Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

As of this date, human cloning is being debated not only in the United States but all over the world, and a cloned embryo is now gestating inside of a woman somewhere in the world. This is indeed an exciting development, but the author says that the fuss over human cloning is unwarranted, but for different reasons than those opposed to it. Copying a human being is insignificant, he argues, compared to what can be done with engineering the human germline. The focus should be, the author argues, on how we are to proceed with this technology, a technology that he clearly supports. He is one of the few that does, oddly, out of the collection who themselves are responsible for the major advances in genetic engineering.

But what of other ways of engineering improvements to human beings? Artificial intelligence and robotics have shown every indication of finally taking off, after decades of promises to that effect. Will humans, already inserting pacemakers, computer chips, and othe devices into their bodies, use this technology to enhance their vision, auditory capabilities, intelligence, etc? Who needs germline modification when this type of technology is available for enhancing human performance? The author argues that this will not be the case, that the human biological organism is too complex for this to happen. Also, the current level of knowledge on biological/electronic interaction is too primitive for such things as direct brain linkage. In addition, human beings will be reluctant to allow surgical implants such as these to be inserted into their brains.

Although his arguments against the occurence of electronic enhancement are good, the author, with his advocacy of germline enhancement, may be expressing a worry that artificial intelligence and cyberelectronics may "win out" over biological approaches to human enhancement. Will there be competition between biotechnology and cybertronic technology for the enhancement of human capabilities in the decades ahead? A silicon-vs-carbon-race for this purpose could prove to be a very interesting one.

The author is very honest and very frank is his discussions in the book, and such honesty is greatly appreciated in this time where genetic engineering is a frightening possibility to some. This omission of "tact and prudence" in discussions of genetic engineering serves better the purposes of rational debate and eases suspicions on the use of germline enhancement.

The accelerating field of bioninformatics and its role in germline manipulation is emphasized many times by the author. Faster computers, cheaper DNA chips, and sophisticated sequence matching algorithms will increase the enticement to perform reliable and safe genetic engineering. One can extend the author's logic to future scenarios where each individual's genome will be sequenced and digitized in a database. Combinatorial mathematics will then allow a pair of humans to determine with confidence the genetic make-up of their offspring. Subjective preferences of the parents, always a factor in the selection of mates, and this translating of course into their children, will become much more sophisticated using 21st century genetic engineering. The freedom to choose is the basic premise and right here, its results will just occur at a faster time scale than evolution has done.

The author is also an advocate of the free market when it comes to the inevitable choices involved in genetic engineering of humans. Considerations of cost and practicality will determine the prevelance of use of genetic technologies. What can be corrected by simple technology will eliminate the need for genetic engineering to do the same. A pair of glasses to correct for nearsightedness is a simpler and more economical approach than germline enhancement for better vision in our future children.

The author has successfully countered the current most popular arguments against genetic engineering in this book. He has done it with fairness and confidence, and with a command of the ethical and scientific issues involved. It remains to be seen of course whether wide-scale genetic engineering of humans will indeed occur in the next decades. One can say with confidence that it will occur in at least a few cases. But one thing is certain: this is indeed an exciting time to be alive, that the contemplation of the technology of genetic engineering is exhilirating, and its actual use even more so......

Honestly, I thought that Stock's book would be one of the few to really provide moral arguments for genetic engineering, particularly 'extratherapeutic' engineering. While there is a little of that, the book devotes much more time to exploring the inefficacy (in a utilitarian sense) of government regulations and bans on therapy. In that sense, his book is not quite a moral response to ethical luddites like Kass and McKibben, but governmental luddites like Fukuyama.

Without spoiling the book for you, I will summarize some of his reasons (so you get the flavor: 1.) like abortion, there is simply too much demand for such therapies (and those that don't believe this should look at how much we spend on 'anti-aging' pills and surgeries). Thus, there is too much incentive for consumers to form black markets should bans be in place. 2.) Due to the plurality of world politics, such bans are, at best, regional. While Germany might ban research, China surely will not. 3.) Like abortion and drugs, black markets will be more dangerous that publically visible and monitorible legal ones. 4.) Bans or strict controls are going to cost astronomical amounts of money (and privacy) to prevent and catch law-breakers.

There. I've only given you a taste, and if any of those arguments sound frail, read the book. The elaborations are first rate! This brings me to two small complaints.

First, Stock tends to get ahead of himself in that the first half of the book is filled with sweeping proclomations like, "In the future we might be able to do x. Even though most scientists don't believe me on the feasibility on x, I really do think it could happen." In other words, he makes strangely radical predictions, reminds you that they are stragely radical predictions and simply defends them by saing that anything is possible.

Second, Stock will occasionally come off as a will-o-the-wisp cheerleader. Particularly when he addresses concerns about the efficacy of unregulated markets, Stock simply tells us that we need not worry and that markets have taken care of themselves in the past, therefore they will work in the present. While I believe him (being the libertarian that I am), too many people i know share a scepticism of the market for Stock to dismiss the argument so curtly (assuming he wants to convince anyone). Other examples of this will-o-the-wisp style are in the book (though not enough to get annoying).

To conclude, as this book has much more to do with cost/benefit analysis of regulation (that more or less winds up in favor of free markets) rather than ethical philosophy, the book will be much more interesting to political thinkers than bioethicists or philosophers. In fact, I would suggest reading this book and Fukuyama's "Our Posthuman Future" together as they take the same questions (where to regulate biotech) and come to different conclusions.