by Michio Kaku
The results, however, have been disappointing. Often, the body considers the virus to be hostile and mounts a counteroffensive, causing harmful side effects. Also, the good gene often does not implant itself in the correct position. After a fatal incident at the University of Pennsylvania in 1999, many gene therapy experiments were terminated.
CRISPR technology cuts through a lot of these complications. Actually, the basis of the technology evolved billions of years ago. Scientists were puzzled that bacteria developed very precise mechanisms to defeat an onslaught of viruses. How did bacteria recognize a deadly virus and then disarm it? They found that bacteria were able to recognize the threats because they carried a snippet of the virus’s genetic material. Like a mug shot, the bacteria were able to use it to identify an invading virus. Once the bacteria recognized the genetic string and therefore the virus, it would cut the virus at a very precise point, neutralizing it and stopping the infection in its tracks.
Scientists were able to replicate this process—successfully replacing a viral sequence with other types of DNA and inserting that DNA in the target cell—making “genomic surgery” possible. CRISPR rapidly replaced older methods of genetic engineering, making gene editing cleaner, more accurate, and much faster.
This revolution took the field of biotechnology by storm. “It just completely changes the landscape,” said Jennifer Doudna, one of the pioneers. David Weiss of Emory University said, “All of this has basically happened in a year. It’s incredible.”
Already, researchers at the Hubrecht Institute in the Netherlands have shown that they can correct a genomic error that causes cystic fibrosis. This raises hopes that many incurable genetic diseases may one day be cured. Many scientists hope that eventually some of the genes for certain forms of cancer can also be replaced using CRISPR technology, thereby stopping the growth of tumors.
Bioethicists, worried about the possible misuses of this technology, have organized conferences to discuss this new science because the side effects and complications are not known, and they made a series of recommendations to try to cool down the furious pace of CRISPR research. In particular, they raised concerns that this technology may lead to germ-line gene therapy. (There are two types of gene therapy, somatic cell gene therapy, where non-sex cells are modified, so that the mutations do not spread to the next generation, and germ-line gene therapy, where your sex cells are altered so that all your descendants can inherit the modified gene.) Germ-line gene therapy could, if unchecked, alter the genetic heritage of the human race. It means that once we venture among the stars, new genetic branches of the human race might emerge. Usually, this would take tens of thousands of years, but bioengineering may reduce that to a single generation if germ-line gene therapy becomes a reality.
In summary, the dreams of science fiction writers who speculated about modifying the human race to colonize distant planets were once considered to be too unrealistic or fanciful. However, with the coming of CRISPR, these far-fetched dreams can no longer be dismissed. Still, we must engage in a thoughtful analysis of all the ethical consequences raised by this fast-moving technology.
ETHICS OF TRANSHUMANISM
These are examples of “transhumanism,” which advocates embracing technology to enhance our skills and capabilities. To survive and even flourish on distant worlds, we may have to alter ourselves mechanically and biologically. To transhumanists, it’s not a matter of choice but of necessity. Altering ourselves increases our chances on planets with different levels of gravity, atmospheric pressure and composition, temperature, radiation, et cetera.
Rather than being repulsed by technology or fighting its influence, the transhumanists believe that we should embrace it. They relish the idea that we can perfect humanity. To them, the human race was a byproduct of evolution, so our bodies are a consequence of random, haphazard mutations. Why not use technology to systematically improve on these quirks? Their ultimate goal is to create the “posthuman,” a new species that can transcend humanity.
Although the concept of altering our genes makes some people squeamish, Greg Stock, a biophysicist affiliated with UCLA, has emphasized that humans have been changing the genetics of the animals and plants around us for thousands of years. When I interviewed him, he pointed out that what appears “natural” to us today is actually a byproduct of intense selective breeding. The modern dinner table would be impossible without the skills of ancient breeders who cultivated plants and animals to suit our needs. (Today’s corn, for example, is a genetically modified version of maize and cannot reproduce without human intervention. The kernels, or seeds, do not fall off by themselves, and farmers have to remove and plant them for corn to grow.) And the variety of dogs that we see around us are a byproduct of selectively breeding a single species, the gray wolf. So humans have altered the genes of scores of plants and animals, such as dogs for hunting and cows and chickens for food. In fact, if we could magically remove all the plants and animals that humans have bred over the centuries, our society would look drastically different from what it is today.
As the genes for certain human traits are isolated by scientists, it will be hard to stop people from trying to tinker with them. (For example, if you find out that your neighbor’s children have been given genetically enhanced intelligence and they are competing with your children, there will be enormous pressure to have your own kids enhanced in a similar fashion. And in competitive sports, where the rewards are astronomical, it will be exceedingly difficult to stop athletes from trying to enhance themselves.) Whatever ethical hurdles they present, Dr. Stock argues that we shouldn’t dismiss genetic enhancements unless a modification is harmful. Or, as Nobel laureate James Watson has said, “No one really has the guts to say it, but if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn’t we?”
POSTHUMAN FUTURE?
