Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The myth of genetic enhancement

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ongoing revolution in molecular genetics has led many to speculate that one day we will be able to change the expression or phenotype of numerous complex traits to improve ourselves in many different ways. The prospect of genetic enhancements has generated heated controversy, with proponents advocating research and implementation, with caution advised for concerns about justice, and critics tending to see the prospect of genetic enhancements as an assault on human freedom and human nature. Both camps base their arguments on the unquestioned assumption that the science will realize either their dreams or nightmares. In this paper, I show that their beliefs are based upon two fundamental mistakes. First, they are based upon an unwarranted reliance in a genetic determinism that takes for granted that the traits that we might most want to enhance, like intelligence, aggression, shyness, and even athletic ability, can be causally directed by specific genes. In so doing, character descriptions are reified to be concrete and discrete entities, in this case, genes. Second, they have accepted on faith that there is, or will be, a science to translate their hopes or worries into reality when, in fact, that is unlikely to occur because of the irreducible complexity of phenotypic expression.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Of course, this presupposes we know what we mean when we talk about “endurance” or “intelligence”; see below.

  2. This definition is usually framed using the approach initially put forth by Christopher Boorse [15, 16].

  3. While these interventions could be considered temporary, I am aware that some, especially drugs, could have long-term effects, even after they are no longer detectable in the body (for instance, if they cause a permanent side effect or leave their mark by inducing changes in the epigenome; see later in the text). Some changes in genes could also be covered by this classification, including enhancements to height or other aspects of physical attractiveness.

  4. This difficulty is summarized by the tautology “intelligence is whatever IQ tests measure.”

  5. In this paper, Lewontin goes on in this vein to indict the entire scientific basis of the field of sociobiology because of these epistemic errors. The parallels between the problems he sees with sociobiology and those I am attempting to identify with genetic enhancement of complex traits are, I hope, obvious. I have discussed this issue in detail in another venue [29].

  6. This genetically engineered mouse, nicknamed after the eponymous TV character, Doogie Howser, MD, a teenager so brilliant he became a doctor at an impossibly young age, was found to have an impressive increase in memory and learning after it was manipulated to over-express the NMDA receptor in its brain.

  7. I have discussed numerous other examples of this problem elsewhere [29].

  8. I have previously discussed this problem with respect to the knock-out of the cfos-B gene in mice, in which the offspring seemed to lack maternal nurturing behavior, a completely unexpected finding [29, 76].

  9. This principle refers to an approach to regulating actions that have a suspected potential for deleterious or harmful effects on people or the environment. When there is both an absence of public acceptance and scientific agreement about the risk, the responsibility for providing proof (or overwhelming evidence) to the contrary (that such an action is safe) lies with those who are advancing the action. In this case, pro-enhancement people would have to demonstrate the safety of the technology before it would be permitted. It should be pointed out that Powell argues against three extant justifications that have been used in support of the application of the principle, all of which fail under his criticism. Nonetheless, he does agree that there could be some, limited, circumstances in which the principle would be warranted.

References

  1. Fukuyama, F. 2002. Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Habermas, J. 2003. The future of human nature. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kass, L.R. 1997. The wisdom of repugnance: Why we should ban the cloning of humans. New Republic 216(22): 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kass, L.R. 2003. Ageless bodies, happy souls: Biotechnology and the pursuit of perfection. The New Atlantis 1(1): 9–28.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sandel, M.J. 2007. The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harris, J. 2007. Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Savulescu, J. 2001. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15(5–6): 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Savulescu, J. 2005. New breeds of humans: The moral obligation to enhance. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10(suppl. 1): 36–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Savulescu, J., and G. Kahane. 2009. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 23(5): 274–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buchanan, A. 2008. Enhancement and the ethics of development. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18(1): 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Buchanan, A., D.W. Brock, N. Daniels, and D. Wikler. 2000. From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Shickle, D. 2000. Are “genetic enhancements” really enhancements? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9(3): 342–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Savulescu, J. 2006. Justice, fairness, and enhancement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1093: 321–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Holtug, N. 1999. Does justice require genetic enhancements? Journal of Medical Ethics 25(2): 137–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Boorse, C. 1975. On the distinction between disease and illness. Philosophy & Public Affairs 5(1): 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Boorse, C. 1977. Health as a theoretical concept. Philosophy of Science 44(4): 542–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hyman, D.A. 1990. Aesthetics and ethics: The implications of cosmetic surgery. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 33(2): 190–202.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bertolaso, M., J. Olsson, A. Picardi, and J. Rakela. 2010. Gene therapy and enhancement for diabetes (and other diseases): The multiplicity of considerations. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews 26(7): 520–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sparrow, R. 2010. Better than men? Sex and the therapy/enhancement distinction. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20(2): 115–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Giacca, M. 2010. Ethical and social problems of gene therapy. In Gene therapy, 283–292. Milan: Springer.

