns and natural
aversion to controversial technologies generally erode over time
through habituation. Biotechnologies, since they deal with the
fundamental character of living things, are the epitome of such
controversial technologies. There is something uneasy about tinkering
artificially with living things. But people get used to them through
time as these technologies spread and infringe more and more into
their lives.16 People
become convinced of their normalcy by propaganda, apathy, or sheer
habituation. In the long term, such technologies
could create the most horrible
consequences based on our current sensibilities. In the case of the
reproductive technologies we discuss, they could turn humans and
other organisms into totally artificial designed products shaped for
the necessities of the large organizations that develop those
technologies. However, their initial consequences are generally seen
as mundane, and people gradually accept their ever-widening and
deepening use. If the gradual spread of novel reproductive
technologies is managed well, people might not see them as
controversial. The recipe would be relatively simple: First, use
those technologies in laboratory trials on mice and primates to be
sure that they are effective and reliable. Then, use them on the
somatic cells of humans to cure debilitating genetic diseases. After
that, you can start using them on human embryos to cure the same
genetic diseases in germ-line. After you pass such thresholds, it
would be easier to apply them for the “enhancement” of humans.
Start tinkering with debilitatingly low IQ levels or out-of-the-norm
physical characteristics and emotional states, etc., and gradually
include more normal levels of these traits into your repertoire. The
scientific community would like to use this strategy
of gradual habituation. Scientists got angry with Jiankui not because
they were repulsed by the idea of modifying genes; they got alarmed
because his haste could have ruined this process of gradual
habituation.
Statements
from the scientists in the field corroborate that attitude. In a 2015
article, Jennifer Doudna (the pioneer of CRISPR/Cas9) and her
colleagues say that “In humans, [CRISPR/Cas9] holds the promise of
curing genetic disease, while in other organisms it provides methods
to reshape the biosphere for the benefit of the environment and human
societies. However, with such enormous opportunities come unknown
risks to human health and well-being.”17 These
unknown risks include the “potential for unintended consequences of
heritable germline modifications because there are limits to our
knowledge of human genetics, gene-environment interactions, and the
pathway of disease…”18 They
recommend transparency in the field so that public continue to trust
in science. They suggest that, for now, germline modification should
not be attempted. They are not categorically against human genome
editing; they just
don’t want a cursory application of the technology to ruin the
future of the field. Before applying this technology beyond the
laboratory trials, scientists should eliminate its deficiencies. And
what they say about “reshaping the biosphere for the benefit of the
environment and human societies” shows that this technique
will have a much broader scope than modifying human genes. It could
be used to shape wild Nature for the benefit of the techno-industrial
system.
Some
other scientists fear that human germline editing could imperil their
own field. In an article called “Don’t edit the human germline,”
the authors caution that “genome editing in human embryos using
current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future
generations. That makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable. Such
research could be exploited for non-therapeutic modifications. We are
concerned that a public outcry about such an ethical breach could
hinder a promising area of therapeutic development, namely making
genetic changes that cannot be inherited.”19 Of
course, they are not categorically opposed to germline editing. “At
this early stage,” they say, “scientists should agree not to
modify the DNA of human reproductive cells. Should a truly compelling
case ever arise for the therapeutic benefit of germline modification,
we encourage an open discussion around the appropriate course of
action.”20 In
short until the editing becomes effective and safe, the field should
limit itself to somatic modification lest it doesn’t
receive negative publicity as a result of a hasty and faulty
application of germline editing.
We
see the same approach in a 2017 report by the U.S. National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The report says that
“Heritable germline genome-editing trials must be approached with
caution, but
caution does not mean they must be prohibited (emphasis
added). If the technical challenges are overcome and potential
benefits are reasonable in light of the risks, clinical trials could
be
initiated …”21
In
our opinion, human genome editing would start with the editing of
somatic cells to cure the most debilitating genetic diseases. Such
diseases are so awful that when the techniques that could cure them
are developed sufficiently, not using them for treatment would seem
like cruelty. As they demonstrate their efficacy in somatic editing,
a point would come for their germline application. As we said above,
germline editing could solve the diseases at their root. Cured
patients wouldn’t transmit faulty genes to their offspring. When
the gene editing technology is sufficiently developed, using them
only for somatic editing would seem like an enormous waste. The
treatment of genetic diseases would be the first breach on the wall.
