Grumpy the Dwarf

As I approach the ripe old age of 21, I can look back fondly on some wonderful moments in my life; however, those truly unforgettable memories are often dark ones.  Like any other average Joe, I have seen enough violence and betrayal to question the kindness of other people.  After seeing some of my closest friends go through living hell, who can blame us for wishing for a better world?  What if we could prevent all this selfishness in the future by genetically engineering our children into altruistic beings?

Altruism seems like an all too appealing concept. Merriam-Webster defines it as “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.”   Biologically speaking, there’s evidence for altruism in ecological communities such as bee hives, where worker bees selflessly gather nourishment for the queen bee.  But with humans, things get a bit complicated.  We’re self-motivated beings, and we often times seem to be living testaments to the “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” mentality.

One of my favorite extracurricular activities is Alternative Spring Break, a week spent with 11 strangers doing community service.  On my trip, I got to spend my time learning about Tibetan culture and assisting a community of Tibetans in St. Paul with their day of protest.  Although my group provided service and gave them open minds, there was still an innate “selfishness.”  For me, doing this kind of cultural service makes me feel really happy; I have so much fun learning about other cultures and find gratification in seeing my work come to fruition.  Even though my intentions weren’t purely altruistic, does this diminish the quality of the assistance we provided?  I don’t see it that way.

My Chinese mother always scolded me for being tai lao shi.  Too honest. Too naive.  It used to be too easy for people to walk all over people like me.

 

So if we could make our children purely selfless beings, we would have to impose this new genetic modification on every child.  Bring on the ethical dilemmas, please.

But let’s pretend that we could actually convince every parent to agree to this genetic makeover.  One possible repercussion from this is quite simple: grumpiness.  I’m reminded of the character Elva from the Inheritance Trilogy by Christopher Paolini.  She was accidentally coerced by magic into becoming a completely self-sacrificing person after birth.  Although she selflessly protected every person around her, she was unhappy all the time from taking on everyone else’s problems.  So would we really making the world a better place?  To me, it seems like we would just become a horde of grumpy people, quietly suffering from our “goodness.”

My final verdict? I’ll pass on having Grumpy the Dwarf as my kiddo, please.

-Angela L. B4

Controlling the Altruism Gene — Going Too Far?

It’s a very intriguing concept.  An “altruism gene.”  A gene that determines how much money you will drop into the homeless man’s cup as you walk by.  Or at least how predisposed you will be to give to him.  I’m not sure if we have found an “altruism gene” or if any such gene really exists, but if we were to find it, we would be faced with one of the most difficult ethical dilemmas imaginable.  Should we genetically alter unborn children to ensure that they have this altruism gene so that they are as predisposed to altruism as possible?

On the one hand, it doesn’t seem to be a dilemma at all.  Altruism is an enormously beneficial quality that leads to better societies and better individuals and makes everyone happier.  It is one of the foundations of society itself and the more we encourage it the better.  Assuming that we have found a safe way to genetically alter a child’s DNA shortly after they are conceived, genetically predisposing them to altruism doesn’t seem to be hurting them in any way, and is only helping them as well as society as a whole.

However, upon further consideration, I think the issue is much more complicated than a cursory examination would reveal.  Curing diseases is one thing.  But genetically altering a child in order to give him a greater amount of a certain characteristic such as altruism is really a different thing altogether.  One of the problems with this kind of genetic modification is that it treats the lack of this natural altruism as a “disease.”  It is fairly easy to see why something like diabetes is a “disease,” because it causes the human body to act in a counterproductive and self-destructive way.  We have very good knowledge of the chemical and bodily imbalances that are present with diseases like diabetes and we know why they are making the body work contrary to how it is supposed to.

However, characteristics like altruism are much harder to understand, and it is a lot more difficult to explain why a lack of genetic predisposition to altruism is a “disease” that must be eradicated.  Perhaps those who grow up with less of a genetic predisposition to altruism learn to be altruistic of their own accord and for the right reasons.  Perhaps they learn to give to others not because that is what comes naturally to them but because they see that it is the right thing to do and choose to do it for that reason.  Real altruism is a difficult thing to understand, and we should not be quick to assume that we know exactly how our genes affect how altruistic we are or even to assume that altruism can be completely explained by genetics.  Automatically characterizing altruism as a “disease” is a dangerous thing to do, and has the potential to lead to many disastrous situations.

