Saturday, April 4, 2009
Technology's effect Nature
Today's technology allows for scientists to sequence a child's DNA before he/she is even born. This knowledge allows the scientists to find any mutations that exist in the unborn child’s DNA. The existence of these mutations can give parents a look into how “normal” their child will be. However, scientists are unaware of how all these mutations will effect the child since the outcome of all the different mutations are unknown. This information can cause the termination of a pregnancy. How does this process affect nature and what are the positive and negative effects of it? In your explanation use Carroll’s ideas about natural selection and immortal genes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The main concern regarding the technology that will one day allow people to terminate pregnancies if their fetus has a genetic mutation is that every parent will want the "perfect" child. This could mean that a parent can say he/she wants a brown haired, green-eyed child. If all other variations were terminated, this would lead to a loss in biodiversity among the human race. If humans were to use the example mentioned above, then after several generations, the chances of having a blond haired, blue-eyed child would be nominal. The main issue that arises is not eliminating certain hair and eye colors out of the human genome but rather the mutations that might make humans more suited for the current environment. If scientists were to remove as many mutations as possible from the human genome, the human race will have a lower chance of adapting into a species that can withstand, for instance, higher temperatures (global warming?). Natural selection works best when many mutations arise in a population because the chances of receiving a favorable mutation increase, ultimately leading to the advancement of the population. However, with scientists reducing the number of mutations, there will be fewer “trial” mutations and it will take longer for the population to advance. This is why scientists should only screen for the most dangerous mutations. Everything else should be left to nature.
ReplyDeleteWith todays' technology, we are able to gain never-before-seen insights into how a child will develop based on genetic information. This affects nature because it eliminates 'natural' selection of traits. Normally, a child will survive if its genes (encoding traits) allow it to survive. However, rather than letting nature run its course, parents are able to play the role of nature themselves, by choosing if they want to have a child with a varying degree of 'normality.' There are some potential benefits to this. First of all, choosing not to have an 'abnormal' baby can help eradicate those bad genes. For example, if a baby has a mutation that causes it to have only two fingers, and all parents had access to this information (purely hypothetical, of course) and chose not to have that baby, no more childern with two fingers would be born. Obviously, since none of those babies come into existence, the defective genes cannot be passed on to later generations. Therefore, the defective gene is eradicated from the human population. This essentially performs the same function as natural selection (assuming that having two fingers is a disadvantage)except at a much faster rate. Also, a moral benefit would be to avoid the suffering of the child with a defective genes and the suffering of the parents who must raise this child. A possible negative effect would be to reduce the genetic diversity of the human race. By eradicating any genes termed 'not normal' by refusing to have babies with those genes, we would drastically reduce diversity, since only a narrow range of 'normal' genes would be acceptable in children. Especially if the abnormal gene is not necessarily a disadvantage that will prevent the child from surviving and reproducing, this would needlessly reduce diversity. For example, if every parent in the world decided that only children with blond hair and blue eyes are acceptable, this process would produce a human race completely comprised of blond-haired, blue-eyed members. Obviously, this is not a diverse population. In addition, it may be better to simply let natural selection decide which traits should be kept in a child. Natural selection, by conferring an advantage on certain traits, would eradicate any traits that hinder survival and reproduction. Traits that are simply different, but are not disadvantageous, would be maintained. This is the best for truly determining what traits are "best" for the environment in which we live. And, of course, there is the moral objection to humans choosing what traits to have in a child.
ReplyDeleteYou guys both brought up some great points. There was a movie made about the future of trait selection in offspring. The movie is called "Gattaca" and tells the story of a boy who was conceived naturally and the disadvantages he is at in a world where everyone else has had their traits specially selected. The essential conflict is this; no matter how easy or inexpensive this procedure comes, it will be impossible for everyone, or even a majority of people, to undergo this hand-selection of traits. Thus, there will always be people who are genetically disadvantaged compared to other people, making it harder for them to get jobs, buy insurance, etc.
ReplyDeleteNow, in terms of prematurely aborting offspring with unfavorable or perhaps even disabling disabilities, I don't think this will significantly impact the genetic make-up of or evolution of the human race. Oftentimes the genetic mutations that are being searched for in the process mentioned in the prompt are so severely harmful that the resultant offspring, if allowed to be born, will not live to a reproductably viable age. Even if these severely mutated offspring do survive, oftentimes the mutation will deform the offspring in such a way that they are less likely to reproduce (deformities are unattractive and thus impair human courtship and mating). Thus, offspring with degenerative mutations are not much more likely to reproduce even if allowed to live versus being prematurely aborted.
Well its very hard to make a prediction on something like this because we don't know to what extent we can play around with a person's DNA in the future, and how cost friendly it becomes. If it gets to the point where everyone can do it, I see no reason why this is so harmful. Diseases would begin to be wiped out, and its not like everyone will have the same baby. We get to choose our own clothes, and theres a huge variety to our different tastes. In theory, this could simply make a stronger, healthier human race, and much less disapointed and heart broken parents who end up getting kids who for say have cystic fibrosis or mental retardation, blindness, etc. Also, if this process began mainstream people might actually put more consideration into having a child, and our more impoverished citizens might decided to not reproduce and have say oh... ten kids they can't feed or look after who will only reproduce more "stupid" citizens. I think this process could actually make the idea of child rearing a much more serious matter and the recent moral decline and indifference to having children could begin. After all, the more "investment" involved in something, the more likely a person is going to pay attention to it.
ReplyDelete