Wondergenes: Genetic Enhancement and the Future of Society

11 Solutions

126 Wondergenes Solutions 11 The foregoing chapters describe a future in which genetic enhancement exacerbates the natural disparities between individuals, leading to the creation of a genetic aristocracy that invalidates the belief in equality of opportunity. Germ line enhancement cements the privileged status of the genobility. Democracy is a thing of the past. Society succumbs to tyranny or chaos as the genobility struggles to maintain its hegemony and the unenhanced strive to overthrow their rulers. The most frightening prospect is the creation of new sentient species of overlords if the changes wrought by genetic enhancement transcend the bounds of humanity. What can be done to prevent this image of the future from becoming a reality? One solution would be to distribute genetic enhancements to everyone, rather than only to those who can afford them. But when we considered this option in Chapter 9, we saw that the cost of providing genetic enhancement to everyone would be prohibitive. Do the math again. Even if enhancements cost only $10,000, it 127 Solutions would cost over $2.5 trillion dollars to give them to everybody. This is almost twice the entire federal budget. And that’s just for the United States. The negative impact of genetic enhancement would be global. There could be a “gene drain” as countries vied to attract enhanced individuals, and the average citizens of poorer countries were left even farther behind in the race for material well-being. Even if genetic enhancement were somehow equally distributed within the United States and the other developed countries, peace and security would be threatened by the have-not regions of the globe. If people in those realms saw their chances for equality of opportunity irrevocably slipping away as the rest of the world pulled ahead genetically, they might feel that they had nothing to lose by attacking their more prosperous neighbors. The terror attacks of September 2001 would pale by comparison. If a future with genetic enhancement is so bleak, then the obvious solution is to prevent people from becoming genetically enhanced, to ban it. A ban could target manufacturers of enhancement products, health care professionals who delivered enhancement services, and individuals who purchased, possessed, or used enhancements for themselves or their children. Congress and state legislators could make it a felony to sell, distribute, provide, or obtain enhancements. This is similar to bans being proposed for human cloning. S. 1899, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2002, sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) and others, would prohibit anyone from performing or attempting to perform human cloning , from participating in such an activity, from shipping and receiving a human clone in interstate commerce, or importing a human clone. The penalties are severe: imprisonment for up to ten years and a fine of not less than $1,000,000. Two bills sponsored by Democrats, S. 1758, sponsored by Dianne Feinstein (DCalifornia ), and S. 1893, sponsored by Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), ban the implantation and birth of a cloned human embryo but authorize human cloning for research and other purposes. A variety of mechanisms could be employed to help enforce this ban. The FDA has asserted jurisdiction over enhancement 128 Wondergenes products. For example, it licenses a manufacturer to market botulism injections for cosmetic use—to paralyze facial muscles in order to prevent wrinkles.1 As noted in Chapter 5, the FDA already regulates liposuction machines, non-prescription contact lenses, and breast implants used for non-reconstructive purposes. Since somatic enhancements would fit the definition of a “drug” and genetic manipulations for enhancement purposes resembles gene therapy over which the agency exercises regulatory oversight, the FDA’s assertion of authority to regulate genetic enhancements under the current provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is likely to be upheld by the courts, and if it is not, the agency can be given the additional authority by act of Congress. As pointed out in Chapter 5, however, the FDA lacks the authority to regulate health care services, as opposed to products. This line is not always clearly drawn, as evidenced by the FDA’s assertion of regulatory authority over gene therapy, which involves both a “product”—an infusion of genes, for example—and the “service” of introducing it into the body. Moreover, the FDA occasionally has conditioned the licensing of a product to restricting the health professionals who can furnish it to patients; for example, one product to...