Possibilities and Problems

Possibilities

There are several 'advancements' in biotechnology that are within the realm of possibility for the future. The primary four are as follows:

• Increasing Knowledge About the Brain and the Biological Sources of Human Behavior

• Neuropharmacology and the Manipulation of Emotions and Behavior

• The Prolongation of Life

• Genetic Engineering

Increasing Knowledge About the Brain and the Biological Sources of Human Behavior

“In speaking about the biotech revolution, it is important to remember that we are talking about something much broader than genetic engineering. This scientific revolution draws on findings and advances in a number of related fields besides molecular biology, including cognitive neuroscience, population genetics, behavior genetics, psychology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, and neuropharmacology. All of these areas of scientific advance have potential political implications, because they enhance our knowledge of, and hence our ability to manipulate, the source of all human behavior, the brain.

Since at least the time of the ancient Greeks, human beings have been arguing over the relative importance of nature versus nurture in human behavior.” Although for much of the twentieth century, culturally determined norms of behavior has been favored by those in the natural and particularly the social sciences, there has been a more recent leaning back towards an understanding of behavior that is more rooted in genetics and biology. There is much talk of “‘genes for’ everything from intelligence to fatness to aggression.”

This hereditary debate has been highly politicized from the beginning, conservatives generally favoring explanations rooted primarily in nature and “those on the Left” preferring explanations rooted primarily in nurture through culture and environment in general. History (including some not so distant) has seen both extremes of the debate. However, “neither is tenable in light of the currently available empirical evidence.”

Until now, there have been only two ways to scientifically disentangle natural from cultural causes of behavior: behavior genetics and cross-cultural anthropology. These two fields of study, each with its strengths and limitations, collect extensive sample data and make inferences about the greater population. Statistically, there has been compelling, and in some cases very strong evidence supporting universal biologically or genetically determined traits. However, these studies still do not provide us with the mechanisms by which these traits are determined. In at least some cases, future studies in Molecular Biology and Genetics may in fact do so.

“This kind of scientific knowledge, even in the absence of a technology that makes use of it, has important political implications. We have already seen this happen in the case of higher-level behaviors with genetic roots – intelligence, crime, and sexuality – and there is much more to come.”

Neuropharmacology and the Manipulation of Emotions and Behavior

With the fall of the Freudian approach to treatment of mental illness came the rise of neuropharmacology which began with the discovery of Lithium’s effect on manic depressive mental patients in 1949. It was the beginning of a revolution, “a new generation of drugs, like Prozac and Ritalin, whose social impact we are only now beginning to understand.”

There is a vastly greater understanding of the biochemical nature of the brain and its mental processes today than ever before. “The dozen or so neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine, control the firing of nerve synapses and the transmission of signals across neurons in the brain. The levels of these neurotransmitters and the way they interact directly affect our subjective feelings of well-being, self-esteem, fear, and the like. Their baseline levels are affected by things that go on in the environment and are very much related to what we understand to be personality.”

This understanding of neurotransmitters and how to manipulate them, even today has raised some interesting issues. With the even greater discovery that the future promises, even more issues, some of which are extremely difficult and controversial, are already beginning to be raised.

The Prolongation of Life

With the dramatic increase in life-expectancy for both men and women in the last century and the more recent decrease in birth rates in particularly the Western world, the world’s social and demographic landscape has changed significantly. With the current advancements in biotechnology, additional years may be possible for those who can afford it.

“One of the areas most affected by advances in molecular biology has been gerontology, the study of aging. There are at present a nember of competing theories as to why people grow old and eventually die, with no firm consensus as to the ultimate reasons or mechanisms by which this occurs,”

a) Evolutionary Biology and reproduction

b) Molecular Biology and the Hayflick limit

i. Accumulation of random genetic damage

ii. Telomeres – non-coding bits of DNA attached to end of each chromosome

BUT there’s telomerase!

Telomerase is an enzyme that prevents the shortening of telomeres and is found in germ cells, cancer cells, and certain types of stem cells.

The Geron Corporation has already cloned and patented the human gene for telomerase and, along with Advanced Cell Technology, has an active research program into embryonic stem cells.

Although it is uncertain whether or not the biotech industry will find a “shortcut” to the prolongation of life, observers like Francis Fukuyama believe it is “fairly safe to say that the cumulative impact of all the biomedical research going on at present will be to further increase life expectancies over time and therefore to continue the trend that has been underway for the last century.”

Genetic Engineering

Today, genetic engineering is used commonly in agricultural biotechnology to produce genetically modified organisms such as Bt corn (which produces its own insecticide) or Roundup Ready soybeans (which are resistant to certain weed control herbicides). Despite completion of the Human Genome Project, contemporary biotechnology is today very far from being able to modify human DNA in the way that it can modify the DNA of corn or beef cattle. Some argue that this will never be achieved and that the “ultimate prospects for genetic technology have been “grossly overhyped.” (Fukuyama, p. 79) We need, then, as Fukuyama suggests, “a balanced assessment of what this technology can be expected to achieve and a sense of the constraints that it may eventually face.” (Fukuyama, p. 79)

In spite of the mapping of the Human Genome, there is very limited understanding of it and, as Francis Fukuyama notes, “all the sequencing did was present the transcript of a book written in a language that is only partially understood.” (Fukuyama, p. 73) Much of the advancement in genetic engineering depends on the progress in proteomics and bioinformatics.

