FRANKENCELLS, THE SCARY WORLD OF BIOETHICS

Jeremy and Jessica Nowelth tried hard to explain to their 16 year old daughter, Lindsey, their reasoning. They only had so much money and her fraternal twin, Linder, had the gene that carried Fragile X Syndrome, the most common cause of mental retardation. The Genetic Specialist assured them that without gene replacement he would have a hard life and would most likely never live on his own. They had no choice. Gene replacement and repair had become such a fast growing part of the birth of children that insurance companies had long ago stopped covering the procedure except for life threatening problems. Jessica had wanted to give Lindsey an improvement over what had become her curse in life, next to no breasts at all. She remembered the torment she had received in Junior High, the jokes about her "Boy Chest". Jeremy's sisters and Mom both had nothing to be thrilled with, so a little adjustment of the DNA sounded like a good investment, but with Linder having a more serious flaw, they did what they had to do. Now the best they could do for her was implants which had taken on the bad moniker of "Second best breasts". Lindsey was inconsolable, how could they have done this to her? In a world of people who had every minor genetic flaw fixed, even the smallest of imperfections meant you were one of "Them". The Troglodytes, the cursed people. The unemployable, the undateable. The people who only sat with each other, only dated one another, and were shunned by the growing lesions of perfect people who suffered no genetic diseases, no genetic imperfections, who were born to lead the perfect life.

Sound far-fetched? I don't think so.

Bio genetics is a fast growing field, and with it comes some real ethical questions. What is an "imperfection"? Should people be allowed to tamper with "God's will"? How far should we take it? What should be covered by insurance? Will people have to have "papers" showing which genetic flaws have been fixed? Do we know what the implications are further down the genetic line? Is it fair for insurance companies to have access to these records? How about businesses when they hire? Should they have access? How will this affect society and morality? Will we create two separate classes of people, those who's genetics have been fixed and those who have not? As we plunge into this unknown world we need to think these things through while we still have the chance.

Here's some interesting food for thought I came across, (those of you with subjective morality just skip this part as you'll see nothing wrong with it anyway.) While thumbing threw some medical literature, I came across an article on G.S.A., Genetic Sexual Attraction. It seems we are, for some unknown reason, genetically attracted to our family. Most likely it's a bonding thing designed to make us care about each other as a family unit, but it also extends to sexual attraction. There is now research that has shown that because of fractured families, siblings, and even parents, are finding themselves sexually attracted to other immediate family members, especially if they were separated from them for long periods , particularly during growing up. This doesn't seem to be as much of a problem amongst family members who grew up with each other for also an unknown reason. Most likely because you have too much knowledge about each other or because societal norms have taught you to suppress those feelings. Incest is generally looked down upon by most every civilized nation and a good part of the reason, besides religion, is because of genetic problems. People of similar genetics can have a host of genetic problems when they have children together. Now, if we can cure those genetic problems is there still a reason to outlaw incest among consenting adults? Isn't it wrong to sleep with your younger sister because she's inclined to look up to you? Or your daughter? Or your son? Even if your both adults? With this hurdle out of the way, subjective moralists are certain to argue no.

How about the gene for aging? Science is making strides towards discovering our genetic clock. If assumptions are correct, we could feasibly shut it off thereby greatly increasing our lifespans. (With my luck I'll already be in my 80's when it's available). Will we make decisions on who should get it based on age? What would be the point of extending some one's life after 70 years old? We already have a problem with Baby-Boomers reaching old age at the same time and the financial burdens it will create for the next generation. Will we limit it and tell the people who need it most (Most likely me) tough chit?

I'm fortunate enough to have a good friend who is a Genetic Scientist. He told me that the possibilities in genetic engineering are endless but so are the problems. When I proposed my concern about creating two separate classes of people, he seemed to think we wouldn't do it as it would shrink the gene pool to a dangerous level. But I don't share his faith in humanity to do the right thing vs. what's best for themselves in the short run. We already see people taking dangerous drugs and having expensive and dangerous surgeries to make themselves more attractive, or to fight off the ravages of old age. In a world of breast implants on kids as young as 12 years old, am I supposed to believe people won't take whatever advantage they can get to have a better life? Have we as a race ever shown much concern for the future? Am I supposed to believe that if people are given the chance to make their kids taller, smarter, stronger, or better looking they won't do it because of some problem 10 generations away? These are issues we will have to face in the all-too-near future, and just like the present issue of embryonic stem cell research, it will be sure to be politicized. To steal a line from Jeff Goldbloom in Jurassic Park, are we so concerned with whether or not we can do something, that we forget to ask ourselves if we should? H.C.