Brave New World, Nettlesome New Dilemma--The Debate Over Genetics

Professor Li Chia-tung of Chi Nan University stated in his article "Why we shouldn't be too quick to alter genes," "I am a computer scientist, and everyone in my field understands that you have to be extremely careful about making changes in software written by someone else, because a single program controls a lot of different things, and you never know what headaches you'll cause by fiddling with the program. The consequences can be disastrous."

Genes are, in effect, the software of life. What kind of consequences might there be if we alter or reproduce them?

Is there no one worth cloning?

Since the cloning of Dolly the sheep, scientists have followed up by cloning a cow and mouse as well. The way things are going, it looks like the technology for cloning humans could well be within our reach in the near future.

Dr. Robert Edwards, who produced the world's first test-tube baby, once said, "I've never met anyone worth cloning." Putting aside the question of whether anyone worth cloning exists or not, the very idea of cloning a human being is enough to send chills up and down the spine. It brings to mind images of Frankenstein, the man-made monster who has exercised the human imagination for nearly two centuries.

Opponents of cloning state, "It's impossible to imagine having any feeling of respect or affection for something that had sprung forth from the nucleus of a single cell without ever going through the process of mating."

Some biologists feel it is just a matter of time until someone successfully clones a human being, but Professor Hsiao Kuang-jen of the Institute of Genetics at National Yang-Ming University believes that it is impossible to produce a completely identical copy of a human being. "Even twins who shared the same ovum are not completely alike," says Professor Hsiao, "because even if their DNA is the same, they do not develop under identical conditions. Every person will always be a totally unique individual."

And even if an exact clone of one's body can be made, it would still be impossible to reproduce a person's consciousness and mode of thought. Professor asks, "How does consciousness form, anyway? Why do people think the way they do?" Science does not now have answers for these questions.

The issue of cloning humans gives rise to all manner of ethical dilemmas. The knottiest question of all is, "Do we have the right to play God?" Authorities in the United States have already addressed the issue by passing a law prohibiting human cloning for five years.

Now that British scientists have reportedly created a frog embryo without a head, we are seeing reports that scientists are studying how to produce headless persons.

The purpose in producing headless humans would clearly be to make use of their body parts for transplant surgery. But would a headless person be a human being or just a "spare body-part factory?" Ethical controversy over this issue is every bit as heated as the arguments related to human cloning.

The geneticist as fortune teller?

It is hard to foresee the social impact of human cloning or the production of headless humans because these phenomena are not a reality at this point, but genetics is already having a clearly observable effect on our outlook upon life.

According to Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, "It is genes, not individual living organisms, that have played the leading role in the long history of life. You and I are mere gene carriers responsible for passing them on from one generation to the next."

Some biologists unconsciously think of humans as a big collection of genes, and feel that genes control everything in our lives, including criminal behavior and sexual orientation. There are even biologists who draw a connection between our genetic makeup and how many hours of television we watch per day.

Scientists predict that once the human genome has been completely mapped out and interpreted, it will be possible to know each person's characteristics and tell what diseases he is subject to. When that time comes, people will go to a "gene reader" instead of a fortune teller to see what lies in their future. James Watson, who shared a Nobel Prize with Francis Crick for determining the double helix structure of DNA, once stated, "To a high degree, our fates are determined by our genes."

Besides using genes to see the state of our future health, some people may very well wish to control or modify life, either by correcting deficient genes or creating "super genes." The application of the latest breakthroughs in genetic science would put the practice of eugenics (human improvement by genetic means) on a different plane.

According to Professor Li Jui-chuan, director of the Graduate Institute of Philosophy at National Central University, if genetic determinism combines with eugenics, we would once again see politicians and racial bigots making use of genetic science for their own purposes. Professor Li argues strongly against the idea that genes determine everything. "This idea distorts the reality of human nature and seriously devalues human life," he says, adding that genetic makeup alone cannot account for every aspect of human behavior. "Genes do not determine the value of a human being!"

Don't blame science

In the opinion of Hsiao Kuang-jen, "Science will move continually forward in an effort to unravel the mystery of life." You cannot blame the scientists for the controversies that have arisen over genetics. The problem is with the people who make use of the new technology. This is just as true for genetics as it is for dynamite, which was invented by the very man after whom the Nobel Prize takes its name.

Some people point out that every scientific advance is greeted by jeers and suspicion, but it quickly becomes an accepted part of our world.

Joshua Lederberg, the 1958 Nobel laureate in physiology and medicine, wrote 30 years ago, "The fearful reaction to genetic engineering is no different from the worry and ridicule with which people greeted Charles Darwin's announcement that humans had evolved from apes."

There are also biologists who argue that the fear and worry of the average person stems from his unfamiliarity with biology.

The average person's response, however, might be: "I don't understand the technology, but I know what they're doing, and I know what they're making." Says Li Jui-chuan, "Sometimes we know better than the scientists what the consequences of their actions will be."

Scientists tend to believe in the limitless possibilities of science. Indeed, Professor Li himself is quick to note that most people are not opposed to efforts to unlock the mysteries of life, find the causes of disease, and develop methods for their prevention, but if genetic engineering is put to the wrong uses, says Li, all the biologists in the world will be powerless to roll back the awful consequences. The publication of Frankenstein in 1818 forecast the curse that would fall upon any man who dared play God, for Frankenstein's creator was killed by his own creation in the end.

Time for debate

The science of genetics is a double-edged sword. Will it bring mankind harm or benefit? On that question, the jury is still out. Predicting the future is not something we've ever been good at, so perhaps we'll just have to wait and see which way the ball bounces.

Even so, it is necessary for people in all walks of life to fully understand the issues and discuss them thoroughly.

According to Lin Kuo-ming, an associate professor of sociology at National Taiwan University, Western nations have had extensive discussion and debate over policies and a regulatory framework related to genetic science. NGOs overseas have pressured their governments to adopt certain restrictions. Moreover, scientists opposed to genetic engineering frequently air their views, and this soul-searching within the scientific community has placed certain "in-house" checks upon the direction of development.

"There has been almost no public debate at all in Taiwan on this subject," says Lin, who laments the low level of concern in Taiwan over genetic science and its applications.

The social impact of genetics includes risks. Should the development of genetics be encouraged or restricted? In the opinion of Lin Kuo-ming, this is not a matter just for the scientists, nor is it up to the government to decide. Rather, it should be faced squarely by all of society. "The key question," says Lin, "is how to promote a better understanding among the general public of all facets of the issue so that we can have fully informed public debate."

p.28

This fantasy painting, executed some 500 years ago by Raphael, features fantastic winged creatures, as if the author had foreseen a world in which genetics would become a reality.

p.29

This Tang-dynasty painting on silk was unearthed in Turpan, Xinjiang. Both of the creatures in the painting are half-human and half-snake.

p.30

Ancient Chinese legends speak of both three-headed and headless humans. Could such people actually have existed? In theory, once the science of genetics is far enough advanced we could see all sorts of new animals created. (from the Classic of Mountains and Seas)

p.31

The cloning of Dolly the sheep was a huge breakthrough in the field of genetics, and it sparked a wave of controversy over the possibility of human cloning. The latest issue of Nature reports that scientists have transferred a number of disease-resistant genes to a sheep, which was subsequently cloned. (courtesy of Chiang Hoang-yung, Development Center for Biotechnology)

p.31

This fossil discovered in Japan seems to indicate the past existence of a fish with a humanoid face. Was it just a mutation? Or were there genetic scientists playing tricks on Mother Nature eons ago? (courtesy of Chiang Hoang-yung)