In the 1990s, leading personae including Nobel Prize winner James Watson, Princeton University molecular biologist Lee Silver, and UCLA “life science entrepreneur and visionary” Gregory Stock all championed the dream of engineering the perfect human being.
That frightening techno-eugenic vision is now being “upgraded” for the digital generation. The ideological project of genetically “enhanced” post-humans appears to be reemerging – this time with a synthetic biology twist.
Enter Andrew Hessel of Singularity U, for whom genetic engineering and the human genome project are “so 1990.” In a recent article in the Huffington Post, Hessel proposed a radical – and disturbing – idea:
[I]t's time to consider a new grand challenge for genetics, one that captures the public interest. I can think of none grander than an international effort to write a human genome.Let’s pause and reflect about what Hessel is proposing. Writing a human genome entails nothing less than designing a human being. This would of course be extremely problematic: technical implausibility aside, it’s an inherently eugenic undertaking, which necessarily involves selecting for genetically-encoded traits and deselecting for others. Read in this light, Hessel’s seemingly benign scientific provocation is far from innocent.
Hessel’s weapon of choice for designing a better human is synthetic biology. He hails his hypothetical effort to write a human genome as synthetic biology’s “proof of concept” par excellence, equating building a “better” human with a bizarre technical game:
A technical challenge, validated by showing the synthetic genome is functional if microinjected into a cultured cell.
While Hessel seems to acknowledge the controversial nature of his proposal, he suggests that the any problem it might pose is merely a technical obstacle to be overcome: "What I'm definitely not suggesting is growing a baby from a synthetic genome," he writes. "Before we can fly, we need to be able to walk."
Scratch the surface and Hessel’s point is clear: There is nothing wrong with designing humans; we simply have to work out the technical kinks (“learn to walk”) first.
Elsewhere, Hessel remarks that synthetic humans are not far off: “Synthetic biology advances could see engineered humans being booted up in a few decades.”
Hessel is not alone among synthetic biologists who are subtly or not so subtly retooling the old eugenic dream of genetic engineering.
In a New Yorker article, leading synthetic biologist Drew Endy suggested that it might soon be possible to “liberate ourselves from the tyranny of evolution by being able to design our own offspring.” Just down the road at Harvard, synthetic biology pioneer George Church stated that he “doesn't rule out the possibility of rewiring the genome of a human embryo to be virus-proof.”
While the essential social and moral problems remain the same, the challenges for progressives posed by synthetic biology may exceed those posed by older genetic engineering technologies for at least two reasons, one technical and the other cultural.
First, synthetic biology technologies, though still in their nascence, may become much more powerful tools than older genetic engineering techniques. At least in principle, synthetic biology provides scientists the ability not only to tweak the traits of a bacterium, but to make new ones and design whole genomes. This accelerates and magnifies the dangers already latent in genetic engineering.
Second, synthetic biology has been billed as “genetic engineering for the Facebook generation,” a cool, hip new science targeted towards digitally savvy youth. This new ideology pegs synthetic biology as sleek and edgy artistic “design,” an empowering “DIY movement,” the newest internet fad. Synthetic engineering, writes Hessel, can “all be done with computer software” from “any old coffee shop.” This depoliticizing narrative is a clever way of deflecting the serious ethical and political questions that need to be asked about this extremely dangerous field.
While the prospect of writing the human genome strikes Hessel as all but inevitable – “Eventually, someone has to,” he writes – the future of synthetic biology is in fact still up for grabs. In recent months, synthetic biology has met growing dissent and rising worries from progressive organizations and policy think-tanks alike. Rather than writing the genomes of our children, it’s time for progressives to write an alternative, non-eugenic future and make the case against designer babies and other misuses of powerful technologies that pose grave physical and social threats.
Previously on Biopolitical Times
Posted in A "Post-Human" Future?, Eugenics, Media Coverage, Synthetic Biology
CommentsAdd a Comment
Comment by sdfwe, Apr 29th, 2013 7:44pm
Of course, it is a prerequisite that is law-abiding entrepreneurs. http://mbttrainers.shopukcheap.co.uk/
Comment by louboutin, Apr 11th, 2013 10:20pm
lost the human nature, with flesh and blood to crushing their wealth to the employees. A lot of time,
Comment by MBT Shoes, Mar 13th, 2013 8:42pm
The third layer leather The third layer leather is the one which is mbt clearance shoes processed by the machine for third times. All of the shoes which have worse quality often select the third layer leather. In the store, the sellers often turn over the inner leather for you to have a look. They just want to confirm that their shoes have good quality.
Comment by mbt shoes, Mar 12th, 2013 6:50pm
thanks for sharing the information.
Your website is very useful.
Comment by mbt, Mar 6th, 2013 11:23pm
is mild chatter, they also hold more rational patriotic. One thing as long as involving territory and sovereignty and so on,
Comment by a.miller, May 1st, 2012 11:01am
Playing devil's advocate here: We can't make the assumption that everyone wants a blonde-haired blue-eyed baby. That's simply not the case... Think of all the diversity out there right now. There are certain sought-after traits, but they are different across all cultures. As long as this type of technology is available to non-aryans, don't you think we'd be able to maintain a fairly diverse gene pool? You can bet no one would design a "sick" baby, and that's a plus. I'm not going to get into the moral side, though - that's a whole other story!
Comment by L, Mar 26th, 2012 10:01pm
I can't resist. What do these people think an ideal woman should look like, if they could redesign the species? Blond, blue-eyed, a none-too-smart barbie doll with big breasts and no uterus, because we don't need to 'breed' babies any more. We can just grow them in a test tube - or in a cow for that matter, who needs a human incubator? And have all the sex we want without the nasty inconvenient consequences...
Comment by bn, Mar 22nd, 2012 7:39pm
Really not a good idea - unintended consequences could come back to bite us. Imagine this scenario: People 'design' their offspring, perhaps reducing biodiversity in pursuit of an ideal human. Then a plague or another sort of disaster hits, targeting an unanticipated weakness - and because we have narrowed our species like some commercially farmed crops, humanity is wiped out...