Journal of Evolution and Technology has some reading material

I know I’m not posting as frequently as I could be, but the Journal of Evolution and Technology has two special issues that may be of interest to readers of this blog:

• Becoming More Than Human: Technology and the Post-Human Condition Special Issue

Intro: Sky Marsen   “Introduction”

1-2:  Cory Doctorow:  “Leaving Behind More Than a Knucklebone”

3-7:  Patrick D. Hopkins:  “A Moral Vision for Transhumanism”

8-16: William Sims Bainbridge:  “Cognitive Expansion Technologies”

17-27: Samuel H. Kenyon:  “Would You Still Love Me If I Was A Robot?”

28-34: Riccardo Campa:  “Pure Science and the Posthuman Future”

35-41: Gregory E. Jordan:  “The Invention of Man: A Response to C. S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man”

42-50: Joseph Jackson:  “The Amorality of Preference: A Response to the Enemies of Enhancement”

51-61: PJ Manney:  “Empathy in the Time of Technology: How Storytelling is the Key to Empathy”

62-66: George Dvorsky:  “Better Living through Transhumanism”

67-72: Nick Bostrom:  “Letter from Utopia”

• Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights (HETHR) Special Issue

-vi:  James Hughes:  “Introduction”

1-9:  Patrick Hopkins:  “Is Enhancement Worthy of Being a Right?”

10-26: Fritz Allhoff:  “Germ Line Genetic-Enhancement and Rawlsian Primary Goods”:

27-34: Martin Gunderson:  “Enhancing Human Rights: How the Use of Human Rights Treaties to Prohibit Genetic Engineering Weakens Human Rights”

35-41: Patrick Lin and Fritz Allhoff:  “Against Unrestricted Human Enhancement”

42-49: Fred Gifford:  “Ethical Issues in Enhancement Research”

50-55: Aubrey de Grey:  “Our Right to Life”

56-69: Gregory Fowler and Kirk Allison:  “Technology and Citizenry: A Model for Public Consultation in Science Policy Formation”

70-78: Laura Colleton:  “The Elusive Line Between Enhancement and Therapy and Its Effects on Health Care in the U.S.”

79-85: Anita Silvers:  “The right not to be normal as the essence of freedom”

86-93: Martin Gunderson:  “Genetic Engineering and the Consent of Future Persons”

94-107: Martine Rothblatt:  “Are We Transbemans Yet?”

108-115: Mark Walker:  “Cognitive Enhancement and the Identity Objection”

116-123: Eva Caldera:  “Cognitive Enhancement and Theories of Justice: Contemplating the Malleability of Nature and Self”

124-128:  Dawn Jakubowski:  “Cognitive Enhancement and Liberatory Possibilities of Antidepressant Therapy”

129-142: George Dvorsky:  “All Together Now: Considerations for biologically uplifting non-human animals”

As you can see, both issues have articles that cover interesting topics and the articles are all worth a read. Check out the contents of these issues, and read them for free.

I don’t think any of those articles, nor their authors, express arguments that are perfectly identical to mine (in other words, I have a bone to pick with most of their articles). But don’t worry, I’ll soon be blogging more frequently again, or at least I hope to.

Boosting brainpower

The practical and ethical issues with intelligence enhancement are receiving more attention, with a recent article in New Scientist titled “Will designer brains divide humanity“.

For the most part, the article is quite basic, but I have an issue with one part in particular:

The next stage of brainpower enhancement could be technological – through genetic engineering or brain prostheses. Because the gene variants pivotal to intellectual brilliance have yet to be discovered, boosting brainpower by altering genes may still be some way off, or even impossible. Prostheses are much closer, especially as the technology for wiring brains into computers is already being tested.

This is none other than cybernetic favoritism! I mean sure, genes effecting intelligence aren’t obvious, but it’s also not obvious how and where to interface a brain chip to increase intelligence. And though neural prostheses are being tested, no neural prosthesis has increased any aspect of intelligence in any brain, whereas there have been 33 genetic alterations that increase the learning and memory of mice (not to mention that all the differences in intelligence between animals are genetic in origin). Considering the annoyance of having surgery for neural implants compared to the ease of a simple injection for genetic modification, I would personally put my money on the genetic enhancement of intelligence. Nonetheless, both avenues should be pursued, and might eventually complement one another.

Onto the ethical issues discussed in the article, most are fairly basic. Starting with human dignity, referring to comments made by Dietrich Birnbacher, a philosopher at the University of Düsseldorf in Germany:

One potential problem arises from altering what we consider to be “normal”: the dangers are similar to the social pressure to conform to idealised forms of beauty, physique or sporting ability that we see today. People without enhancement could come to see themselves as failures, have lower self-esteem or even be discriminated against by those whose brains have been enhanced, Birnbacher says.

