Back in the old days, when “personal computers” were just starting to come out, the epithet hackers had positive connotations, and I suppose I was one of them, although I never sought the label, or much of any label. Since then it evolved to more negative connotations, although those who think of themselves as hackers will often disagree.
But now it may be returning to its roots in the guise of bio-hacking, where the skilled try to modify genomes for their individual purposes. It started out with the genomes of simple creatures, but with the development and availability of CRISPR technology, which permits editing genomes with few errors and fairly cheaply, bigger game can be tackled with confidence.
Such as ourselves.
NewScientist (18 November 2017, paywall) notes the growing controversy over the ethics of, well, self-editing a genome – that is, modifying your own gene-set. It’s unsettling a lot of people:
These biohackers believe it is a basic human right to access and edit one’s own genome. “I am of the opinion that your genome is your own,” says [bio-hacker David] Ishee. “I think that it is important that people have the ability to choose what kind of gene expression they want for themselves.”
This ethos of “my body, my choice” is used to underpin arguments for health, reproductive and disability rights, but should it extend to the right to edit our own genes? What about the potential unintended effects of using untested technology? And will allowing broad access to CRISPR risk creating a group of “superhumans” with enhanced senses and abilities? …
These are some of the many issues that have plagued scientists and ethicists for years. Recent papers from the US National Academies and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in the UK have attempted to grapple with these questions, including whether there is a moral difference between gene editing for medical therapy versus enhancing ordinary abilities.
John Harris, a bioethicist at the University of Manchester, UK, who has written about human enhancement since the 1980s, does not believe there is a significant difference. He thinks the biohackers could help move the arguments along and hasten the safe use of CRISPR in humans.
“There is a long and noble history of both doctors and scientists experimenting on themselves,” says Harris. “It has proven tremendously valuable in the public interest.” …
And what if “the next guy” is a future Olympic medallist? The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) announced last month that it would ban all forms of gene therapy or gene doping from international competitive sports from 2018. However, it’s unlikely that international testers will be able to detect most forms of gene editing, and with all the free-flowing information about various experimental enhancements, it seems even less likely that WADA will be able to enforce this ban. “WADA is a joke,” says Ishee.
Günes Taylor, who also works with CRISPR at the Francis Crick Institute in London, says she is conflicted by these home-brew experiments.
“Part of me is, like, ‘that is so awesome’… but it won’t work,” she says, insisting it will be more difficult than the biohackers think. “CRISPR has been sold as a cure-all… but actually getting it to do the thing that you want it to do successfully is more complicated.”
The article is somewhat more muddled than need be, dancing around the ethics controversy without ever getting a good balance of dueling views. Still, the muddling itself suggests that the ideology of individual autonomy – for which I have a lot of sympathy – is the rock over which a lot of folks are stumbling.
I don’t have an answer, since I’m not a specialist in this technology, but I think a re-think of ethics might be helpful, along with some questions that might illuminate the way.
So, not one to let my lack of training stand in the way of opening my mouth, ethics. Ethics discusses, at its core, how people ought to conduct themselves, which can be mostly seen as how we interface with each other – honestly, dishonestly, with flowers or with knives in our hands. There is, implicitly, a goal of having a peaceful society.
But why a peaceful society? Briefly, it’s about survival. Think of society as an engine; a society with ethics that lead to harmonious relations between its members can be thought of as a well-oiled machine quietly humming along; a society in which relations are acrimonious is the machine which is starved of oil and off-balance. In the latter case, as time passes the machine’s performance degrades, until pieces are flying through the air and its hostile neighbors dismember it.
So when we’re talking about individual conduct that does not directly interface with other individuals – which is a good representation of this situation – it becomes valid to ask whether the behavior of the bio-hackers might harm society as a whole. Here are some questions which might guide the answers.
- Is it possible for a bio-hacker to change oneself, without regard to intent, such that one is an implicit, physical danger to others? Not being a biologist, I can only wonder, as a single example, as to whether the virus DNA found in the human genome could be accidentally set to, say, manufacturing some deadly illness that can be easily spread. Sound dumb? Sure. But reassure me. I’m just a dumb hacker.
- I can easily accept bio-hacking when attempting to repair a deficiency in oneself, by which I mean some capability of survival value which most members of the species has. Here is one example. But what is the likelihood that substantive improvements can be attained beyond the above-average member of human society? Can we really expect to double the strength of our strongest current members without substantial damage to other physical faculties? Improve our IQs beyond 300, if that even means anything? If vast improvements seem unlikely, then perhaps the question is moot, and autonomy may be left undisturbed.
- But if the answer to (2) is yes, then we must ask, can society survive with the capabilities of certain of its members so far beyond the capabilities of others that it might as well be two different species? Or will that rip the society apart into hostile constituents? While the bio-hacker may argue that individual autonomy trumps such concerns as the latter seem trivial, I’d suggest that our profound interdependence, which we so often ignore, puts everyone at great risk if society starts ripping itself apart – a torn, broken society will soon drown in its own wastes, if it doesn’t die of starvation itself.
- All that said, what if some competing society – say, Russia – made bio-hacking the national past time? What sort of risks do we then face?
Got others? Let me know.