Advocates of transhumanism believe that when we meet advanced civilizations in space, they will have evolved to the point of modifying their biological bodies to accommodate the rigors of living on many different planets. To the transhumanists, advanced civilizations in outer space have most likely achieved a genetically and technologically enhanced future. So if we ever meet aliens from space, we shouldn’t be surprised if they are part biological and part cybernetic.
Physicist Paul Davies goes one step further: “My conclusion is a startling one. I think it very likely—in fact inevitable—that biological intelligence is only a transitory phenomenon, a fleeting phase in the evolution of intelligence in the universe. If we ever encounter extraterrestrial intelligence, I believe it is overwhelmingly likely to be post-biological in nature, a conclusion that has obvious and far-reaching ramifications for SETI [the search for extraterrestrial intelligence].”
And AI expert Rodney Brooks wrote, “My prediction is that by the year 2100 we will have very intelligent robots everywhere in our everyday lives. But we will not be apart from them—rather, we will be part robot and connected with the robots.”
This debate over transhumanism is actually not a new one but goes back to the last century, when the laws of genetics were first understood. One of the first people to articulate the idea was J. B. S. Haldane, who, in 1923, delivered a lecture, later published in book form, entitled “Daedalus, or Science and the Future,” in which he predicted that science could use genetics to improve the condition of the human race.
Many of his ideas seem tame today, but he was aware of the controversy they would generate and admitted that they might appear to be “indecent and unnatural” to someone who read about them for the first time, but that people might eventually accept them.
Finally, the basic principles of transhumanism, that humanity should not have to endure “nasty, brutish, and short” lives, when science can relieve suffering by enhancing the human race, were first clearly laid out by Julian Huxley in 1957.
There are several different views on what aspects of transhumanism we should pursue. Some believe that we should focus on m
echanical means to enhance ourselves, such as exoskeletons, special goggles to improve our vision, memory banks that can be uploaded into our brains, and implants to increase our senses. Some believe that genetics should be used to eliminate lethal genes, some believe they should be used to enhance our natural abilities, and some believe they should be used to increase our intellectual powers. Instead of taking decades to perfect certain genetic characteristics via selective breeding, as we have done with dogs and horses, we can accomplish whatever we want in one generation with genetic engineering.
Progress in biotechnology is so rapid that ethical questions abound. And the sordid history of eugenics, including Nazi experiments to create a master race, presents a cautionary tale for anyone interested in altering humans. And it is now possible to take skin cells from a mouse and modify them genetically so that they can become egg and sperm cells, then mate them to produce a healthy mouse. Eventually, this process may be applied to humans. It would vastly increase the number of infertile couples who can successfully produce healthy children, but it also means that people could obtain your skin cells without your permission and create clones of you.
Critics claim that only the rich and powerful will be able to benefit from this technology. Francis Fukuyama of Stanford has warned that transhumanism is “among the world’s most dangerous ideas,” arguing that if the DNA of our descendants is altered, it will likely change human behavior, create more inequality, and hence undermine democracy. However, the history of technology would indicate that although the wealthy would have early access to these technological miracles, the cost will eventually drop to the point where even the average person can afford them.
Other critics claim that it may be the first step toward splitting the human race and that the very definition of humanity is at stake. Perhaps various branches of genetically enhanced humans will populate different parts of the solar system and eventually diverge into separate species. And one can imagine that rivalries and even warfare may break out between different branches of the human race. Even the concept of “Homo sapiens” might be called into question. We will address this important question in chapter 13 when we discuss the world perhaps thousands of years into the future.
In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, biotechnology is used to breed a race of superior beings, called the Alphas, who are destined to lead society from birth. Other embryos are deprived of oxygen, so that they become mentally deficient and hence are bred to serve the Alphas. At the bottom of society are the Epsilons, who are bred to do menial manual labor. This society is a planned utopia that uses technology to satisfy all our needs, and everything appears orderly and peaceful. However, the entire society is based on oppression and misery for those bred to live at the bottom.
Supporters of transhumanism admit that all these hypothetical scenarios must be taken seriously, but at this point they argue that these concerns are purely academic. In spite of the avalanche of new research in biotechnology, much of this talk has to be placed in a larger context. Designer children do not yet exist, and the genes for many personality traits that parents may want for their children have not yet been found. And they may not exist at all. At present, not a single human behavior trait can be changed using biotechnology.
Many argue that the fears of transhumanism run amok are premature, since the technology is still in the distant future. But given the rate at which discoveries are being made, late in this century genetic modifications will probably become a real possibility, so we have to ask the question, How far do we want to take this technology?
CAVEMAN PRINCIPLE
As I’ve stated in previous books, I believe that the “caveman or cavewoman principle” comes into play and puts a natural limit on how far we will want to alter ourselves. Our basic personality has not changed much since we first emerged as modern humans two hundred thousand years ago. Although today we have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, our fundamental desires have remained the same.