As people become more and more habituated to genome editing and gene
sequencing and editing techniques improve further, other traits will
gradually come into the scope of gene editing.
Greely’s
Easy PGD could play the role of a bridge here, a bridge between
natural reproduction22 and
direct genetic modification. Easy PGD initially would only be used to
prevent genetic diseases. Easy PGD won’t involve gene modification.
It will produce several alternative embryos, make it
possible to screen the DNA of these embryos, and desired embryos will
be chosen from these alternatives. It won’t directly modify the
genes or introduce new genes into the human genome, and the genome
combinations of embryos will be those of their parents. As Greely
points out, it won’t (at least initially and in the short term)
create a super-race that will be fundamentally superior to those who
won’t use this technique for various reasons. Such traits will give
Easy PGD an appearance of naturalness; it won’t feel like an abrupt
and substantial break with natural reproduction. As a result, it will
be a perfect transition that could habituate people to a more
artificial reproductive technique that directly manipulates the
genes.
Reception
of Easy PGD
Greely
thinks a ban on Easy PGD will be unlikely in the US. Constitutional
rights regarding the reproductive process will make such a ban
extremely unlikely. Even if a statute were to ban Easy PGD, it would
be difficult to enforce because Easy PGD would be a “victimless”
crime. One cannot imagine killing a child who is born as a result of
Easy PGD or terminate an Easy PGD pregnancy. The law could only
target the businesses that perform it, but that won’t be very
effective. Some countries wouldn’t ban Easy PGD, and different
countries would allow its different levels of implementation. Some
would only allow curing genetic diseases, some would allow the
enhancement of physical or personal characteristics, and some could
even let “incest” parenthood or uni-parenthood.23 People
would
go to those countries that approve the “treatment” they would
like to have. It would be very hard for a country that bans the
procedure to prevent its citizens from obtaining the “treatment”
from other countries.
Moreover,
though some circles would oppose Easy PGD, the mainstream probably
wouldn’t develop a strong opinion about it. The attitudes towards
I.V.F. are an indication. Although I.V.F. is a highly artificial
procedure that intervenes in natural or “god-given” processes of
reproduction, virtually nobody, not even conservatives, is against
it. That is despite the fact that many embryos are destroyed during
the process, and these embryos are regarded as “persons” by
“pro-life” circles. I.V.F. helps people to have babies, and
conservative people (who have more potential to be against I.V.F.)
regard them as blessings. That makes them overlook other problematic
features of the procedure they would normally oppose from a
conservative perspective. Most probably, the majority of the people
in Western countries would be against an outright ban on Easy PGD.
They will see it as a personal choice if the states don’t coerce
them to use it.24 They
would regard Easy PGD (or CRISPR/Cas9) as a personal choice, just
like they do with other technologies. However, in reality, such
technologies would cease to be a personal choice when they begin to
be used by large numbers of people, as is the case with other
technologies. Even the reticent people would feel pressured to use
those technologies for their children. They would experience social
pressure from their family and friends. Aren’t they concerned about
their children? What if they are born with genetic diseases? Why they
don’t guarantee their children’s health, especially now when
there is an easy and cheap method for it? When large numbers of
people started to use new reproductive technologies, reluctant people
would begin to be concerned about the competency of their children.
If they don’t use such technologies, their children could be less
intelligent, less hard-working, less social, etc. They would feel
compelled to use them as a result.
An
outright ban of Easy PGD would be unlikely. However, the states would
surely try to regulate this procedure in Western countries. The
questions about how to regulate Easy PGD would create many
controversies. Which aspects of this procedure should be allowed or
banned, and the polemics on how they should be implemented would
enter into our daily political bickering and culture war spectacle.