  21. Lewontin, R.C. 1976. Race and intelligence. In The IQ controversy: A critical reader, ed. N.J. Block and G. Dworkin, 78–92. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gould, S.J. 1981. The mismeasure of man, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kelley, T.L. 1927. Interpretation of educational measurements. Yonkers-on-Hudson: World Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Duster, T. 2005. Enhanced: Race and reification in science. Science 307(5712): 1050–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nathwani, A.C., E.G.D. Tuddenham, S. Rangarajan, et al. 2011. Adenovirus-associated virus vector: Mediated gene transfer in hemophilia B. New England Journal of Medicine 365(25): 2357–2365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Spearman, C. 1914. The measurement of intelligence. Eugenics. Review 6(4): 312–313.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gardner, H. 2006. Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice, 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lewontin, R.C. 1976. Sociobiology: A caricature of Darwinism. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2: 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rosoff, P.M. 2010. In search of the mommy gene: Truth and consequences in behavioral genetics. Science, Technology and Human Values 35(2): 200–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rosoff, P.M. 2011. I’ll be a monkey’s uncle: A moral challenge to human genetic enhancement research. Journal of Medical Ethics 37: 611–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Baker, L.A., C. Tuvblad, C. Reynolds, M. Zheng, D.I. Lozano, and A. Raine. 2009. Resting heart rate and the development of antisocial behavior from age 9 to 14: Genetic and environmental influences. Development and Psychopathology 21(3): 939–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen, C., D.G. Rainnie, R.W. Greene, and S. Tonegawa. 1994. Abnormal fear response and aggressive behavior in mutant mice deficient for alpha-calcium-calmodulin kinase II. Science 266(5183): 291–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Seattle Post Intelligencer. 2005. Remove fear gene and you get Mighty Mouse. November 18.

