 |
Fetus at 9 weeks
Guess how many prolife sites it took to find this? |
When originally discussing the potential for fetal gene sequencing, many people jump to a science fiction future where everyone's wearing the same sparkly uniforms and being chosen to work on some sort of intergalactic flight. Maybe I missed out on the sci-fi brainwashing as a child (we had one channel, guys, calm down) but my brain didn't jump there. I immediately thought, "Amazing!" Not that I have any interest in having children.
I don't.
However, the evolutionist in me is fascinated by the leaps and bounds science makes in "speeding up" evolution (not that I am always
for doing this - read: a new liver for an 80-year-old who drank their whole life, c'mon).
I realize this is a controversial statement to make. And the anti-abortionists will jump all over this as some type of awful eugenics. However, new testing procedures will potentially allow doctors to analyze a fetus's genome as soon as 9 weeks after conception. Instead of inserting a terrifyingly long needle into the fetus as in
amniocentesis, a small volume of the mother's blood can be tested for diseases. This is possible because scientists recently found that minute samples of fetal DNA are floating around in a pregnant woman's blood. These samples can be rapidly reproduced via
PCR and then studied for disease or other factors.
Ahh, but what
else can we test for? Eye color? Sure. Height? Soon. Intelligence? Well, maybe eventually. Then the big question is... what should be allowed? The potential for this to be misused is obviously there (let's everyone bring up China, again, and their hatred of girl babies, ok?). But these arguments seem weak to me in comparison with the good something like this offers. Being able to test for diseases like
Down's syndrome,
Tay-Sachs, or
phenylketonuria can be immensely helpful to potential parents. Is anyone going to make laws that say you HAVE to get this testing done? No. Is anyone going to make laws that say if you do get it done, and you find out something negative, you HAVE to get an abortion? Of course not, don't be ridiculous. But there are people that WANT TO KNOW. If I were a potential parent, I'd want to be as prepared as possible, and knowing a small number of the risks and hazards would seem like a huge relief. I'd want my kid to be brought into the world with the best chance of succeeding. There are still thousands of diseases we can't test for as well as the every day circumstances that we can't control (choking on legos, say, or being attacked by feral coyotes). Let those things happen by chance, and maybe take advantage of that ones you don't have to.
What is your view on the Gattaca political issue -- namely, that the rich would get richer, faster, stronger, and smarter, while the poor would get poorer, dumber, and generally more oppressed if these technologies are taken to their logical conclusion?
ReplyDeleteGood question. It's honestly tough for me to answer. My gut feeling says, so what? Evolution should naturally lead to smarter, faster, better-looking people, right? But I hear your point that money often dictates what's thought of as "good" in society so the people in charge probably aren't going to agree with my personal tastes on something like that (and obviously money doesn't = equal representation of a population; look at Congress). So yes, because of this, there probably DO need to be regulations, but it's probably going to be unfair regardless in a system where health care isn't equal for everyone. Even just simple disease testing can create a vicious cycle where only poor people might have children with severe genetic diseases, who in turn don't have health care and can't be adequately provided for.
ReplyDeleteThis is rambling. I'm not sure where to draw the line either.
Amazingly, I'm not quite sure where I stand on this BUT to play devil's advocate in a way...imagine the world without diseases, birth defects, and gasp - imperfections. What would that be like? It's a little more "romantic" and kind of antievolutionary, but don't those things bring something to the table in life as far as dealing with adversity and appreciating the good...shit like that?
ReplyDeleteI totally see where you're coming from in that. I just don't subscribe to that belief. I don't think there has to be a negative to appreciate the good, to put it simply. I guess my point was, even if you can control for a million things with genetics, there's still SO MUCH we can't control. There will never be a world with perfect humans, free of defects or disease. It's just not possible (evolutionarily, all disease is not bad, nor are all imperfections). And besides, no matter how "perfect" things may get, I'm absolutely positive we'll still find something to be unhappy about. ;)
ReplyDelete