Leftists would surely want states to finance this procedure.
Otherwise, they would argue, it could create a biological gap between
rich and poor people. What about the developed and underdeveloped
countries? Leftists
would argue that if
poor countries can’t find the resources to implement the procedure
in their own countries, the rich ones should help them because this
could create a biological gap between the citizens of rich and poor
countries. What about the bizarre consequences of iPSCs? This
technology would make it possible for a person to be both a “mother”
and a “father.” It would be possible to create sperm and eggs
from the same person and create an embryo using them. Should we allow
this to happen? The same technology will make it possible for
same-sex couples to have their own biological children. Should we
allow
this?25
What if some people would like to have deaf children? Should
we
allow people to have children with disabilities? How could we prevent
them from making this decision? If we don’t allow such a choice,
does this mean that we see deaf or other “handicapped” people
less than the “normal” people? Isn’t it cruel not to cure low
levels of IQ? What about people who are inclined to commit crimes?
Why don’t we help them have more successful and happy lives?
Beneath
the spectacle of polemics such hard questions will foster, the
techniques of artificial reproduction will seep into more and more
categories of traits and enlarge the scope of their application as
long as they demonstrate their effectiveness, and in the
not-so-distant future, Homo
Sapiens will
turn into an artificially designed species. Although their fate won’t
receive such polemical attention, other species will also be exposed
to these genetic interventions for various reasons: to make
domesticated species more productive (inducing the cows to produce
more milk, increasing the yield of cereals), to make them more
resistant to diseases, to pesticides, to heat, to cold, etc.; to
exterminate invasive species; to adapt wild species to changing
ecological conditions (climate change, chemical and nuclear
pollution, invasive species, the acidification of oceans, and for
myriad other ways humans are affecting wild ecosystems) and “save”
them from extinction; to restore extinct species; etc. Gene editing
technologies could destroy the whole wild genetic heritage through
such interventions.
Greely’s
Confusion
About
the Naturalness
of Easy PGD
Greely
discusses some moral objections to Easy PGD. These are God’s will,
unnaturalness, ignorance, and repugnance. Greely says that there is
not a convincing argument among them. We will focus here on his
discussion of the naturalness argument because it seems similar to
our position and will allow us to explain better why we are against
Easy PGD.
In
his discussion of the unnaturalness argument, Greely seems to confuse
the different meanings of nature and use these different meanings
wherever convenient for his argument. First, he says the
unnaturalness argument comes from the “naturalistic fallacy.” In
the “naturalistic fallacy,” just because something “is” it
therefore “ought” to be. Some people could confuse the
“naturalistic fallacy” with our position that sees wild Nature as
the most valuable thing. We are against Easy PGD, gene editing, or
any other artificial technology that could interfere with natural
reproductive processes that evolved through natural selection because
these interventions would restrict, subjugate, and control wild
processes. Greely says he sees the unnaturalness argument as a
fallacy. However, when we look closely into Greely’s refutation of
the unnaturalness argument, we observe that he doesn’t oppose the
argument itself; on the contrary, Greely tries to convince us that
Easy PGD is natural. Greely says that “‘nature’26 (at
least as we know it on earth) provides many forms of
reproduction.”27 Then
he goes on to enumerate different forms of reproduction we see in
Nature: species that switch back and forth reproducing clonally and
reproducing sexually, species that have entirely asexual individuals
with only a tiny fraction of the individuals able to be either
genetic mother or father (bees and ants, for example), some species
whose individuals could change from one sex to another during their
lifetimes several times, some species that can only produce with the
help of other species, species that make thousands of or even
millions of offspring and pay no attention to them once launched,
other species that make only a few offspring and lavish parental
attention on them, species that regularly practice infanticide or
fratricide, species in which some males hoard
all reproductive possibilities by acquiring “harems,” some other
species in which the males are tightly controlled by females, etc.,
etc. He claims we cannot see Easy PGD as unnatural since Nature
harbors such different reproductive forms. He seems to be confused
about the meanings of nature and naturalness. Natural means something
that exists in or is derived from Nature, and Nature is the phenomena
of the physical world
collectively, including plants, animals, and the landscape, as
opposed to humans and human creations. So,
natural would be those things that are not made, caused by, or
processed by humankind. Wild Nature would be those aspects of Nature
that have their own autonomous processes. The different reproductive
forms Greely enumerates are the products of a wild process, evolution
through natural selection. They could involve many different
reproductive strategies,
but such diversity in Nature wouldn’t make Easy PGD natural, a
procedure designed and implemented by humans.
