MAY 16, 2008

Playing God

In the 1993 blockbuster sci-fi film Jurassic Park, Jeff Goldblum plays Dr. Ian Malcolm, a chaos mathematician invited to preview an island theme park featuring dinosaurs cloned from pre-historic DNA. Having been taken through an orientation on the wonders the park has to offer, Dr. Malcolm - always the contrarian - opines, “The lack of humility before nature that’s being displayed here, uh… staggers me.”

Fifteen years later, the debate over the consequences of what modern science is capable of doing with DNA and genetic engineering continues. This week, researchers at Cornell University publicized their creation of the first genetically modified human embryo, a feat that was first announced last year at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine annual meeting. Researchers added a fluorescent protein to the embryo in question to enable them to better observe its development and to see if the genetically modified trait would be passed on through subsequent stem cells taken from the embryo. The embryo was classified by the researchers as “unviable” prior to the experiment, and was only allowed to live and develop for a short time.

There are many ethical, moral and philosophical questions that spring up when tinkering with the very building blocks of human life.  While the prospects of embryonic research at times seem very promising, our laws do not define what life is, nor when and where in the gestation process life begins. Without these definitions to guide scientists, the waters can get very muddy. Some believe that a human embryo should have the same rights and protections as you or I, while others think these types of experiments hold the key to better health for all of us.

Unsurprisingly, the controversy over this experiment is growing:

News that scientists have for the first time genetically altered a human embryo is drawing fire from some watchdog groups that say it’s a step toward creating “designer babies.”

But an author of the study says the work was focused on stem cells. He notes that the researchers used an abnormal embryo that could never have developed into a baby anyway.

“None of us wants to make designer babies,” said Dr. Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center.

[snip]

Marcy Darnovsky, associate executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, said the Cornell scientists were developing techniques that others might use to make genetically modified people, “and they’re doing it without any kind of public debate.”

A London-based group called Human Genetics Alert similarly criticized the work.

But Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said she’s not troubled by the work. She said the idea of successfully modifying babies by inserting genes remains a technically daunting challenge.

“We’re not even close to having that technology in hand to be able to do it right,” she said, and it would be ethically unacceptable to try it when it’s unsafe.

While researchers say that they don’t want to create designer babies, it seems to me that they are laying the foundation for that very thing. Should we feel comfortable with that? What guidelines should be put in place to determine what the best practices are in this uncharted new area?

Whenever I read something like this, the first question that comes to my mind is this: just because we can do it, does it also mean we should?