We are always quick to assume that we know exactly what our genes should be like to maximize our happiness and “perfection.”  We are quick to take control of the genes of our children, assuming that we can make them turn out better than they would naturally.  But in reality, the human person is still largely a mystery to us.  We should not seek to control and manipulate human beings, or pretend that we understand exactly what their genetic material “should” be, or we may find ourselves in one of the science fiction horror stories that we so often read.

PJ Jedlovec (pjjed) — Blog 4

Selflessness, as it applies to trees and people, among other things

As evidenced by my latest blog post, my favorite children’s book of all time is The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein. This is the heartwarming story of a boy who is best friends with a tree. The boy loves the tree, and the tree loves the boy. The tree loves the boy so much that though he has outgrown his days of playing hide-and-seek in her branches, she is still willing to give up a part of her, literally, to help him in his times of need. She ends up letting him take her apples, branches, and trunk for his personal gain. Even in the end, when she is a mere stump, she gives herself to the boy (now an old man) as a place to rest. To this day, whenever I hear a touching story about someone who has made sacrifices to help others, I am reminded of the tree and her complete selflessness. And, yes, I cry a little.

What is altruism? Is it simply taking care of a sick friend, or leaving the last cookie for someone else, or something more? Need one give up an appendage or vital organ, as the tree did, in order to be considered altruistic? Altruism, to me, is the practice of always putting others before oneself. I don’t believe that one can be pre-conditioned to be altruistic. Altruism is a mindset, a way of thinking. If genes could truly be manipulated to the point of creating habits one should naturally acquire through upbringing, then that is grand science indeed. Surely, one can be predisposed towards alcoholism, or depression, or heart disease, but altruism?

Let’s step away from this dilemma for a moment and imagine that yes, it is possible to genetically manipulate aspects of a yet-unborn human being’s personality. If I had the opportunity to make my children altruistic, would I? The answer is no. A deep, resounding no. I believe that altruism isn’t something that should be forced upon a person. And, call me a pessimist (I’m actually not, I promise!), but altruism simply isn’t natural. Species have not propagated on this planet due to selflessness. They have gone forth and multiplied because the fittest animal was the one who won over the mate and created the next generation. I have seen animals fight over mates, but never have I seen one animal bowing out of the competition because he wanted his friend to get the girl and be happy instead.

I also believe that personality traits should be learned, not bestowed. Your personality is a result of your upbringing, the surroundings into which you were born. If your personality means that you’re naturally altruistic, the props to you! So, given the opportunity, I would pass it up. I don’t want to have such a profound influence on my child before their birth. I would think higher of a parent whose child’s good personality was due to a warm and loving growing environment rather than a series of chemical reactions carried out in the sterile catacombs of a laboratory.

Do I still love The Giving Tree and its noble message? Yes. Would I want to make my child that way? No. Though I greatly admire and respect those who continually put others before themselves, that is a choice that they have made, not their parents. But sometimes, it just makes you happy to see others happy. And that’s what makes altruism worth it.

’”I am sorry,” sighed the tree. “I wish that I could give you something—but I have nothing left. I am just an old stump.”

“I don’t need very much now,” said the boy, “just a quiet place to sit and rest. I am very tired.”

“Well,” said the tree, straightening herself up as much as she could, “well, an old stump is good for sitting and resting. Come, Boy, sit down. Sit down and rest.” And the boy did.  And the tree was happy.

~Shel Silverstein

Yiran

To Bee Or Not To Bee

Altruism, as a result of evolution, has been displayed throughout the animal kingdom. Whether it is the worker termites protecting their queen or the drone bees performing a similar role, somewhere along the path altruism was deemed as favorable by evolution. However, these animals did not choose to become altruistic beings. So the question arises, if you could artificially give your offspring a gene (or genes rather because something as complex as a character trait is undoubtedly coded for by more than one gene, if it is even inheritable at all) that would make the child more altruistic would you?

