impacts of new genetic technologies
The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences was one of the sponsors of a multidisciplinary discussion of the ethical, legal and social implications of genetic technologies. The October symposium, “Genetic Science and the New Millennium,” featured scientists, ethicists, faculty members and students, as well as public audience participation in the discussion of new genetic technologies and the best avenues to explore their use. The event was organized by Dr. Wendell H. McKenzie, professor of genetics, and Betty Trustman, a graduate student in the Master of Arts in Liberal Studies (MALS) degree program at N.C. State.
Maxwell J. Mehlman, director of the Law-Medicine Center at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law and professor of biomedical ethics at the CWRU School of Medicine, was the keynote speaker. His address, “Foundations for Ethical Thinking in Human Genetics: The Challenge of Genetic Enhancement,”outlined the main principles of bioethics, including respect for persons and justice. He explained the various types of genetic enhancements, from somatic enhancements (such as in pills or medications whose effects will be noninherited) and passive reproductive enhancement (activities that don’t change the genetic profile of an individual, such as embryo selection for gender) to gene insertion or deletion (inserting a desired trait or removing inhibitors of a desired trait) and germ line enhancement ( a procedure that would be reflected in progeny).
“We need to be thinking of the implications of these techniques quickly, because we need to make decisions as a society” about their use, Mehlman explained, listing concerns, such as research ethics, safety and efficacy, autonomy, authenticity, access, fairness and equality.
With each of these concerns, Mehlman presented sample scenarios and questions for the audience to consider: What is the role of government in genetic enhancement? At what stage does parental decision-making come in, both in terms of reproductive decisions and child-rearing? Will insurance cover it? Will it be available only to the wealthy? Will genetic enhancement change the species? Could it counteract the role of environment (nurture)?
After offering much information on both the benefits and challenges posed by genetic enhancement and technological advances, Mehlman said, “I don’t think we should rule any of these possibilities out, if only because we are seeing the confluence of knowledge-based advances in two tremendously powerful technologies, genomic and computer technologies.”
Mehlman then presented various regulatory approaches that could be taken.
He was joined by Dr. Ronald R. Sederoff, professor of forestry, and Dr. Fred Gould, William Neal Reynolds Professor of entomology, in discussing “Transgenes, Agriculture, Environment.” They were followed by Dr. Bruce Weir, professor of statistics, Victoria M. Pratt of LabCorp, and Mehlman discussing “DNA Testing, Databanking, Privacy.”
Sederoff began his talk with three key points: “This is the only planet we have, and currently we are destroying it. People are not equally well-off on this planet. We should leave the world better off than how we found it.”
Sederoff then asked the group, “What kind of world do you think it will be in another 50 years? What will be the impact of population on the environment? What will we do for energy? What about the problem of demands on the land for food?”
His point was that more food products will have to be developed on less land; therefore we must do what we have to do technologically to produce more from less land. “The question is not whether we should but whether we will be able to do it at all,” Sederoff said. Citing the need for biotechnology to feed a changing world — but also a need to educate the public — Sederoff said, “What we need is scientific discourse, public education. We need to separate science from political agendas. Without such a process there is no hope for progress. That should get us started.”
Listing examples of how public opinion already has had an impact, such as public acceptance of pesticide-ready crops, Gould said that while the public should not be shut out, it also should be informed.
“A really informed public can have a dramatic effect on the direction of genetic research,” said Gould, “Read all the reports before you make a decision.”
—Terri
Leith
