Lindsey Goetz
Dr. Cherney
Genes and Behavior
23 February 2004
Germline enhancement…is it worth it?
Though recent developments in germline therapy appear to bear enormous potential for
human benefit, all current and future genetic enhancements may oppose a nature which may
indeed “know best.” To understand how this might be the case, a general understanding of the
nature of the “natural” and “cultural” evolutionary forces must first be examined. As the author
of Redesigning Humans articulates, the “arrival of safe, reliable germline therapy
will…transform the evolutionary process by drawing reproduction into a highly selective social
process that is far more rapid and effective at spreading successful genes than traditional sexual
competition and mate selection” (Stock, 2003, p.3). However, the far more significant question
(particularly with respect to selective genetic enhancement) lies in which influence (“natural” or
cultural) is most suited to promoting the survival of the human species. Natural selection
inevitably acts in the best interest of the population, seeking to improve individual fitness not
necessarily as an end in-and-of-itself, but as a means for strengthening the survival chance of the
whole. After all, multiple behaviors such as stinging in bees and mobbing in cliff swallows
adhere to the “selfish-gene” theory, in which individuals are believed to be “programmed to
behave such that the maximum number of genes possible” reaches the ensuing generation (Dr.
Burk, personal communication, August 8, 2002,). Thus, even though a bee may sacrifice itself
by stinging, it protects its genes as they are expressed in its kin by taking such an action.
Further, as suggested by the theory of the evolutionarily-mediated beauty template, natural
Goetz 2
selection tends to favor average qualities over those representing an extreme (Lindsey Goetz,
personal communication, February 11, 2004), perhaps in an attempt to ensure that a given
population falls well within the outer limits of its corresponding environment. The so-called
“cultural” selection predicted to drive future human evolution acts upon contradictory principles.
As the statement, “those opposing [birth control] seem more worried about the immorality of
recreational sex than about human evolution” (Stock, 2003, 2) helps to foreshadow, current and
upcoming gene therapies hardly represent tactics that consider – let alone seek to benefit – the
survival of the whole. Whether acting on his own behalf or on the behalf of a loved one (i.e., a
child), one turns to gene therapy with the profit of a specific individual in mind. Additionally,
potential germline enhancement (acting on the behalf of “cultural evolutionary pressure”) aims to
eradicate the average nature of the individual that natural selection works so hard to preserve,
ultimately seeking to provide alterations that “carry a person beyond the normal human range”
by granting “superhuman endurance, intellect, strength, [and] vitality” (Stock, 2003, p.179).
Thus, natural and cultural contributions to the evolutionary process are by nature dichotomous
and in some cases irreconcilable. While the implication of one of these pressures as mores
significant than the other with respect to human benefit represents a highly subjective process,
the fact remains that human societies tend to be pragmatically short-sighted. The rise and fall of
cultures typically cycle at a rate of maybe a couple of hundred years at best, and thus the ideals
exemplified by individuals within a given society (i.e., the contemporary United States) are in
some senses much more prone to error than a selection process that has been refined over
millions of years. Thus, we must exhibit extraordinary caution when developing germline
therapies. While utilizing such processes to correct genetic abnormalities in embryos may seem
ethically correct, the potential for disastrous evolutionary consequences lurks in the shadows of
Goetz 3
our ignorance. Even if it were possible to “engineer” an infant bearing a desired height,
intelligence, curiosity, or talent (Stock, 2003), our lack of proteomic and polygenic knowledge
may lead us to the inadvertent alteration of hundreds of other traits in the process. Further, what
is stylish or trendy now may in ten years be quite the opposite, leading to generations of
genetically-manufactured social rejects. And finally, most social pressures exert only a
tangential effect on human survival in the biological sense. While it might be to one’s social and
reproductive advantage to be intelligent, of the ideal height, etc., extreme, pinpointed selection
for some of these ascetic traits may lead to individuals who are biologically unbalanced. Such a
case is not nearly as evident with natural selection, as this process tends to slowly and
comprehensively shape an individual, ensuring that inter and intra-organismal homeostasis is
maintained. Because genetic alteration with respect to human diseases adheres to the same
general principles, I would argue that all genetic enhancements (cosmetic, medical or otherwise)
should be strictly prohibited until the scientific community has had the opportunity to develop
deeper foresight with respect to the evolutionary consequences of germline therapy. Unless we
may claim the experience to rival an authority millions of years in the making, we have no
business interfering with the evolutionary process.
Goetz 4
References
Stock, G. (2003). Redesigning Humans: Choosing our Genes, Changing our Future. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin Company, pp. 1-15, 178-182.