Interesting ideas.

On introducing random mutations - this isn’t a good idea in my opinion. To force some people to have a detrimental gene, in the interests of diversity, seems too extreme.

I’m a little skeptical of the risk that genetic engineering would have on diversity. After all, if we can insert genes, why do they have to be a specific human gene? We could insert genes from other organism, or even entirely novel genes. In that respect, genetic enhancement would increase diversity.

Finally, in the case that it does turn out that a genetic disorder had a hidden benefit, perhaps it should be mandatory that all genes about to go ‘extinct’ are recorded on data storages. Agriculture faces the same problems with diversity, so this solution is similar to the way that unusual crop seeds are currently being stored in seed banks.

It’s true that genetic engineering would allow us to insert genes from other lifeforms, or even completely synthesize genes. In this sense we would be increasing diversity.

However, most biological processes are the same whether you are a mouse or a human. Take the krebs cycle for example. If you are an organism that breathes oxygen, you are probably going to want this process optimized in the same way. The krebs cycle isn’t the only process that falls into this category, over half our genes match up with similar genes in most animals.

This leaves us with two options:

1.Optimize these processes for everyone. This hurts diversity, and might make us very vulnerable to things like proviruses.
2.Create Mutations.

I didn’t know they were keeping tabs on unusual crop seeds. That’s very interesting! I agree that something similar should be done for us. In a way I guess NCBI is already stepping into this role.

By the way… You have an interesting website!

Cloning is Controversial and this is an interesting post that spells out the problems and solutions involved with it.

The mysterious nature of science fascinates the scientist but terrifies the common public. Every invention is mistrusted when launched. That is what is happening with cloning. People are afraid of creating a Frankenstein.

Personally I feel that cloning individuals shouldn’t be approved easily.
The only reason I’d vote for cloning would be related to species that are going extinct.

By the way we have discussed the importance of genetic engineering in plants, in the post Organic Farming + Genetic Engineering = The New Organic?

Jared, you assume there is an optimum gene for all properties. This may be true for health related things like respiratory processes, where greater efficiency means less risk of hypoxia, but in many others the optimum is less clear.

Attributes like hair colour, body weight, sexuality, proclivity to sports - all of these are attributes where people will hardly ever agree on the best choice. So, some people will have children with purple hair, some will have asexual children, some will have small but energy-efficient children and some will have lethargic (but still healthy) children.

It is only in the case of the former attributes where I fear deliberately enforcing variation (meaning, sub-optimum performance) is morally questionable, and such a requirement is unlikely to be needed for the latter attributes.

I’m assuming there are some optimum genes. It’s interesting that you say it may be true in some instances. It only has to be true in one instance to put the entire population at risk.

I think it would be true in many instances. There are many cellular processes that need to perform the exact same function in most of the animal kingdome

In your example, a purple haired energy efficient child would want almost all of the same optimum genes as a lethargic child. A chicken would even want some of the same optimum genes.

Ah, I may have misunderstood your problems with a lack of diversity. I am used to arguing with those who think cultural/social diversity is a good thing, but you seem to be arguing for genetic diversity (for resistance to pathogens to prevent pandemics, correct?). So my above comment may seem to be on a tangent.

Still, I don’t see how you could justify causing likely harm to an individual for the possible benefit of the human race. At least, not against their will - I suppose it would be perfectly acceptable if the person consented, as a ‘likely harm for possible benefit’ sounds very much like most medical trials I’ve seen.

It is kind of a messy ethical question.

People are selfish and are probably going to want their children to be designed with optimum genes. It might be pretty hard to find people who are willing to volunteer to design their children with mutations.

It would have to be some kind of mandated policy for commonly used genes to have mutations. If people understood the risks involved with everyone having identical genes, it’s possible society would willingly vote for such a policy.

Would it be ethical to allow people to be designed sub par?

If all individuals are weighted with equal importance, then I think the answer is yes. The survival of the species is more important than a few individuals.

Creating mutations would be less risky than reproducing sexually. Mutations that we are certain would completely prevent the individual from functioning could be prevented. Such mutations wouldn’t provide any survival benefit.

I still consider it to be morally dubious. I doubt most people would vote for such a policy, as they would no doubt picture being told that their child was one of the few that were selected to have sickle cell anaemia, in order to prevent a possible malaria epidemic. I, for one, would not like this intrusion into my reproduction - just as I currently do not like natural mutations when they do the same.

Whether the survival of many is worth more than the suffering of one is a debate that goes on in the case of torturing suspected terrorists for information about terror plots. There is far from a consensus view there, so I doubt there will be one here.

What about the alternative?

I think the scale is much different. Torturing terrorists(which I strongly do not support) is not being done to save the species from going extinct.

If I had to pick between some terrorists being tortured and everyone being wiped out, I would pick for the terrorist to be tortured. Although, this hypothetical scenario is nothing like the current situation.

[...] can the cons be avoided while keeping the pros? I posted a follow up discussion to address this question. addthis_url = [...]

Torturing terrorists is usually done to gain information to save the lives of many people. What is a species but a group of people (I don’t think that the human species has any intrinsic value - humans have value, humanity doesn’t. But I suspect that opinion is an entire debate in itself).

I hesitate to appeal to future technologies to solve problems, but perhaps we will soon be able to simulate enough of the human genome and cellular functions that, in addition to in vitro work and animal models, actually introducing mutations into living humans will be unnecessary.