Posted on 05/24/2016 8:23:03 AM PDT by Heartlander
Scientists have recently started talking about constructing a complete human genome from scratch — out of raw chemicals. Understandably, concerns are being raised about the idea.
As unsettling as the news is, though, perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising. Big science is always looking for backers of the next big project, and controversy is one sure way to get the ball rolling.
Reading human genomes has become passé, it seems, so it’s predictable that something newer and bolder — like writing human genomes — would be in the works. When that gets old, the discussion will have moved to rewriting — reinventing humanity.
There are two causes for concern here. One has to do with what might happen if these technological ambitions were to be achieved, and the other has to do with the prevailing attitude that seems to drive them in the first place.
There’s some reassurance to be had with respect to the first concern. Biology has progressed to the point where bluffs about reinventing life can have a disquieting realism to them, but the truth is that our understanding of life is so woefully incomplete that there won’t be anything beyond bluffs for the foreseeable future.
Our present situation is similar to that of audiences viewing the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey when it first appeared. One of the film’s characters was a futuristic version of artificial intelligence called HAL — the main computer aboard a spaceship. In one of the film’s most eerie scenes, HAL decides to sacrifice astronauts for the sake of the mission:
Dave (tensely): Open the Pod bay doors, HAL!
HAL (calmly): I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.
Through no fault of the filmmakers, that scene has lost its initial impact. In 1968, only a handful of people had access to computers, which made these “thinking” machines deeply mysterious to everyone else. This scene was almost believable back then, which made it all the more eerie.
We’re well past 2001 now, and not only has HAL never materialized, but familiarity with computers has caused even the specter of HAL to evaporate. With grade schoolers carrying Siri around in their pockets, we can’t take the threat of computational mutiny seriously anymore.
A realistic picture of the limitations of genome technology should be similarly reassuring. The truth is that scientists can’t even read the human genome yet — at least not the way we usually think of reading. They merely call out the letters, the way a child does who can’t yet read. Actual reading goes beyond letter recognition to understanding, which is in short supply when it comes to the human genome. For all the A’s, C’s, G’s and T’s the genome project gave us, we’re left with very little idea what this three-billion-letter text actually means.
Official sources tend to make it look as though scientists know a whole lot more than they really do. “Having the essentially complete sequence of the human genome is similar to having all the pages of a manual needed to make the human body,” we’re told. Should we believe this? If and when it proves true, we should. That will be the day when much of the mystery about how our bodies are knit together is removed by our ability to read the answers straight from our genomes.
“Why are my teeth coming in all crooked when hers are all straight?”
“Good question! Let’s sit down and take a look at your manual to find out.”
To be perfectly frank, there’s so little hint of that day coming that it’s very reasonable to question whether it will ever come.
As for plans to “write” human genomes — well, these tend to be exaggerated in the same way. Scribe-like copying is all we’re really capable of, which isn’t what we normally think of as writing. Genuine writing skills presuppose the more basic reading skills, which simply aren’t there. Rest assured, then, that scientists aren’t going to reinvent humanity anytime in the foreseeable future.
The second cause for concern, though — that the scientific community as a whole doesn’t seem to hold anything as sacrosanct — is very real. Scientists may not be capable of reinventing humanity, but they can trample it, and the very thought of toying with the things that make us who we are, however mistaken, does just that.
Here, the reassurance is that those of us who do have a high regard for these things have every bit as much authority to speak to the matter as any scientist does.
Speak, then. This is not an age for timidity.
Douglas Axe holds a PhD in Biochemical Engineering from Caltech, is Director of Biologic Institute, and author of the forthcoming book Undeniable — How Biology Confirms Our Intuition Life is Designed (HarperOne, July 2016).
“Man’s conquest of nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man.”
- C.S. Lewis
Speak, then. This is not an age for timidity.
Cut. Off. Funding.
A Synth
You know who would call someone a Synth?
A Synth, that’s who.
“I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.”
- Malcolm “Cap’n Tightpants” Reynolds, “Serenity” . . . .
A realistic picture of the limitations of genome technology should be similarly reassuring. The truth is that scientists can’t even read the human genome yet — at least not the way we usually think of reading. They merely call out the letters, the way a child does who can’t yet read. Actual reading goes beyond letter recognition to understanding, which is in short supply when it comes to the human genome.
...
I have a hard time believing that, and our understanding keeps getting better.
What, do you think the Creator left us some Rosetta Stone lessons to teach us the language of the genome?
If you haven’t already guessed by now,
this author is neck deep in intelligent design.
“Within a hundred years of physical and chemical science, men will know what the atom is. It is my belief when science reaches this stage, God will come down to earth with His big ring of keys and will say to humanity, ‘Gentlemen, it is closing time.’ “
— Marcellin Berthelot (25 October 1827 – 18 March 1907) French chemist and politician
While we know most of what the atom is, we don’t know it all. However, if the hubris of the Tower of Babel brought on the dispersion of mankind, I image that the attempt at ‘Constructing a Human Genome in the Lab’ may very well be an indication of the imminence of ‘Gentlemen, it is closing time.’
Batty: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies, like rats leaving a sinking ship; then the ship... sinks.
Batty: What about EMS-3 recombination?
Tyrell: We've already tried it - ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkylating agent and potent mutagen; it created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before it even left the table.
Batty: Then a repressor protein, that would block the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication; but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries with it a mutation - and you've got a virus again... but this, all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
Batty: But not to last.
Correcting genes from damage or disorder is one thing. This is just insane and something somebody with a God complex would try. Total immoral.
What, do you think the Creator left us some Rosetta Stone lessons to teach us the language of the genome?
...
I have no doubt God wants us to know how he works.
That’s not really an answer the question.
That’s not really an answer the question.
...
I don’t care that you think so.
Alrighty then.
God: “Go Make Your Own Dirt.”
It was true that Tyrell couldn't fix Batty, and true that they made him as well as they could at the time he was made, but he may have left out that they had figured out how to make replicants better after Batty was made. If that was the case, the information wouldn't have saved him, so he probably wouldn't disclose it.
Notice what is missing in this statement: "A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established."... what about before it's been established? Such as if the design was refined before making a new model of replicant, such as Rachel and Deckard seem to be?
Does this mean they have thrown in the towel of monitoring lab experiments for 60 years to see if the DNA molecule will self-form out of amino acids? Are they conceding on random formation by becoming the intelligent designers?
Humans always want to be the creator (in the name of science), which makes me always think of the Frankenstein novel. This can’t possibly go wrong (sarc).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.