And what do we want? Surveys show that after our basic needs are met, we place a high value on the opinions of our peers. We want to look good, especially in front of the opposite sex. We want the admiration of our circle of friends. We might hesitate before altering ourselves too dramatically, especially if it makes us look different from those around us.
Therefore, it is likely that we will only adopt enhancements if they raise our status in society. So though there will be pressure to genetically and electronically enhance our power, especially if we go into outer space and live in different environments, there may well be limits on how much alteration we desire, and that limitation will help keep us grounded.
When Iron Man first appeared in the comics, he was a rather clunky, awkward-looking character. His armor was yellow, round, and ugly. In fact, he looked like a walking tin can. Young children could not identify with him, so the cartoonists later decided to give him a complete makeover. His armor became multicolored, sleek, and formfitting, clearly enhancing the slim fighting figure of Tony Stark. As a result, his popularity rose dramatically. Even superheroes have to obey the caveman principle.
Golden-era science fiction novels often portray the people of the future as having gigantic bald heads and tiny bodies. Other novels have us evolved into huge brains living in large vats of liquid. But who wants to live like that? I think the caveman principle would prevent us from evolving into creatures that we find repulsive. Instead, we would, in all likelihood, want the ability to increase our life span, memory, and intelligence without having to reform our basic human shape. For example, when playing games in cyberspace, we often have the freedom to choose an animated avatar to represent ourselves. Often we choose avatars that make us attractive or appealing in some way, rather than grotesque or repulsive.
It is also possible that all these technological wonders will backfire and reduce us to helpless children leading pointless lives. In the Disney cartoon WALL-E, humans live in spaceships where robots cater to every imaginable whim. Robots do all the heavy lifting and take care of every need, leaving humans with nothing to do but pursue silly pastimes. They become fat, spoiled, and useless and spend their time with idle, pointless pursuits. But I think there is a “baseline” personality that is hardwired into our brains. For example, if drugs are legalized, then many experts estimate that perhaps 5 percent of the human race would become addicted. But the other 95 percent, seeing how drugs can limit or destroy a person’s life, will steer clear of them, preferring to live in the real world rather than a drug-altered one. Similarly, once virtual reality is perfected, perhaps a similar number of people may prefer to live in cyberspace rather than in the real world, but it is not likely to be an overwhelming number.
Remember that our cavemen ancestors wanted to be useful and helpful to others. It is hardwired into our genes.
When I first read Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy as a child, I was surprised that human beings fifty thousand years from now did not alter themselves. Surely, I thought, humans by then would have completely enhanced bodies, with gigantic heads, tiny withered bodies, and superpowers like in the comic books. But many of the scenes in the novel could have taken place on the Earth today. Looking back at that historic novel, I now realize that the caveman principle was probably at work. I imagine that in the future, people will have the option of putting on devices, implants, and accessories that give them superpowers and enhanced abilities, but afterward they will take most of them off and interact normally in society. Or if they permanently alter themselves, it will be in a way that enhances their standing in society.
WHO DECIDES?
When Louise Brown, the world’s first test tube baby, was born in 1978, the technology that made it possible was denounced by many clergymen and columnists, who believed that we were playing God. Today there are more than five million test tube babies in the world; your spouse or best friend may be one.
People have decided to embrace this procedure, in spite of vigorous criticism.
Similarl
y, when Dolly the Sheep was first cloned in 1996, many critics denounced the technology as being immoral and even profane. Yet today cloning is largely accepted. I asked Robert Lanza, an authority on biotechnology, when the first human cloning might be possible. He pointed out that no one has ever successfully cloned a primate, let alone a human. But he thought that human cloning would one day be possible. And if humans are ever cloned, it is likely only a tiny fraction of the human race will decide to clone themselves. (Perhaps the only people who will clone themselves are rich people who have no heirs, or no heirs they particularly care for. They might clone themselves and give their wealth to themselves as children.)
Some have also denounced “designer children” who are genetically modified by their parents. Yet today, it is commonplace for people to create several in vitro fertilized embryos and then discard the ones that have a potentially fatal mutation (such as Tay-Sachs disease). Thus, in one generation, we might conceivably eliminate these lethal traits from the gene pool.
When the telephone was first introduced in the last century, there were vocal critics. They said it was unnatural to speak to some invisible, disembodied voice in the ether, rather than talking to people face-to-face, and that we would spend too much time on the phone, rather than talking to our children and close friends. The critics, of course, were right. We do spend too much time talking to disembodied voices in the ether. We don’t talk to our children enough. But we love the telephone, and sometimes use it to talk to our children. People, rather than editorialists, decided for themselves that they wanted this new technology. In the future, as radical forms of technology that could enhance the human race become available, people will decide for themselves how far to take it. The only way in which these controversial technologies should be introduced is after democratic debate. (Imagine, for the moment, someone from the time of the Inquisition visiting our modern world. Fresh from burning witches and torturing heretics, he might condemn all of modern civilization as being blasphemous.) What seems unethical and even immoral today might seem quite ordinary and mundane in the future.