These concerns are all quite valid, but aren’t necessarily impossible barriers. If enhancement technology was supported by the government, then no people wanting such technology would be left without it. And the discrimination I will deal with in a minute, after looking at the next section:

The perception that some people are giving themselves an unfair advantage over everyone else by “enhancing” their brains would be socially divisive, says John Dupré at the University of Exeter, UK. “Anyone can read to their kids or play them music, but put a piece of software in their heads, and that’s seen as unfair,” he says. As Dupré sees it, the possibility of two completely different human species eventually developing is “a legitimate worry”.

I do actually worry about enhancement being socially divisive, but I am not sure this would occur only by discrimination of the enhanced towards the un-enhanced. As I have argued previously, it’s entirely possible that the enhanced will be viewed as unnatural disgraces to humanity, and the pure, natural humans would discriminate against them because of it.

The rest of the article deals with issues such as brain plasticity, evolution and epigenetics. These are not particularly relevant to any ethical concerns and neither will they significantly enhance the intelligence of the average reader of this blog, so I’m not going to address them here.

Miah on enhancement

Andy Miah has an article on enhancement in The Guardian.

It’s short, but I agree with many of the conclusions. And apparently the European Parliament will be looking at the issue of enhancement soon, so I’ll be blogging on that as soon as more news comes to hand.

Zavos, the man who cried ‘clone’

The fertility doctor Panayiatos ‘Panos’ Zavos has (yet again!) claimed to have created some human clones, this time saying he’s implanted 11 cloned human embryos into 4 women. These embryos are allegedly created by taking the nuclei of “blood cells” (but obviously not erythrocytes) of a 10-year-old girl – who died in a car accident – and transferring those nuclei into bovine ova. Then the nuclei were extracted from the viable bovine/human cybrid embryos and transferred into human ova, and the viable ones of those implanted.

Remember, SCNT hardly works at the best of times, and to have done it twice (first into bovine ova, then into human ova) seems to be an enormous undertaking. And Zavos seems to spend more time talking to the media than actually doing labwork, so where would he find the time?

In case you weren’t aware of Zavos, just note that this claim seems to be itself a clone of one Zavos announced back in 2004 (after announcing his intentions to clone a human embryo in 2001 and again in 2002, and claiming a successful pregnancy that same year). For a guy who’s supposedly a mad scientist doing controversial research in a secret facility, he certainly is a big fan of the press. And this current stories reports he’s even filmed himself at his secret facility doing the work!

But the important thing is, despite constant media attention there is still no hard evidence of any human cloning, done by Zavos or anyone else. Until I see the indepentantly-verified genetic tests proving a baby is a clone, I call any report of reproductive human cloning and especially any with a mention of Zavos (or Raelians) to be a big fat HOAX!

Designer babies are good, but don’t come with a satisfaction guarantee

There’s this story going around concerning designer babies, supposedly trying to show how horrible a future where babies can be designed can be. It goes something like this:

Mr. and Mrs. Jones want a baby. They visit a fertility clinic and announce: “We want a boy—blond hair and blue eyes, please. We want him to be at least six feet tall, good at sports and have great musical ability.”“No sweat,” the doctor says. Nine months later, baby Logan is born.But for Logan’s parents, things don’t work out quite the way they expected. Despite his outstanding physique, Logan has no interest in sports. He likes to write poetry instead. As for music—yes, he’s good at it, his genes have seen to that—but he’d much rather spend his time designing model airplanes.

Logan’s parents are furious. They paid good money for a son who would make them proud on the athletic field and in the concert hall! Plus—the final insult—Logan dyed his blonde hair purple.

There are a number of points to address here.

Most importantly, genetics can’t ensure anything, especially when it comes to personality. Personality, more than anything else, is the result of a complex interplay between genetics and environmental factors. It would be possible to use genetic modification increase the probability of athleticism and musicality in a child, but it can’t be guaranteed.

The story mentioned that Logan’s parents are furious, but it’s worth noting that they are unlikely to be furious at Logan – it’s not his fault – but are likely angry at the doctor for accepting their money and not delivering on his promise. A doctor will of course need to be sure to stress that he can’t ensure anything, because doctors who promise things they can’t deliver are risking lawsuits from frustrated parents. So that part of this story won’t happen, that’s for sure – no doctor will promise this, and only stupid parents would expect their doctor to do so.

