Wondergenes: Genetic Enhancement and the Future of Society

Spotting Enhancement

192 Wondergenes Spotting Enhancement 13 The approaches described in the preceding chapter for dealing with the societal threats from genetic enhancement depend for their effectiveness on the ability to identify enhanced individuals. Some of the techniques for enforcing a total ban on germ line genetic enhancement, such as reversing the genetic engineering or, as a last resort, preventing the enhanced from procreating, depend on being able to detect persons whose germ cells contain altered DNA. A licensing program for somatic enhancements must be able to catch unlicensed users as well as those who illegally provide them with enhancement products and services. Leveling the playing field to reduce unfairness cannot take place unless we can discern who is and who is not enhanced. A similar problem plagues athletic organizations that prohibit the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports competitions. As described in Chapter 7, the Olympics goes to enormous lengths to catch violators, constantly increasing its testing requirements, devising more sensitive tests for existing substances, and designing new tests for the latest drugs. Yet Olympic officials are constantly 193 Spotting Enhancement challenged by athletes and coaches, aided by unscrupulous scientists , who strive to stay one step ahead of the testing regimens. The 1997 film Gattaca depicts a similar testing program aimed at genetic enhancement in the future.1 It opens with white-collar workers entering their office building and pausing to have some cells scraped off their fingertips so that their DNA can be tested. Later, security guards on the lookout for illegal employees vacuum up pieces of hair and fingernail clippings from computer keyboards and subject them to testing. DNA testing is constant and ubiquitous , the overall atmosphere totalitarian and oppressive. Is this the only alternative to the destructive forces of genetic enhancement? Is this our future? In some respects, unfortunately, the answer is probably yes. There is no way to implement a licensing program or a ban on germ line engineering, to take steps to reduce unfairness, without some sort of widespread surveillance system, and this would require genetic testing to be conducted with a frequency resembling that used in competitive sports. There might need to be random DNA screening to catch people with germ line enhancements. Automatic examination of persons returning from foreign vacations and business trips. Mandatory testing before and during whatever competitive events require steps to be taken to level the playing field. Students required to give DNA samples being taking college entrance exams or finals. This is not a pretty picture, and it gets worse. Some physical enhancements, like an extreme increase in height, might be discernible to the naked eye. But many enhancements, like those that improve cognitive functioning, would be much more difficult to detect. How would we tell whether someone’s DNA had been enhanced ? How could we determine if a child had inherited an illegal germ line enhancement? It may be possible to “tag” DNA that has been intentionally manipulated. Agricultural biotechnology companies have developed methods for inserting non-functioning nucleotide sequences into genetically modified crop genomes so they can tell if farmers have used their patented seeds and make sure the farmers have paid for the privilege.2 Similarly, it might be possible to tag human DNA inserted to achieve an enhancement effect, and perhaps even 194 Wondergenes to leave a non-functional nucleotide footprint when DNA is deleted for enhancement purposes. Conceivably, such a tracer could be incorporated into the recombination process used to manufacture somatic enhancement products. High-speed sequencing machines could then detect the telltale nucleotides. If this type of tag were to be found only in legally obtained enhancements, then genetic testing could reveal whether or not an enhancement that someone had employed was contraband. The DNA tag would resemble the watermarks and other devices that are used on paper money to prevent counterfeiting. The tag even could be added at the point that licensed individuals received their enhancements, so that the sequence could contain a unique identi fier, such as the license number. (This is similar to the system used by alcoholic beverage control agencies years ago, in which the last four digits of a store’s liquor license were hand-stamped onto a tax stamp that was glued to every bottle of liquor; as a result, someone with a list of license numbers could always tell at what store a bottle had been purchased.) The question is...