  34. Hayden, E.P., L.R. Dougherty, B. Maloney, et al. 2007. Temperamental fearfulness in childhood and the serotonin transporter promoter region polymorphism: A multimethod association study. Psychiatric Genetics 17(3): 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Shumyatsky, G.P., G. Malleret, R.M. Shin, et al. 2005. Stathmin, a gene enriched in the amygdala, controls both learned and innate fear. Cell 123(4): 697–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Alper, J.S. 1998. Genes, free will, and criminal responsibility. Social Science and Medicine 46(12): 1599–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. DeLisi, M., K.M. Beaver, J.P. Wright, and M.G. Vaughn. 2008. The etiology of criminal onset: The enduring salience of nature and nurture. Journal of Criminal Justice 36(3): 217–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rajender, S., G. Pandu, J.D. Sharma, K.P. Gandhi, L. Singh, and K. Thangaraj. 2008. Reduced CAG repeats length in androgen receptor gene is associated with violent criminal behavior. International Journal of Legal Medicine 122(5): 367–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Vaughn, M.G., M. DeLisi, K.M. Beaver, and J.P. Wright. 2009. DAT1 and 5HTT are associated with pathological criminal behavior in a nationally representative sample of youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior 36(11): 1113–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tang, Y.P., E. Shimizu, G.R. Dube, C. Rampon, G.A. Kerchner, M. Zhuo, G. Liu, and J.Z. Tsien. 1999. Genetic enhancement of learning and memory in mice. Nature 401(6748): 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Qu, X.X., J. Cai, M.J. Li, et al. 2009. Role of the spinal cord NR2B-containing NMDA receptors in the development of neuropathic pain. Experimental Neurology 215(2): 298–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Malinow, R. 2011. New developments on the role of NMDA receptors in Alzheimer’s disease. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2011.09.001.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Trut, L.N. 1999. Early canid domestication: The farm-fox experiment. American Scientist 87(2): 160.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wright, S. 1920. The relative importance of heredity and environment in determining the piebald pattern of guinea pigs. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences USA 6: 320–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gartner, K., and E. Baunack. 1981. Is the similarity of monozygotic twins due to genetic factors alone? Nature 292(5824): 646–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gartner, Klaus. 1990. A third component causing random variability beside environment and genotype: A reason for the limited success of a 30 year long effort to standardize laboratory animals? Laboratory Animals 24(1): 71–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Waddington, C.H. 1942. The epigenotype. Endeavor 1: 18–20.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Molenaar, P.C., D.I. Boomsma, and C.V. Dolan. 1993. A third source of developmental differences. Behavior Genetics 23(6): 519–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Peaston, A.E., and E. Whitelaw. 2006. Epigenetics and phenotypic variation in mammals. Mammalian Genome 17(5): 365–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Healey, S.C., K.M. Kirk, V.J. Hyland, et al. 2001. Height discordance in monozygotic females is not attributable to discordant inactivation of X-linked stature determining genes. Twin Research 4(1): 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Javierre, B.M., A.F. Fernandez, J. Richter, et al. 2010. Changes in the pattern of DNA methylation associate with twin discordance in systemic lupus erythematosus. Genome Research 20(2): 170–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Petronis, A. 2004. The origin of schizophrenia: Genetic thesis, epigenetic antithesis, and resolving synthesis. Biological Psychiatry 55(10): 965–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Singh, S.M., and R. O’Reilly. 2009. (Epi)genomics and neurodevelopment in schizophrenia: Monozygotic twins discordant for schizophrenia augment the search for disease-related (epi)genomic alterations. Genome 52(1): 8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Fraga, M.F., E. Ballestar, M.F. Paz, et al. 2005. Epigenetic differences arise during the lifetime of monozygotic twins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102(30): 10604–10609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wong, A.H.C., I.I. Gottesman, and A. Petronis. 2005. Phenotypic differences in genetically identical organisms: The epigenetic perspective. Human Molecular Genetics 14(suppl. 1): R11–R18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Petronis, A. 2006. Epigenetics and twins: Three variations on the theme. Trends in Genetics 22(7): 347–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kaminsky, Z.A., T. Tang, S.C. Wang, et al. 2009. DNA methylation profiles in monozygotic and dizygotic twins. Nature Genetics 41(2): 240–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ollikainen, M., K.R. Smith, E.J. Joo, et al. 2010. DNA methylation analysis of multiple tissues from newborn twins reveals both genetic and intrauterine components to variation in the human neonatal epigenome. Human Molecular Genetics 19(21): 4176–4188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Maunakea, A.K., I. Chepelev, K. Zhao, and B. Bruneau. 2010. Epigenome mapping in normal and disease states. Circulation Research 107(3): 327–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Townsend, G.C., L. Richards, T. Hughes, S. Pinkerton, and W. Schwerdt. 2005. Epigenetic influences may explain dental differences in monozygotic twin pairs. Australian Dental Journal 50(2): 95–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Manning, J.T., B. Fink, N. Neave, and A. Szwed. 