Genetically modified humans

[Monica4316]

I came across this really scary article yesterday, about how they made the first genetically modified humans. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43767/Worlds-GM-babies-born.html Of course this has serious ethical/philosophical problems as well as frightening possible effects on the future of our world. I was wondering - would these children still be human?

I heard a while ago about them trying to combine human and animal DNA (I know …it just gets worse) - would these still be human or not???

any thoughts?

 

[rossum]

I came across this really scary article yesterday, about how they made the first genetically modified humans. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43767/Worlds-GM-babies-born.html Of course this has serious ethical/philosophical problems as well as frightening possible effects on the future of our world. I was wondering - would these children still be human?

I heard a while ago about them trying to combine human and animal DNA (I know …it just gets worse) - would these still be human or not???

any thoughts?

Every human is “genetically modified”. You cannot be genetically identical to your parents anyway, and you have about 150 mutations that they do not have. That is the reason we can use DNA sequencing to identify individuals.

The debate is about humans modifying their own germline, rather than simple modification.

In this case the modification was to allow the women in question to conceive, which would otherwise have been impossible.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

I came across this really scary article yesterday, about how they made the first genetically modified humans. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43767/Worlds-GM-babies-born.html Of course this has serious ethical/philosophical problems as well as frightening possible effects on the future of our world. I was wondering - would these children still be human?

I heard a while ago about them trying to combine human and animal DNA (I know …it just gets worse) - would these still be human or not???

any thoughts?

Scary?

Frightening?

Those words aren’t important. Ethical or unethical? Those words are important. Only the military will have this technology. And perhaps, the very rich, but only a few bits of it, with the rest remaining classified.

Peace,
Ed

 

[inocente]

I think someone is having you on.

The undated article is over ten years old. There are dated reports from 2001 at CNN and BBC.

It says here that “*the operations it describes were shut down by the FDA in 2001, and the specific techniques it refers to have been abandoned. *”

 

[Monica4316]

That’s good to know!! I thought it was a new thing. I’m glad it was shut down. I did find info that they’ve been working on similar research in other places: biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=6518

 

[Monica4316]

I’m still interested about the implications of this, and whether they’d be human (yes?) - and whether they’d be human if combined with animal DNA to an extent of having animal characteristics (think of something from a sci fi novel…)

 

[Monica4316]

Scary?

Frightening?

Those words aren’t important. Ethical or unethical? Those words are important. Only the military will have this technology. And perhaps, the very rich, but only a few bits of it, with the rest remaining classified.

Peace,
Ed

I agree the ethics are important, I just used the word “scary” to show that it’s something I’m against.

I can see the military having this technology…

 

[Monica4316]

Every human is “genetically modified”. You cannot be genetically identical to your parents anyway, and you have about 150 mutations that they do not have. That is the reason we can use DNA sequencing to identify individuals.

but the point is that this happens naturally, not in a lab… the question is whether we have the right to interfere in creation in such a way, I think that we don’t.

The debate is about humans modifying their own germline, rather than simple modification.

yes that’s what I meant

In this case the modification was to allow the women in question to conceive, which would otherwise have been impossible.

rossum

yes but the end doesn’t justify the means…

 

[donna369]

That’s good to know!! I thought it was a new thing. I’m glad it was shut down. I did find info that they’ve been working on similar research in other places: biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=6518

stay scared. keep worrying about the ethics. just last night i couldn’t sleep and was watching “Through the Wormhole” on the science channel. the new tech being worked out is creating eggs from sperm and sperm from eggs so that any couple combination could breed. they have had success with an artificial uterus for breeding sharks as well. a lot of discussion on the implications of making humans this way.
and i wondered - how would we react, is this human? is this in anyway ethical?

 

[wmw]

There are good and bad moral uses for all new techniques. The development of a new technique can itself be immoral as in harvesting cells from a human fetus.

A technique, given that it doesn’t come from such an evil source, derives it’s morality from how it is employed. If we are creating dog brained solders to fight without remorse or mercy this is a great evil, but if we are rewriting a gene that changes a defect like a weak insulin producers to a stronger one and prevents diabetes from developing it is a great good.

 

[Geo17]

IMO it’s completely unethical. I also think it’s immoral. Scary is putting it mildly. I say it’s horrifying. Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should do it. And in this case we have no right to do it. We’re playing God, and that usually results in disaster.

I saw 2 movies made about cloning people with the intent of using the clone for spare body parts of the person cloned. In one of those movies 2 of the clones fall in love, and ask to be exempted from the program. They were denied. But it raised the issue of whether or not cloned humans have a soul. In reality there would be no way to know for certain. Although both movies implied the clones do have souls.

I don’t believe we should do this, and if we do we will probably just bring the wrath of God upon ourselves sooner.

I know the books of Enoch are not canon and therefore highly doubtable. But Genesis speaks of a race of giants called the Nephilim. God never meant for the Nephilim to exist, and I think they were the main reason God caused the flood of Noah’s day. Not only were the Nephilim giants, but they were carnivorous when God had only given man plants for food. It was only after the flood that God allowed man to eat animals. The legends of Nephilim hold that when the giants ran out of animals to eat, they ate us. They became cannibalistic, and I think that was the last straw for God.

So if we start manipulating our genes, who knows what will be created. Maybe this is what must happen, to bring about the end of the age of mankind. I hope I die before this happens.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This kind of reminds me of the discussion that started up after a child was conceived in a lab in 1978. There were arguments about such a child not being human or not having a soul. It does seem that when ever there’s some “breakthrough” that gives humans capabilities that it had never had before there is some fear or concern associated with it. It’s new territory for which there is often little to no experience from which to infer the consequences.

 

[donna369]

gwo17 and wmw, i can agree with you both. i do. when this was aired they spoke of the many goods - ending diseases and such, but i also thought of the many implications; redesigning the human being and whether or not there was a soul in such a creation. it is a very frightening idea. science does not seem to understand that being able to do something is not the same as being correct in doing something.
i believe that knowing how it works and all the implications and applications is important for us. but how far can we go. science does not answer to any authority but itself. it seeks knowledge for knowledge sake. it reeks havoc in its voracious need to explore the boundaries of all reality. if we could impose morality on science it would be glorious to explore our limits but we can not.
perhaps God has done that with all the knowledge we lost and had to relearn after the great plague. i like science. i find much of it fascinating. much of it frightening, but my trust and my love are with God. his time is appointed and what we do will not change it. if this is a sign of his coming sooner than later than that too i welcome.

 

[tobbias88]

I think it is pretty obvious if these creatures are cloned or man-made they will not have souls. They are created ( or will be) by humans not divine intervention so altho they may look like humans they are not immortal but just a higher form of animal life which becomes extinct upon their physical death.
It is strange that this question is not being addressed by Church thinkers.

 

[zro_x]

but the point is that this happens naturally, not in a lab… the question is whether we have the right to interfere in creation in such a way, I think that we don’t.

Not only do we have the right, we have the duty to make genetically modified human beings. We lost our perfection after original sin. God already went far beyond his own obligations by fixing the spiritual consequences of our sin; it would seem he has left fixing the physical consequences to non-divine humans. What man has broken, man has the obligation to restore, if he can.

 

[zro_x]

I think it is pretty obvious if these creatures are cloned or man-made they will not have souls. They are created ( or will be) by humans not divine intervention so altho they may look like humans they are not immortal but just a higher form of animal life which becomes extinct upon their physical death.
It is strange that this question is not being addressed by Church thinkers.

Whether people get their genetics naturally or have them processed in a lab, Human beings are at least co-created by other humans. God could certainly infuse an immortal soul into a human produced in the laboratory, and I see no reason why he wouldn’t.

 

[wmw]

I was trying to establish the Catholic principles of whether changing genetic material in a person was permissible. Not comment on the specifics in the article.

The article is largely about IVF type techniques which fall in the first, evil, category I mentioned. E.g.:

They took eggs from donors and, using a fine needle, sucked some of the internal material - containing ‘healthy’ mitochondria - and injected it into eggs from the women wanting to conceive.

I believe there may well in the near future develop techniques to change the genetic code of naturally conceived children in the womb in order to cure genetic caused disabilities without killing other people to do it. This is the only case that I envision as a morally good genetic change.

I’m just warning that being against a broad term like “genetically modified” is not how Catholicism should position itself. Rather, we need to better explain how the unnatural IVF form of conception is wrong and these new techniques that take cell parts and transfer and recombine separate parts of people is equivalent to making Frankenstein monsters even if they remain beautiful in appearance as the initial Frankenstein story’s results showed.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Rather, we need to better explain how the unnatural IVF form of conception is wrong …]

While I have heard arguments from 35 years ago against IVF I have never heard any in modern times. Pardon my ignorance, but why is this considered immoral? I had thought (perhaps incorrectly) that a pro-life stance would imply a pro-fertilization treatment stance.

 

[edwest2]

This kind of reminds me of the discussion that started up after a child was conceived in a lab in 1978. There were arguments about such a child not being human or not having a soul. It does seem that when ever there’s some “breakthrough” that gives humans capabilities that it had never had before there is some fear or concern associated with it. It’s new territory for which there is often little to no experience from which to infer the consequences.

That doesn’t follow a logical set of ideas. We have plenty of humans now. The human genome has been mapped. Now, scientists are working on good and bad ways to manipulate human genetics. This is not new territory at all since it is built on a single foundational issue: can I use this to modify humans to help me/my country/top secret organization to gain power over others? The technology is new but the concerns are ancient. We have plenty of experience. Why haven’t atomic and then nuclear bombs been used since 1945? I’ve read the reports: no human life could survive, whereas cockroaches can survive much higher doses of radiation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[wmw]

While I have heard arguments from 35 years ago against IVF I have never heard any in modern times. Pardon my ignorance, but why is this considered immoral? I had thought (perhaps incorrectly) that a pro-life stance would imply a pro-fertilization treatment stance.

Its true that nothing has changed about IVF in 35 years, but here is an up to date (Aug. 28, 2012) article to get you up to speed:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/28/a-catholic-view-in-vitro-fertilization-the-human-cost/

Here is a “fun” fact from it:

At best, IVF is like playing Russian Roulette with six people except only one chamber of the gun is empty. IVF treats the new human being as little more than a cluster of cells to be graded, selected, and discarded. As the Church has noted, “in other areas of medicine, ordinary professional ethics and the health care authorities themselves, would never allow a medical procedure which involved such a high number of failures and fatalities” (Dignitas personae n. 15)