Skip to content

Genetics

Competing against Mutants

Introduction

In a recently broadcasted documentation about gene-doping, multiple award winning Swiss science journalist and author, Beat Glogger, reflected the issue of gene-doping in a sensitive and objective manner. In this Swiss-German co-production Andy Miah, a bold British Bioethicist, argued that gene-doping is supposed to be a natural friendly method of performance enhancement, whereas many other practices in the past weren’t. Simultaneously, he considered athletes no more as natural creatures by arguing: “We have to get rid of the imagination, that athletes are natural human-beings” (freely re-translated from the German version). Despite the fact that this statement is rather an anti-thesis than a substantiation for his strident position, I have to admit that the current development in gene technology tends to construct a sort of athletic hybrid. No doubt, this is a serious future issue we have to face. Nevertheless, Andy Miah’s declaration implies that athletes might kind take on a pioneer role regarding the subject of genetic enhancement. Therefore, is that an issue worth considering or even to achieving?

Read More »Competing against Mutants

The Age of the Genome – on BBC radio tomorrow night

Genetic tests at birth, designer babies, synthetic life and resurrected mammoths. In the final part of this series, Richard Dawkins talks to Craig Venter and other leading scientists about the potential powers of genome science in the future. The program also includes an interview with Julian Savulescu and others about the ethical implications of these… Read More »The Age of the Genome – on BBC radio tomorrow night

Will you live to 100? Should we tell people that they have (or lack) the genes for long life?

In the news today – scientists have identified a cluster of longevity genes. From the Daily Mail A genetic test which tells whether you will make it to your century has been developed by scientists. The computer program will give individuals their odds of reaching the age of 100 – and tell them whether their… Read More »Will you live to 100? Should we tell people that they have (or lack) the genes for long life?

Is “playing God” just a meaningless phrase?

In a
recent piece for Prospect magazine, Philip Ball denounces the “playing God” objection, often made
against some proposed uses of biotechnology, as a “meaningless, dangerous
cliché”. More specifically, Ball mentions the objection in relation to Craig
Venter’s creation – already discussed on this blog – of the first microorganism
with a wholly synthetic genome. Though many people from the press have raised
the “playing God” issue in their coverage of Venter’s achievement, “no one”,
Ball writes, “seems in the least concerned to enquire what this phrase means or
why it is being used”. 

Read More »Is “playing God” just a meaningless phrase?

Today we lost the drug war

What does synthetic biology mean? Quinn Norton argues it means the end of the drug war: synthetic biology might be able to do the wonderful things (as well as the dangerous things) envisioned by Venter and others, but it definitely can produce drugs. It is also much easier to produce chemicals than fix the environment or make bioweapons. As Quinn notes:

"It’s still hard to grow drugs in medium. But the whole point of this
project is to make it easier. Who will be motivated to put in the work
to make it happen? Especially if it’s so bad for organized crime? Drug
addicts, frankly. You think they look like street junkies with DTs, but
a fair number look like scientists, because they are. Drugs will
finally be p2p, and governments and drug lords alike will find out what
it’s like to be media companies and counterfeiters in a world of
lossless copying and 100Mb pipes. Junkies will be victims of their
success, and if we don’t get serious about treating addiction instead
of trying to fight chemicals, it’s going to look a lot more bloody and
horrid than the RIAA’s lawsuit factory. This is just one vision of what
this kind of disruption looks like when people get a hold of it."

Read More »Today we lost the drug war

Eugenics or ‘reprogenetics’? Call it what you will, but let’s do it

As The
Times recently
reports:

 

“British couples are to be offered a groundbreaking genetic test that
would virtually eliminate their chances of having a baby with one of more than
100 inherited diseases. The simple saliva test, which identifies whether
prospective parents carry genetic mutations that could cause life-threatening
disorders such as cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy or sickle-cell
anaemia in their children, is to be launched within weeks in Britain… If the
procedure, which will cost about £400 per person or £700 for a couple, is
widely adopted, it could dramatically reduce the incidence of 109 serious
inherited conditions that collectively affect one in every 280 births.”

 

Surely we should be delighted at such great news?
Surprisingly, not everyone agrees. Some experts object that the test, devised
by the Californian company
Councyl, could lead to “back door eugenics”.
They also argue that the
diseases it detects are too rare for most people to need screening, and that it
will cause needless alarm. Finally, they fear that it will raise demand for
embryo screening and abortion.

 

Read More »Eugenics or ‘reprogenetics’? Call it what you will, but let’s do it

Will Down syndrome disappear?

There are concerns about the impact of the improving accuracy and availability of low risk cheap prenatal tests such as for Down syndrome (DS). Introduction of a noninvasive maternal serum test is expected that might provide a definitive diagnosis of DS in the first trimester at no risk to the fetus. The authors report that the tests should be virtually universally available and allow privacy of decision making. The authors ask whether the new tests will decrease the birth incidence of DS even further. Indeed, might there be no more DS children born? If so, is that a problem?

Read More »Will Down syndrome disappear?

Protecting our borders with snake oil

The UK Borders Agency has recently come under fire for looking into the use of DNA tests and isotope analysis to determine the true nationality of asylum seekers. It is not just refugee support groups who are outraged, scientists are equally upset (perhaps more). The problems are many: there is no reason to think ancestry and ethnicity fits with nationality, the relevant genetics and isotope data is noisy, the research may not have been vetted for reliability, and it is not inconceivable that noise in the tests could be used as excuses for dismissing people who actually have valid asylum reasons (like linguistic tests occasionally do).

The project is unfortunately just the latest example that governments may be too eager to buy snake oil: on this blog I have previously criticized the use of voice-based lie detectors, the legal use of fMRI to determine guilt, ethics for military robots, pre-emptive DNA testing and electronic voting machines. The problem here is not that these technologies can't work, but that they are deployed far earlier than any careful demonstration that they actually work well enough to fulfil their purpose. It is a "science fact" problem: it is hard these days to tell what has proven to work, what is being developed and what remains a theoretical possibility. Especially when it is being pushed by enthusiastic researchers and salesmen.

Read More »Protecting our borders with snake oil

A tiny step forward

Researchers have managed to produce live-born mice (original article) descended from induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS cells), cells taken from adult animals and treated to become stem cells. That individuals could be produced from embryonic stem cells was already known, but this proves that the IPS cells can produce all kinds of cells in an adult body. Good news for people uneasy about the need for embryonic stem cells… or is it?

If one argues that it is wrong to use embryonic stem cells because embryos carry moral rights, then the question is whether the creation of IPS cells produce something that also has moral rights.

Read More »A tiny step forward

Precrime in Camden: using DNA profiles for crime prevention

The UK police has an estimated 5.3 million DNA profiles in its databases, of which about 850,000 are of people who were never convicted of any crime (including 24,000 samples of youngsters who have never been convicted, cautioned or charged with any offence). Although the European Court ruled that a policy of retaining profiles of innocent people is illegal, the Home Office seems keen to retain them anyway, at least for serious crimes. Now it is claimed by a police officer that police in Camden deliberately target young people who have not been arrested yet in order to obtain DNA samples. According to him it is part of a long-term crime prevention strategy to discourage future crime. But does pre-emptive acquisition of DNA profiles make sense as crime prevention?

Read More »Precrime in Camden: using DNA profiles for crime prevention