Gene Complexity Makes Disease Prediction--and Transhumanism--Very Difficult
A new report shows that predicting for health outcomes and creating genetic fixes for common diseases is very difficult. From the story:
"Weed out:" Now, there's an interesting term to apply to human beings.The era of personal genomic medicine may have to wait. The genetic analysis of common disease is turning out to be a lot more complex than expected.
Since the human genome was decoded in 2003, researchers have been developing a powerful method for comparing the genomes of patients and healthy people, with the hope of pinpointing the DNA changes responsible for common diseases. This method, called a genomewide association study, has proved technically successful despite many skeptics' initial doubts. But it has been disappointing in that the kind of genetic variation it detects has turned out to explain surprisingly little of the genetic links to most diseases...
One issue of debate among researchers is whether, despite the prospect of diminishing returns, to continue with the genomewide studies, which cost many millions of dollars apiece, or switch to a new approach like decoding the entire genomes of individual patients.The unexpected impasse also affects companies that offer personal genomic information and that had assumed they could inform customers of their genetic risk for common diseases, based on researchers’ discoveries...Unlike the rare diseases caused by a change affecting only one gene, common diseases like cancer and diabetes are caused by a set of several genetic variations in each person. Since these common diseases generally strike later in life, after people have had children, the theory has been that natural selection is powerless to weed them out.
Alas, we see parents already "weeding out" embryos that test positive for adult onset diseases or disabilities, part of the emerging new eugenics. And to see the way the wind is blowing, embryos are being weeded out if genetic testing shows they will have the wrong hair color.And consider this: If it is very hard to figure out the genetic causes of common disease, it will be difficult squared about transhumanist yearned-for enhancement techniques, such as increasing intelligence, stature, or other desired transhumanist morphologists.
I am certainly not against research into genetic causes for diseases. What we do with this information, of course, will be the rub.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:55 PM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
"Weed them out." The concept of natural selection is obviously troublesome to some people. Of course the scientific work is going to be difficult. Nobody ever said it wouldn't be. I'm sure it will be done, although I detect some folks would like to remove their sabots and hurl them into the machinery of scientific progress. What underlies the motivation of those who oppose scientific research at the genetic level? I suppose, if scientists are able to eliminate disease and prolong high-quality life indefinitely, we won't have any need for that middle-Eastern sky deity --- whats-is-name with the long white beard and the outstretched index finger. Bad for the religion biz. Bad for "human exceptionalism."
History Writer? I assume from your nom de blog that you know history, then you will realize that the "weeding" term was used ubiquitiously in the pernicious eugenic movement, whose minions used the term weeds to describe the "unfit" and the need to kill babies born with disabilities. I think Margaret Sanger promoted that very notion using that very lexicon, as a matter of fact. It shouldn't be used to describe human beings.
One need not believe in the Old Man with the Gray Beard to accept human exceptionalism. Not even in the great spaghetti monster. But the essential understanding--that human life matters simply because it is human and its moral worth does not have to be earned--is necessary for universal human rights to have any force or effect. Otherwise, there is no basis for it and it slip slides away, as is happening now.
I don't accept the principle of human exceptionalism, I start out from the same premise as Singer ("We are all animals") and follow a different path from there than Singer does, and I don't believe in the old man with the gray beard or the spaghetti monster. But what is this, the island of Dr. Moreau?
The era of personal genomic medicine may have to wait. The genetic analysis of common disease is turning out to be a lot more complex than expected.Like maybe common diseases are not caused by genetics at all.
Eugenics is bad? Or do you mean some people have thought of using it for ignoble purposes? Before you say it's "bad" consider whether you might object if your daughter decided to marry someone with an IQ of 65. The fact that Margaret Sanger made remarks that politically correct people a century later consider "bad" (i.e., describing some minorities as "weeds") still doesn't detract from the accomplishments of Planned Parenthood in the area of reproductive choice. No doubt you'll disagree that Planned Parenthood has ever done anything positive, but can one seriously argue that the world isn't a better place because of contraception? BTW, I have to agree with lanthe on this. As much as I believe Singer is a nut case, the fact remains that humans are simply a highly developed animal species. The only thing that appears to make us "exceptional" is our ability to speak --- and even that is questionable. All other differences appear to be quantitative rather than qualitative.
You are the one bringing up current controversies.
Sanger was a rank eugenicist and a crass social Darwinist who pushed poisonous discrimitory values that are again rearing their ugly heads.
Defend the indefensible all you want.
I don't see these results (or any others) greatly affecting transhumanists, because I think that transhumanism is largely a faith-based movement. Its partisans will continue to hope for the nifty future regardless of how reality intervenes.
It's similar to believers in the "singularity" and hyper-intelligent machines. The lack of progress towards human-level AI and the increasing evidence that the human mind is far more complex than previously thought affects their optimism not a bit.
Right you are, SparkVark. But it needs saying anyway in case some decide to give up the dogma.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home