Ethics of Gene Therapy

[Nitack]

So I found a certain level of ethical gray area in the obesity thread. Researchers found a way to shut off a gene related to absorbing carbohydrates in mice. It led to the mice having a healthier weight regardless of high Calorie/carbohydrate diets. This may be a miracle with respect to the obesity epidemic, but is it ethical or ideal to be tinkering with the genome in this way?

 

Think on this. The vast majority of cases of Obesity are preventable by a modification of diet an exercise. We have a wealth of data to support that. So:

 

1. Should we consider altering DNA in humans in order to combat a problem that is already preventable through behavioral changes?
   
2. What are possible unintended consequences of a solution on the genetic level to obesity? Calories are plentiful now, but what if a Malthusian food shortages arise... we might have a population that would require more Calories than we have due to this genetic manipulation.
   
3. What if some one lost a job or money became tight and they could no longer afford the same amounts of food that they were eating before? Can we really imagine people starving to death on a 2000 Calorie diet?
   
4. Are we not trying to force the hand of evolution? Eventually we would find obesity filtered out of our gene pool as more and more people found early deaths. Is a genetic alteration solution better than the one already present in nature?
   

 

Just some thoughts to start some debate. :)

[freeztar]

I just found this, so sorry for the late reply.

 

Should we consider altering DNA in humans in order to combat a problem that is already preventable through behavioral changes?

 

It seems people are going to bypass behavioral changes anyways as evidenced by liposuction and other physical alteration procedures.

 

What are possible unintended consequences of a solution on the genetic level to obesity? Calories are plentiful now, but what if a Malthusian food shortages arise... we might have a population that would require more Calories than we have due to this genetic manipulation.

This certainly seems like a valid concern, but I think that over population will become a problem before a massive population of calorie-hungry genetically-modified humans become a significant factor.

 

What if some one lost a job or money became tight and they could no longer afford the same amounts of food that they were eating before? Can we really imagine people starving to death on a 2000 Calorie diet?

Well, presumably, someone in a situation to afford such cutting edge gene altercation would probably not be concerned about not being able to purchase the necessary amount of calories. :hihi:

 

Are we not trying to force the hand of evolution? Eventually we would find obesity filtered out of our gene pool as more and more people found early deaths. Is a genetic alteration solution better than the one already present in nature?

Good questions.

Evolution still factors in. We might consider it "forcing the hand of evolution", but it's only one aspect that may affect evolution.

 

Is it a better solution? Maybe, maybe not.

There's no way to tell for sure unless experimental data is produced.

 

In general, I think it's a bad idea for humans to intentionally try to alter evolution. At the extreme, it reminds me of "Brave New World" by Huxley. In a lesser extent, it reminds me of our own fragility and the lengths we go to in order to compensate. The fact remains. No matter what we do, we will still be subject to the natural (from Nature, apart from human-induced) Evolution.

[Nitack]

It seems people are going to bypass behavioral changes anyways as evidenced by liposuction and other physical alteration procedures.

It seems that way, but none of those procedures change your DNA. In my mind, it is one thing to use gene therapy to correct a genetic defect/mutation that account for some of our rare but devastating syndromes. It is quite another thing though to try to fix something that is not broken in order to allow people to gorge with out the consequences.

 

This certainly seems like a valid concern, but I think that over population will become a problem before a massive population of calorie-hungry genetically-modified humans become a significant factor.

I don't know. They are already running tests on mice to see the effects of the deactivated gene. We already have the ability to alter genes in living humans. Is the next step really that far fetched? The population crisis is 30-50 years off by estimates I have read. It won't take that long to find a way to apply what was done to the mice to humans. :shrug:

 

Well, presumably, someone in a situation to afford such cutting edge gene altercation would probably not be concerned about not being able to purchase the necessary amount of calories. :singer:

1. How many former wall street big money makers are now in foreclosure or in serious financial stress at the moment?

2. Obesity related illness accounts for 10% of health care spending, and is currently the fastest growing area of health care spending. I think a gene therapy regiment for obesity would be mainstreamed really fast (which would cut costs) and health care insurance companies would pay for it as a hedge against future costs related to obesity in their patient population.

 

In general, I think it's a bad idea for humans to intentionally try to alter evolution. At the extreme, it reminds me of "Brave New World" by Huxley. In a lesser extent, it reminds me of our own fragility and the lengths we go to in order to compensate. The fact remains. No matter what we do, we will still be subject to the natural (from Nature, apart from human-induced) Evolution.

The ramifications of tampering with DNA, in living or soon to be born humans is scary in general. I'm wondering if our society is even ready to tackle that question, let alone the implications of the treatments.

[Moontanman]

would you have your baby be born like this?

 

Gene mutation makes baby super strong

 

newer articles says there have been a 100 or more babies born this way in the last decade and heavy food consumption negates the negative impact