Perhaps
seeing the contradiction in refuting the naturalness argument by
convincing his readers that Easy PGD is natural, he attacks the
argument from a different angle, an angle more convenient and
difficult to disagree with because it utilizes the holiest dogma of
our society: technology. Greely says that if you refute Easy PGD
because it is unnatural, you should also refute all the other
technologies
like clothes, crops and livestock, schools and learning, planes,
cars, computers, antibiotics, modern childbirth, etc. Here, he
dishonestly equates all sorts of technologies and puts them in one
basket. That is a cheap trick frequently used by the promoters of
technology. They equate all technologies without considering their
effects (on Nature and society) and their place in the broader
technological system. Reproductive technologies are
not exactly like clothing and schooling. They
could fundamentally change human reproduction and turn humans and
other wild species into manufactured products.
Without
putting them into the same basket, we should evaluate different
technologies based on the criteria of whether they belong to an
integrated complex system that rapidly subjugates and destroys wild
Nature or not. Some
technologies are simple and could exist without complex social
systems (wooden spears, stone cutters, clothes made locally from
locally existing materials). Others are organization-dependent
(planes, automobiles, antibiotics, modern childbirth, Easy PGD,
CRISPR/Cas9) and cannot exist without complex integrated systems.
Such
organization-dependent technologies
cannot be evaluated individually. They are the integral parts of a
global system that has enormous effects on wild Nature and forces us
to live a particular way of life, and they preclude the “choice”
Greely wants us to believe we have. Greely
says that he could accept the naturalness argument of those who also
reject other modern technologies, especially such technologies as
modern contraception, artificial insemination, fertility treatments,
or I.V.F. Greely says that such people should have the right not to
use Easy PGD, but not force their refusal on other people who will
want to use it. Using or not using Easy PGD should be a personal
choice. Here, Greely commits a typical error; he sees modern
technologies as personal choices. As we said, modern technologies are
integral parts of the techno-industrial system. This system changes
our living conditions so fundamentally that it becomes practically
impossible to live our lives without its influence. Once a technology
is integrated into this system and becomes widespread, it becomes
impossible for nearly everyone not to be influenced by it or even not
to use it. What starts as a choice initially becomes a necessity
eventually. As Greely himself predicts, Easy PGD has the potential to
become extremely widespread. If it becomes successful, the vast
majority of people will use it. The same is true for the genome
editing technologies. In such a case, people who refuse to use these
will become outcasts. It could become practically impossible not to
use these technologies, just like smartphones and the Internet. On
the other hand, it is futile to oppose organization-dependent
technologies individually and
through personal choice.
As long as the integrated system of which such technologies are part
exists, they will only increase in number and expand their scope of
application.
The
logic Greely employs here is so similar to the thinking process of a
drug addict. Since we accepted antibiotics, modern childbirth,
infertility treatments, and I.V.F. we could also very well accept
Easy PGD. We perfectly know where this logic will lead us: Since we
accepted Easy PGD, we could also accept genome editing for genetic
diseases. We already edited our genomes, so why don’t we also treat
low IQ? Since we already meddled with IQ, why don’t we enhance our
IQ, physical features, etc., etc? We already fucked up our genome, so
why don’t we merge ourselves
with machines, and so forth.