2006. The second to fourth digit ratio and asymmetry. Annals of Human Biology 33(4): 480–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sherman, A. 2011. Dynamical systems theory in physiology. Journal of General Physiology 138(1): 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kan, K.J., A. Ploeger, M.E.J. Raijmakers, C.V. Dolan, and H.L.J. Van Der Maas. 2010. Nonlinear epigenetic variance: Review and simulations. Developmental Science 13(1): 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Turner, B.M. 2009. Epigenetic responses to environmental change and their evolutionary implications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 364(1534): 3403–3418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Champagne, F.A., and J.P. Curley. 2009. Epigenetic mechanisms mediating the long-term effects of maternal care on development. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 33(4): 593–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Weaver, I.C.G. 2009. Life at the interface between a dynamic environment and a fixed genome: Epigenetic programming of stress responses by maternal behavior. In Mammalian Brain Development, ed. D. Janigro. New York: Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Anway, M.D., A.S. Cupp, M. Uzumcu, and M.K. Skinner. 2005. Epigenetic transgenerational actions of endocrine disruptors and male fertility. Science 308(5727): 1466–1469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Newbold, R.R. 2008. Prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES). Fertility and Sterility 89(suppl. 2): e55–e56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Katari, S., N. Turan, M. Bibikova, et al. 2009. DNA methylation and gene expression differences in children conceived in vitro or in vivo. Human Molecular Genetics 18(20): 3769–3778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Scaffidi, P., and T. Misteli. 2010. Cancer epigenetics: From disruption of differentiation programs to the emergence of cancer stem cells. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 75: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Shannon, K., and S.A. Armstrong. 2010. Genetics, epigenetics, and leukemia. New England Journal of Medicine 363(25): 2460–2461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Swami, M. 2010. Epigenetics: Demethylation links cell fate and cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer 10(11): 740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Goldstein, D.B. 2009. Common genetic variation and human traits. New England Journal of Medicine 360(17): 1696–1698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Manolio, T.A. 2010. Genomewide association studies and assessment of the risk of disease. New England Journal of Medicine 363(2): 166–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Manolio, T.A., F.S. Collins, N.J. Cox, et al. 2009. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 461(7265): 747–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Brown, J.R., H. Ye, R.T. Bronson, P. Dikkes, and M.E. Greenberg. 1996. A defect in nurturing in mice lacking the immediate early gene fosB. Cell 86(2): 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Kurnit, D.M., W.M. Layton, and S. Matthysse. 1987. Genetics, chance, and morphogenesis. American Journal of Human Genetics 41(6): 979–995.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Eichler, E.E., J. Flint, G. Gibson, A. Kong, S.M. Leal, J.H. Moore, and J.H. Nadeau. 2010. Missing heritability and strategies for finding the underlying causes of complex disease. Nature Reviews Genetics 11(6): 446–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Nijhout, H.F. 2003. On the association between genes and complex traits. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 8(2): 162–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Tschirren, B., and S. Bensch. 2010. Genetics of personalities: No simple answers for complex traits. Molecular Ecology 19(4): 624–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Rothstein, M.A., Y. Cai, and G.E. Marchant. 2009. The ghost in our genes: Legal and ethical implications of epigenetics. Health Matrix Cleveland 19(1): 1–62.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Powell, R. 2010. What’s the harm? An evolutionary theoretical critique of the precautionary principle. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20(2): 181–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Rosoff, P.M., and A. Rosenberg. 2006. How Darwinian reductionism refutes genetic determinism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37(1): 122–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to the Foundation Brocher for affording me the opportunity to have almost 4 weeks of time for reading, thinking, and writing at their facility in Hermance, Switzerland, during which time most of this essay was composed. Without their support, it is unlikely that this essay would have been written in either the form it currently is or the timely manner in which it was completed. I would also like to thank Professors Alex Rosenberg and Dona Chikaraishi for many helpful insights and criticisms. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the many authors whose work I have cited for graciously sending me copies of their papers when they were unavailable in my University library system.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine and Trent Center for Bioethics, Humanities, and History of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, 108 Seeley G. Mudd Building, Box 3040, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Philip M. Rosoff

Authors
  1. Philip M. Rosoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip M. Rosoff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosoff, P.M. The myth of genetic enhancement. Theor Med Bioeth 33, 163–178 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-012-9220-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-012-9220-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation