Download Designer Babies and 21st Century Cures

BOOK
REVIEW
By Patrick Tucker
Designer Babies and 21st Century Cures
Ian Wilmut, the geneticist
who cloned Dolly the
sheep, plunges headfirst
into the cloning debate in
After Dolly.
In 1997, a research team led by geneticist Ian Wilmut in Scotland succeeded in cloning a white-faced
sheep named Dolly, and plunging
the world into a new era of fear, possibility, and speculation. His new
book, After Dolly: The Uses and Misuses of Human Cloning, explains the
fascinating but complicated cloning
process. It also examines key misconceptions that have arisen in the
shadow of Dolly, such as the likelihood of creating genetically enhanced “designer babies.” Wilmut
puts forward a passionate argument
for applying cloning techniques to
stem-cell science in order to find
cures for the world’s most devastating genetic diseases and disorders,
such as Parkinson’s and Hodgkin’s
diseases.
On a conceptual level, the process
of cloning is really not very complicated. DNA is harvested from an
adult cell (a mammary cell in the
case of Dolly). The DNA is then inserted into the center of a hollowedout egg from a different animal of
the same species. With its nucleus removed, the host egg would not contain genetic material from the animal
that provided it (but would contain
cytoplasm). Once the donor DNA
has been inserted, a carefully released burst of electricity convinces
the enucleated egg that it has been
fertilized, or “activated.” The egg is
then inserted into the uterine lining
of a third animal (the birthing
mother). If the resulting offspring is
a genetic match with the original
DNA donor but not the donor of the
hosting egg or the birthing mother,
48
THE FUTURIST
perts have wondered whether the
use of the term ‘cloning’ has damaged the field because it is so laden
with grim associations and negative
baggage. Understandably, the official alternative—’cell nuclear replacement’—is gray and wordy and,
as a result, has not caught on.”
Recent polling research validates
this opinion. While 58% of Americans now favor embryonic stem-cell
research, 59% are opposed to using
cloning technology to create embryos in order to provide stem cells
for therapy, despite the marginal difference between these two processes.
“What’s in a name?” Wilmut asks.
“In this case, a great deal. These primal cells are the stuff of which medAfter Dolly: The Uses
ical dreams are made.”
Unlike either animal cloning or reand Misuses of Human
productive
human cloning (which
Cloning
Wilmut adamantly opposes), theraby Ian Wilmut and Roger Highfield.
peutic cloning involves creating an
W.W. Norton & Company. 256
embryo that is a genetic match with
pages. $24.95.
the human seeking
THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
therapy, and then
h a r ve s t i n g a n d
manipulating stem
cells from that emthen the cloning attempt
bryo. This process,
has been successful.
Wilmut writes, ofNeedless to say, in
fers a way to depractice cloning is far
pendably obtain
more difficult. Wilmut
genetically
and his team extracted
compatible tissue
material from 277 donor
of any kind. Stem
cells and implanted 29
cells are harvested
embryos into surrogate
from an activated
mothers, but only one
egg that has
embryo developed into a
reached the blastoIan Wilmut
fetus and finally into a
cyst stage, roughly
live sheep.
200 cells. At this
Since his success with Dolly, stage, the embryo is little more than
Wilmut has turned his attention to a ball of undifferentiated genetic mathe debate on stem-cell therapy, or terial. By way of comparison, a fully
what is sometimes called therapeutic formed human, capable of thought
cloning. Ironically, the man who and reason, comprises nearly 10 trilmany consider to be one of the lion cells.
giants in the field of cloning research
Wilmut defends his work with
has mixed views about the term blastocysts on the basis that such
itself.
genetic material, once created in a
“The usual term for the procedure dish, cannot survive on its own,
of deriving cells from cloned em- bares no resemblance to an adult of
bryos, ‘therapeutic cloning,’ sends any species, and is totally incapable
shivers down the spines of many of thought or discomfort.
people,” Wilmut writes. “Many ex“Is the blastocyst aware?” he asks.
September-October 2006
“Can a blastocyst feel pain? Until
nerve connections form between two
crucial areas of the developing brain,
the cortex and the thalamus, sensations of pain cannot be experienced.
This formation takes place much
later in pregnancy, around the
twenty-sixth week (in humans).
There is no pain, no suffering, and
thus no cruelty to the blastocyst is
possible.”