Conclusion
New
reproductive technologies harbor enormous
potential to stir evolution (not only for humans but for all life
forms) enormously in a very short period from an evolutionary
perspective. Assuming we won’t be substituted by machines in the
coming decades, to which direction such technologies will lead us? We
cannot predict in detail how the artificial design of organic life
will shape us. We can only make rough guesses by considering the
necessities of the societies that will make such transformations.
Biotechnologies are developed by organizations (companies, research
institutions, etc.) that are part of human societies. Increasingly
since the advent of agriculture, human societies have become more
complex. They
need to acquire energy, material, and space from Nature to function
and perpetuate their existence. They have developed more and more
technologies that enabled them to expand their space of operation,
and using these technologies, they have acquired more and more energy
and materials into their metabolisms. Such material needs produce
emergent qualities in human societies that make them behave like
superorganisms28 with
their own needs and goals. On the other hand, human societies are
subject to Darwinian selection. Societies that have the best
qualities to acquire the material needs to perpetuate their existence
are the ones that end up continuing to exist.
As
of now, social systems need humans to function. Humans are actuators
of these superorganisms, and the relationship between humans and
superorganisms is similar to mutualism. Social systems satisfy the
needs of humans, and humans undertake the functions that are
necessary for the existence of such systems. Here, we encounter the
paradoxical and tragic reality of post-agricultural human existence.
The enormous difference between the speed of biological and cultural
evolution threw us into an existence we are not biologically adapted
to. As humans, we evolved in and adapted to fundamentally different
conditions than we experience in post-agricultural societies. Our
physical and psychological capabilities, needs, tendencies, and
desires evolved for a much less collectivistic existence in wild
Nature as members of small groups. However, due to our rapid cultural
evolution, immensely complex and collectivistic superorganism-like
social systems emerged. They make us live in artificial environments
we are not evolutionarily adapted to, and they expect us to behave in
ways that clash with our natural inclinations. The history of
humanity since the advent of agriculture is, in a way, the history of
our uneasy existence in such superorganisms. Humans don’t have the
exact qualities superorganisms need for their effective functioning,
and they have some tendencies that disrupt the smooth functioning of
the superorganisms. Humans get tired; they need to eat and sleep.
They have erratic moods; they could get demoralized and need to be
entertained and encouraged. They are prone to laziness; they slack
off at work, get bored, or lose motivation. Most of them hate school;
they don’t want to study academic subjects. They have
individualistic tendencies that are not at all suitable for a complex
collectivistic society. They are generally concerned with themselves
and their loved ones. They steal and take graft. They are inclined to
nepotism. They hate or envy each other. They could become aggressive
and use violence uncontrollably. They are inclined to xenophobia,
etc.
Superorganisms
have used various methods such as direct violence, oppression,
physical surveillance, propaganda (religions that preach
collectivistic attitudes, the belief about all seeing omnipotent
goods, modern collectivistic ideologies and moral systems, etc.),
encouragement through material rewards, psychological palliatives
like entertainment, etc. to make humans behave “properly.”
However, such methods cannot completely solve the problems of
discrepancy we mentioned. Thousands of years of biological evolution
would be necessary for humans to adapt to the life of a member of a
superorganism. Societies could use the new reproductive technologies
to eliminate that mismatch. They will try to fashion supersocial
human beings.
Of course, they won’t do this with a conscious effort. That outcome
will come about as a result of the Darwinian selection pressures that
operate on social systems. Those systems that will make their members
more beneficial to themselves will gain an evolutionary advantage
over the systems that will be less successful in that regard. Forced
to follow that logic, they will make humans more and more social,
meek, cooperative, and sacrificial. They will try to eliminate the
natural individualistic tendencies of humans to habituate them to the
rigid, bureaucratic, controlled conditions of life superorganisms
create. The continued existence of the techno-industrial system could
consummate a real eusocial society. If biological life continues
and not eventually be replaced by purely inorganic machines, human
societies
will
turn their members into ant-like, self-sacrificial, collectivistic,
supersocial organic peons.
Notes
Kaynak: Vahsikaracam.blogspot.com