What of the parental pressure? Well, parents like Mr. and Mrs. Smith already exist, putting pressure on their children to be top achievers at school, to do well at sports, and try to guide their children into what the parent dreams their child will be.  Designer babies won’t be adding anything new here, and may actually be able to help.

To demonstrate this, consider how the story could have been:

Mr. and Mrs. Jones want a baby. They have dreams of having a healthy baby girl, with soft brown hair and big dark eyes. They dream of her growing to be a tall and beautiful woman, going to the best college in the state, being outstandingly musical and perhaps becoming a successful lawyer or physician.But they don’t use any genetic interventions, because those are against the law in all nearby states and countries. They conceive naturally, and nine months later, a baby girl, named Lora is born.Her parents are ecstatic that without needing to choose their child’s gender, they were still gifted with a baby girl. But in other ways, Lora isn’t what her parents expected. She is short, and would much rather play sports, especially basketball, than go to school. Her parents try to encourage her to study, pushing her to try harder, but Lora has difficulty reading and paying attention in class. Lora loves music as much as her parents do, but she is almost tone deaf and she wasn’t selected for the school band.Lora’s parents eventually come to terms with the fact that Lora wasn’t born with the abilities they expected, and Lora accepts that her small stature will prevent her from fulfilling her dreams of being a star on the basketball court and her dyslexia will hold her back in college. Perhaps Lora will find a satisfying life despite this, but it’s likely she and her parents will spend the rest of their life in disappointment.

Amazingly, biotech could actually help here. Mr and Mrs Smith want a daughter who is tall, beautiful, musical and intelligent. Gene modification or selection could increase the chances that Mr and Mrs Smith have a daughter who is everything that her parents’ value. It’s still possible that their daughter won’t share the same interests as her parents. But if she does, she will avoid the same years of struggle and disappointment that Lora had coming to terms with her problems.

The very final point in the original story, where Logan dyes his hair purple, is a very poignant one. Gene interventions don’t actually intrude on the child’s freedom, as they are free to rebel. You can give a child a beautiful head of hair, but they will dye it and cut it a different way. You may give them the genetic basis of creativity in the hope they become a great musician, but they are free to use this creativity to write poetry and design model planes. And, it’s likely that the genetic technologies will exist to permit a child, once they reach the age of maturity, to undo the manipulations their parents had made.

All of us are born with genetic tendancies that shape who we are, and grow to have dreams and aspirations. In most of us, we struggle to find satisfication when we realise our abilities conflict with our desires – our own desires, and the dreams of our parents. The important part is that our parents still love their children, regardless.

New Zealand not so good anymore

It’s a shame too. The Bioethics Council of New Zealand (aka ‘Toi te Taiao’), the same council that last year published such sensible opinions on parents genetically selecting their children,  has apparently been disestablished. A press release states:

It is with regret that Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council announces it has been disestablished by the Government.

Such a stupid thing to happen to such a clearly wise group of people. I hope New Zealanders make a big fuss about this.

Enhancing memory and learning in mice

Recently, a review article by Yong‑Seok Lee and Alcino J. Silva was published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, with the title ‘The molecular and cellular biology of enhanced cognition‘. If you are lucky enough to have a subscription, or know a library that can get this journal article for you, do.

The review lists 33 genetic modifications that lead to some level of enhanced memory and learning in mice. It also discuses the general methods by which these modifications work, focussing on enhancement of a form of neuronal plasticity known as long-term potentiation. NMDA receptors, the role of calcium as a messenger and the various enzymes and transcription factors that are recruited to create the cellular basis of a memory. The review also discusses other mechanisms, like epigenetics, growth factors, the involvement of glia, and also presynaptic signalling. Finally, the review looks at caveats in the current research in cognitive enhancement.

The authors also make a nod in the direction of bioethics, saying:

[I]t is also important to stress that memory enhancing manipulations raise a number of ethical issues that are outside of the scope of this Review, but that merit careful consideration and discussion^170,171.

For interests sake, references 170 and 171 are:

170: Rose, S. P. ‘Smart drugs’: do they work? Are they ethical? Will they be legal? Nature Rev. Neurosci. 3, 975–979 (2002).
171. Farah, M. J. et al. Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nature Rev. Neurosci. 5, 421–425 (2004).

NIH-funded embryonic stem cell research is now ALMOST legal

I really, really don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, but you still can’t get federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in the US. But with President Obama signing an executive order yesterday (my time) overturning President Bush’s 2001 statement that banned federal funding for embryo-destructive research, it is one step closer.

