Eugenics, yet again

[JesusA (imported)]

DNA Discoverer: Use Genetics To Improve IQ

Feb. 28, 2003 - The scientist who co-discovered the structure of DNA stirred a row on Friday, the 50th anniversary of the breakthrough, by saying he backed genetic engineering to make people smarter and better-looking.

The remarks were criticized by other experts, fearful of plunging gene research into a fresh storm about eugenics, the Orwellian pseudo-science about selective breeding of humans to "improve" the species.

"If you really are stupid, I would call that a disease," James Watson, 75, the American biologist who in 1953 co-discovered the structure of the molecule for life with Britain's Francis Crick, was quoted by The Times of London as saying.

"The lower 10 percent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what's the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, 'Well, poverty, things like that.' It probably isn't. So I'd like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 percent."

Molecular biologists have a duty to identify the genes that affect low intelligence and to develop gene therapies or prenatal screening tests to prevent it, Watson said.

"It seems unfair that some people don't get the same opportunity. Once you have a way in which you can improve our children, no-one can stop it. It would be stupid not to use it because someone else will. Those parents who enhance their children, then their children are going to be the ones who dominate the world."

Watson added that he also supported genetic engineering to enhance looks.

"People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

Watson made the remarks in an upcoming documentary, due to be screened by Britain's Channel 4 television on March 8, The Times said.

Watson is president of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York and helped launch the Human Genome Project, the international effort to map mankind's genetic code. A draft of the genome was unveiled in 2000.

DNA is the inherited template for life — a molecule that lies at the heart of a cell's nucleus which provides the code for building, repairing and destroying tissue.

It has a structure of a double helix, joined by chemical rungs called bases.

Watson and Crick won the 1962 Nobel Prize for Medicine, along with a third associate, Maurice Wilkins.

Tom Shakespeare, a bio-ethicist at Britain's University of Newcastle, criticized Watson's remarks.

"He is talking about altering something that most people see as part of normal human variation, and that I think iswrong.... I am afraid he may have done more harm than good, his leadership of the Human Genome Project and his discovery of 1953 notwithstanding."

John Sulston, a British genetic professor who was co-winner of the 2002 Nobel Medicine Prize, said Watson was exploring an "extremely dangerous area" but had not been wrong to speak out.

"It is foolish put our heads in the sand," he said, referring to the attraction that human genetic engineering would have in some quarters.

The Discovery Channel On-Line

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20030 ... enics.html

[JesusA (imported)]

This is a theme that has run through a number of stories on the Archive. Most recently there have been

"2052 - The Birthday.." by Nathan and "Future Eugenics" and "Future Eugenics 2," by noblee.

There was also "Raven's Last Day" (http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/R/newraven2.htm) by Erik and my own "The Making of the Modern World" (http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/M/newea_262110Making_o.htm) in the more distant past, as well as others whose titles I have have forgotten.

There have been discussions of the topic in several threads on the various discussion boards of the Archive. One of the longer discussions was the thread "Yet another ethical dilemma to ponder..." (http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthr ... ht=dilemma)which began last August on Eunuch Central.

This is an important topic, and one that is likely to be recurrent both on the Archive and in the general population. In some ways we’re ahead of the curve here.

[Paolo]

For those interested in tampering with the human genome, perhaps a read of "ENDER'S SHADOW" by Orson Scott Card might be enlightening. Not to spoil a bood book for anyone, but the boy in the story, Bean, has had his DNA manipulated - with more than the expected outcome.

Dangerous stuff, there.

[Dayhunter002002 (imported)]

Generally we should try to improve ourselves. The rub is who gets to decide what traits are desirable.

[Blaise (imported)]

I have a lot of traits to change. I don't have time to worry about other folks. Of course, I live in Louisiana, the bottom of the intelligence scale state. Here we might all benefit from some improvement in any number of traits, except the ones having to do with cooking high fat but utterly wonderful food.

We lead the nation in STDs, low paying jobs, corrupt politicians, bad schools, non-supporting fathers of children, and some other categories. However, we do have great music and beautiful landscapes. :p

[Kortpeel (imported)]

.

Feb. 28, 2003 - The scientist who co-discovered the structure of DNA stirred a row on Friday, the 50th anniversary of the breakthrough, by saying he backed genetic engineering to make people smarter and better-looking.

The remarks were criticized by other experts, fearful of plunging gene research into a fresh storm about eugenics, the Orwellian pseudo-science about selective breeding of humans to "improve" the species.

.**********************

Watson was talking about gene therapy, not eugenics. And he's right. Not only is gene therapy going to be a major boon to mankind by eliminating congenital diseases such as haemophilia, multiple sclerosis etc. but it is inevitable that it will happen.

And if it can eliminate ugliness and stupidity too then so much the better.

So-called moralists who deprecate most scientific advances, especially where human beings are concerned should be ignored. Remember when anaesthesia was discovered it was said to be against God's will for humans to avoid pain. It took Queen Victoria having yet another baby to say "bugger that" or words to that effect. Since then anaesthesia has gone from strength to strength so that today not even the most idiot moralist would question its use or desirability.

My own personal gut feel on this is that God, having endowed men with brains enough to develop to the stage where we can design our own species, and knowing full well that we cannot resist progress and advancement, had it in mind for mankind to do exactly that.

There will be mistakes and ghastly, tragic errors but nevertheless humans will master the technology and go from there to new challenges.

I suspect that eventually we will achieve oneness with God through technology rather than through prayer and meditation.

Kortpeel