However, there are certain indications that genetic engineering is not a prospect to be removed from the table. As Fukuyama notes, “That the multiple functions of genes and gene interactions are highly complex does not mean that all human genetic engineering will be on hold until we understand them.” No technology ever develops in this fashion. New drugs are invented, tested, and approved for use all the time without the manufacturers knowing exactly how they produce their effects. There are other reasons for a serious consideration of the prospect of genetic engineering but these will be discussed in the following sections.

Problems

• The Blurry Line Between Fixing and Improving - Cosmetic Pharmacology and the Likes

• The Return of Eugenics

• Altering Human Nature and 'The Point of No Return'

The Blurry Line Between Fixing and Improving - Cosmetic Pharmacology and the Likes

Even today, without the biotechnological advancements of genetic specific drugs, psychotropic drugs such as Prozac and Ritalin can offer us some indication of what may lie ahead.

Prozac is an antidepressant that has garnered much fame and support in many circles. It blocks the reabsorption of serotonin by the nerve synapses and effectively increases the levels of serotonin in the brain. Serotonin is an important neurotransmitter and low levels are associated, in both humans and other primates, with poor impulse control and uncontrolled aggression against inappropriate targets, and in humans with depression, aggression, and suicide.

Today, Prozac and its relatives have been taken by approximately 28 million Americans, 10 percent of the entire population.

However, some studies have indicated that Prozac is not as effective as claimed and a number of books have argued that Prozac has a host of side-effects that its manufacturer has tried to cover up such as weight gain, tics, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, suicide, violence, and brain damage.

Although these may turn out to be true and the drug discontinued, the acceptance of the drug as safe and useable may lead to some interesting, somewhat disturbing consequences for Prozac is said to affect that most central of political emotions, the feeling of self-worth, or self-esteem.

As Socrates argued, in Plato’s Republic, there is a distinct part of humans that has an intersubjective demand for recognition by another human being of one’s “worth” or “dignity.” Economist Robert Frank refers to this in relation to economic interest in saying that it is a demand for status recognition that leads people to buy goods best referred to as positional goods. This demand for status recognition has also been demonstrated in political history, from rival princes who engage in battle, neither of whom needs the land or money, to more recent developments as the independence of Ukraine and Slovakia. (Fukuyama, 44-45)

Understanding that there are clearly millions of people in the world who suffer from depression and whose feelings of self-worth fall far below what they should be, and for them, Prozac is a “godsend,” Fukuyama asserts, “The normal, and morally acceptable way of overcoming low self-esteem was to struggle with oneself and with others, to work hard, to endure sometimes painful sacrifices, and finally to rise and be seen as having done so. The problem with self-esteem as it is understood in American pop psychology is that it becomes an entitlement, something everyone needs to have whether it is deserved or not. This devalues self-esteem and makes the quest for it self-defeating.” (Fukuyama, p 46)

The problem arises when self-esteem, in a sense, now comes in a bottle, and because low levels of serotonin do not demarcate a clear pathological condition, the door is open to “cosmetic pharmacology: that is, the taking of a drug not for its therapeutic value but simply because it makes one feel better than good. If a sense of self-esteem is so crucial to human happiness, who wouldn’t want more of it?” (Fukuyama, p. 46)

Similarly, with Ritalin, a stimulant created to help “treat” ADHD. In large doses, it is very similar to cocaine and so its use is somewhat restricted. However, during the 1990’s, Ritalin became one of the fastest-growing drugs used in high schools and on college campuses, as students discovered it helped them study for exams and pay better attention during class. The drug is also widely abused by people who are not diagnosed with ADHD. Elizabeth Wurtzel of Prozac fame describes chopping up and snorting forty Ritalin pills a day, which led to emergency room visits and detoxification therapy, at which she met mothers who stole their children’s pills for their own use.” (Fukuyama, p. 48)

It is not hard to see how Bill McKibben, author of “Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age” would be concerned about the use of genetic technology to improve rather than fix. If scientists were to discover how to manipulate intelligence, it probably will not be presented as manipulation, but fixing. How would we determine what normal intelligence is and where the line is to be drawn?

The Return of Eugenics

Embryonic Research for the medical purposes or human cloning has caused much debate in recent years.

What happens when we continually treat human life in a utilitarian way?

When are Rights accorded to a human life? – Is this decision based on ability or superficial traits?

If we assert that the lack of these traits mean a lack of humanity or a lack of worth, what are we simultaneously asserting about people who currently live with disorders that lack these abilities or traits?

If genetic engineering were to be legalized, who would have access to this technology?

Would some kind of Superhuman class be inadvertently created by the market and the already-existing disparities in wage and wealth distributions along lines of race, class, or gender?

Would there be a need for a genetic welfare democracy?

Altering Human Nature and 'The Point of No Return'

"Happy Slaves with a slavish happiness?" - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

Creativity?

Commodities?

Self-esteem?

Families and lemons

Eugenics | Eugenics and Family | People of Tomorrow | Possibilities and Problems | Requirements Now for the Future