It would be good, however, to remember that the ban on federal funding for such research did not orginate with President Bush. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which was enacted by Congress in 1996 (during Clinton’s years) and renewed every year since. This law prohibits the US Health and Human Services (of with the National Insitute of Heatlh is a part) from using funding for

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death

So Obama himself hasn’t pulled down all the barriers, contrary to most uninformed media reports (The New York Times gets it right, though it is a bit unfair on Obama. And scientific journals like Nature, of course, get this right as well). In addition, Obama has not said anything expressly approving federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, so the matter is far from settled legally.

But don’t despair just yet. The removal of the Bush ban on funding this research, and the fact that Obama is supportive of such research, means that when new legislation does appear to permit such funding, President Obama will likely not veto the changes like Bush did (twice).

An important battle has been won, but the war is not over yet. I wouldn’t be celebrating freedom of research just yet.

Fertility clinic backs down from allowing cosmetic ‘design’ of babies

The Fertility Institutes LA, an American IVF clinic that recently announced that it would be offering parents the opportunity to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to select hair and eye pigmentation, has decided not to go ahead with this (excepting for selecting against albinism). The reason? Public opinion, of course.

[W]e [...] feel that any benefit the diagnostic studies may offer are far outweighed by the apparent negative societal impacts involved.

A total shame, to let the public pressure decide what sort of children people can or can’t have. With all the cries that selecting one’s babies will lead to a situation like that portrayed in Gattaca, nobody seems to realise that the situation portrayed in that movie — public coercion to have a particular sort of baby — is already happening. The only difference is the ’sort’ of baby that parents are being pushed, by social pressures, to have.

Foetal stem cells cause tumours: Irrelevant and obvious

Too many people overreacting about a recently released story of a boy developing tumours subsequent to being treated by foetal stem cells, grasping onto the case as evidence for the soundness of their moral viewpoint on embryonic stem cells. A typical example is Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, who is reported to have said:

The risks of tumour formation in association with embryonic stem cells are widely acknowledged and one reason why there are very serious concerns about the proposed use of such cells in treating spinal cord injury in the US. It would appear from this report that foetal stem cells are similarly unstable. These are not areas of therapy we should be rushing into, whatever the ethical debates surrounding the use of embryo or foetal tissue per se.

Notice she just assumed foetal stem cells are the same as embryonic stem cells?

The first objection to this madness is simply that embryos are not foetuses and foetuses are not embryos. The paper in which this case was presented, in the journal PLoS Medicine, clearly states that the “neural stem cells used were derived from fetuses aborted at week 8-12″, and in fact defines the term fetus as “unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception”.  These are not pluripotent embryonic stem cells, sourced from embryos and able to develop into many tissues. The cells used were ‘merely’ multipotent foetal neural stem cells, sourced from foetuses and only able to develop into neural tissues.

Pro-life groups, who rely on misusing words to equivocate babies with single-celled zygotes, are likely to continue making this mistake. Strangest of all, they should not be opposed to foetal stem cells, as they are sourced from abortions that would have happened anyway. In this sense, they are similar to the embryonic stem cells sourced from otherwise discarded leftover IVF embryos. Better they be used as a cure rather than be binned and incinerated, right? So, this case, while unfortunate, is irrelevant to whether embryonic stem cells should be used.

Secondly, cancer is a risk present with all stem cells (and indeed all cells). After all, stem cells are, by definition, able to proliferate – to grow and mitotically divide – many times. As a consequence, it only takes a single mutation to some aspect of growth regulation for a stem cell to become a tumour. For a normal cell to become cancerous, it must gain the ability to proliferate in addition to a lack of regulation. This has been known for ages, and is reviewed well by Michael Clarke and Michael Becker in Scientific American and, more technically, by Michael Clarke and Margeret Fuller in the journal Cell. All stem cells pose a risk of turning cancerous, regardless of whether they are adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells, or a somatic cell induced into pluripotency.

Embryonic stem cells, foetal stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells carry such high risk of cancer for the same reason that makes them have such great potential for repairing tissue and curing disease. While adult stem cells can divide many times, only embryonic stem cells (or similar) can divide almost indefinitely.The restricted lifespan of adult stem cells make them less likely to form a tumour, but also means they have less time to repair the tissue. Preferring stem cells for this reason is rather like preferring to hire elderly people to be spies because they likely to retire or die before they go rogue or are turned into being a double agent.

Unfortunately, all current stem cell therapies with the promise of embryonic stem cells also carry the elevated risk of cancer.  So this case of a boy developing tumours from stem cell therapy, while unfortunate, was obviously going to happen to someone.