Wilmut doubts the feasibility of
“designing babies” and opposes
such efforts on ethical grounds.
While defending the use of embryonic science and cloning technology
to treat or prevent serious diseases,
he argues that the compulsion to use
the same science to enhance physical
or mental attributes in the unborn is
not morally justifiable.
“Like most people I disapprove
strongly of the idea of an embryo
coaxed to life for shallow reasons of
status, preference, or style. Any such
work is unsavory because it reduces
children to consumer objects that can
be ‘accessorized’ according to the
parents’ whims. As many ethicists
have argued, love for offspring
should not be contingent upon the
characteristics they possess, in an
ideal world,” Wilmut writes. He
believes that much of the language
used by the media to describe this
possibility reflects an overly optimistic view of the science and its potential:
I am skeptical that genetic enhancement is even possible because the
genetic control of many traits is so
complex. In turn any of the genes involved in any one trait also have effects in many others. In short, we
could not predict the effect of changing genes except in the case of inherited diseases associated with errors in
a known gene. . . . Any genetic change
intended to influence intelligence, say,
could also change other aspects of
personality in an unpredictable way.
By way of example, Wilmut brings
up the story of a pair of rich parents
who hoped to engineer an intellectually gifted baby only to wind up,
years later, with “a sullen adolescent
who smokes marijuana and doesn’t
talk to them.”
R e g a rd l e s s o f it s f e a s i b i l it y,
Wilmut is deeply anxious about the
prospect of someone using private
funding to engineer “a designer
baby,” and he recommends strong
government regulation to prevent
such unethical experimentation.
“Despite many people’s almost
religious belief in free markets, our
experience of the food and pharmaceutical industries shows us that an
unregulated market is inappropriate
for matters of public health and thus
of genetic modification,” he writes.
The debate over what might constitute legitimate genetic “therapy”
vs. what might be “enhancement”
will surely grow more cacophonous
in the years ahead. As the science
becomes more conclusive and breakthroughs continue to garner media
attention, more people will invest
both faith and money in cures that
are still years away and experiments
that may have unfortunate consequences.
Yet, as Wilmut himself makes
clear, there is also great cause for optimism. In the following decades, we
may succeed in eliminating some of
the world’s most devastating diseases, much to the relief of humanity
as a whole. To help us negotiate the
winding path before us, Wilmut puts
his trust in that oldest and perhaps
most mysterious of human qualities—reason.
“Although I have no idea what the
future will bring,” he writes, “I am
confident that reproductive and
genetic technologies will greatly expand our possibilities. By the same
token, they will also expand the burden of responsibility. Because of my
faith in the majority of people to
know right from wrong, I feel the
sooner we take on that burden the
better.” For the sake of future generations and their health, I hope
Wilmut’s faith is well placed.
■
About the Reviewer
Patrick Tucker is assistant editor of THE
FUTURIST and director of communications
for the World Future Society.
Scan the Frontiers of
Change with
Future Survey
The Proven Source for Vital
Trends, Ideas, and Technologies
Shaping Our Turbulent World
This esteemed monthly newsletter,
edited by interdisciplinary social scientist Michael Marien, provides userfriendly abstracts of new books, articles, and reports on topics that may
have a major impact on our future.
Future Survey highlights groundbreaking research and the cuttingedge thinking of social critics, thinktank analysis, academic experts, and
visionaries. It’s the unique scanning
service to help you keep up with our
turbulent world.
Each monthly issue reviews 50
recent books, articles, and research
reports on a wide variety of important trends, forecasts, and policy
proposals.
A Vital Tool for
• Planners
• Researchers
• Organizational Leaders
• Teachers
• Consultants
No other book review, magazine,
journal, or electronic access service
comes close to providing as much authoritative, futures-relevant information as Future Survey.
Your one-year subscription to
Future Survey ($109) includes:
• 12 information-packed issues
with 50 concise abstracts each.
• An annual index.
• Special access code to the exclusive, subscriber-only Web site, where
you can easily search and review
thousands of abstracts from the
Future Survey archives.
To order: Call 1-800-989-8274 or
subscribe securely online at https://
www.wfs.org/fsonlinesub.htm.
Please note: Future Survey is
included as a benefit for Comprehensive Professional Members of the
World Future Society. Visit www.wfs.org/
members.htm for details.
THE FUTURIST
September-October 2006
49