On page 56, Shubin highlights a major part of our development/hormone unit: "Whole batteries of genes are turned on and off during fly development, and this pattern of gene activity serves to demarcate the different regions of the fly." Evolution has been dictating the regulation and expression of genes since the beginning of life on Earth; however, it appears that human research is making strides in being able to dictate certain gene expressions. Using your knowledge of regulation and development, would it be possible to arrest, say, brain development to create organims with bigger brains? Or move certain genes/molecules to create many armed creatures? And if this is possible, is it ethical? (Feel free to consult our ethical values on pg. 16 of the course outline book.)
(Jackie Edelson, jedelson92@gmail.com)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMany of the mutations that you suggested could have occurred with evolution. The theme of evolution suggests that mutations occur in the DNA randomly. Duplication, rearrangement, and mutation of DNA contribute to the evolution of the genome (Campbell 438). This means that as time progresses, certain mutations are inevitable. If a certain mutation offers an individual a selective advantage due to some natural pressure over other individuals, the mutated genetic code will be more likely to be continued because the mutated individual would be more likely to survive and reproduce. Over time, as more of these individuals reproduce and the mutation is proliferated, the entire population could possess this mutation. It is entirely possible for humans to evolve bigger brains should bigger brains provide a selective advantage over individuals without bigger brains. However, in a general sense, there are few natural selectors that humans face that would allow for these mutations to be sustained.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the mutations that are discussed relate to the science of eugenics. Literally meaning normal genes, eugenics aims to improve the genetic constitution of the human species by selective breeding (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3335). In addition, eugenics employs the alteration of genetic information to obtain desired traits. Now, a distinct divide emerges over the ethics of eugenics. Eugenics can be used, not just hypothetically to create organisms with bigger brains or armed creatures as you suggest, but also to eliminate certain diseases. “Differences in genes determine, for instance, eye color and susceptibility to certain diseases,” (http://jp.senescence.info/thoughts/genetics.html). By knowing which gene, which piece of the genetic code is responsible for a given disease, scientists have the opportunity to understand how diseases occur and eventually develop treatments. Thus, by understanding the genetic code, it is possible to determine why certain genetic disorders persist. Beyond that, the scientists can begin to experiment with the genetic code, turning certain genes on and off for example, in an attempt to eliminate these genetic disorders from the population. It becomes an interesting question at this point. There are thousands of genetic diseases that are encoded by the DNA, such as the Down's syndrome and horrible life-threatening diseases like Tay-Sachs syndrome, cystic fibrosis, and Gaucher's disease (http://jp.senescence.info/thoughts/genetics.html).
If scientists have the ability to prevent these disorders from existing, it could be argued that they have a responsibility to protect the general population. It could be argued that it is unethical for these doctors to prevent future generations from suffering from these horrible disorders.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, eugenics presents a dangerous reality. Scientists would slowly begin to weed out “undesirable” traits from the population. The eugenics programs would create in and of themselves an artificial natural pressure, as paradoxical as the notion may seem, in which certain traits are eliminated. The eugenics movement in the past promoted the selective breeding of people to encourage "strong" genetic traits while discouraging "weak" traits (http://www.icta.org/biotech/index.cfm). For example, why bother having short people in the population if eugenics could allow all people to be tall? This use of eugenics is known as negative eugenics, as opposed to the positive eugenics which is designed to make a healthier population. It is unclear if eugenics is advanced enough today to allow for the turning on or off of certain genes that code for various traits by the addition of hormones, but with further research this is a real possibility. Either way, clearly it is possible that eugenics could be unethical in that it would promote the destruction of certain traits artificially. History provides us a shocking reminder of the potential that eugenics poses to become an unethical vehicle for “genetic cleansing.” In the 1930’s and 1940’s the Nazi regime under Hitler had developed a system of eugenics; today, we call it the Holocaust.
Vickram Pradhan vickram.pradhan@yahoo.com