I guess in some form or fashion, all parents want their children to be “good people” (whatever that means). Not being a parent, I guess this is all speculation on my part but isn’t it okay to allow your children to mess up every now and then. Live and learn right? Part of what makes people extremely successful is that they know from experience what doesn’t work. By altering your children’s genes and, in essence, forcing them to be nice people you are depriving them of the opportunity to learn for themselves; you are depriving them of free will.

Part of being a good person is one’s choice to be a good person. Creating a set of genes that remove a person’s choice to be a good person defeats the purpose. I would rather teach my children the importance of being kind to others rather than insert a gene that compels him to do just that.

Society (or maybe our human nature?) has instilled in us some general guidelines, if you will, of what it means to be a good person: respecting others, respecting yourself, abiding by preexisting laws, etc. However, there is certainly a point where someone can go overboard by being a good person. At what point does one step back and say, “Maybe I should be selfish this one time?”

Of course, nobody actually utters those words. But at what point does being altruistic become harmful to one’s well-being? In some cases, you simply have to be selfish and look out for yourself. After all the wild is governed by one rule: Eat or be eaten.

If we assume that the drone bees had a developed brain for higher level thinking, there is no way they would continue in their altruistic, suicidal behavior. Luckily, these bees don’t have a cerebral cortex that parallels that of humans and therefore cannot make the choice to veer away from their current lifestyle. Conversely, humans can. What’s the difference you ask? It’s all a matter of choice. Choice makes humans human; lack of choice makes drone bees drone bees. If humans didn’t choose to be altruistic, what would differentiate our lives from those of the poor drone bees?

Nothing. Except that humans don’t make honey.

-Pranav Santapuram

 

 

Genetic Engineering and the Breakdown of the Family

Both Gattaca and Beggars in Spain take place in futuristic societies in which advanced genetic engineering allows for a person’s characteristics to be controlled simply by altering the person’s genes while they are still an embryo. However, the unfortunate result of this is that in both stories, children are generally seen not as a gift to be nurtured and brought forth into a world, but as an asset to be controlled and manipulated.  In fact, in both stories the prevalence of genetic engineering is accompanied by an increase in selfishness and a catastrophic breakdown of the family as a loving community in which a child is raised.

In the “ordinary” state of affairs (aka without genetic engineering or in vitro fertilization), a child is not an artificial creation, but rather a natural result of an act of selfless love made between a husband and wife, giving themselves and their bodies totally to each other (hence, it is called love-making).   The child, being the fruit of love, is then naturally loved for his own sake, not because of whatever usefulness it may have later on in life.  The child, being the fruit of this love, grows up immersed in this family and atmosphere of selflessness and learns how to value human beings for their own sake rather than for their usefulness.  With the presence of a good father and mother, the child not only learns the value of love and self-sacrifice, but also learns how men and women are meant to interact with each other through the example of his parents.

However, in Gattaca, Vincent is raised in a household largely devoid of this love.  The society they live in puts the ultimate value of a human being in his usefulness rather than in any inherent dignity he has as a human being.  This is evidenced by the fact that the genetically inferior “invalids” who were conceived by natural means were treated as almost less than human.  When rights and dignity are dependent on usefulness, then only the strong are afforded these rights.  In addition, Vincent never really learned how to form a relationship with a woman, and his relationship with his male companion was filled with much more ease and humanity.  While this could be seen as evidence for homosexual tendencies in Vincent, I think the more plausible explanation is that he simply never had a good example of how men and women relate to each other romantically (an example which usually would have been provided by the parents).

Similarly, in Beggars in Spain, children are not valued as new life and as gifts, but rather as commodities to be manipulated and controlled in pursuit of some false ideal of perfection.  Leisha and Alice’s parents love and value them not for their human dignity, but for their respective statuses, whether as “Sleeper” or “Sleepless.”  This is why their father values Leisha the most and their mother values Alice the most.  The love they receive is not the unconditional love that a family should provide, but rather a conditional and imperfect love.

In this story, unlike in Gattaca, the manipulation of life leads to a loss of dignity for the “genetically superior” rather than the “genetically inferior.”  It is the “Sleepless” who are treated as un-human and undeserving of respect and dignity.  The emphasis on controlling life and valuing human beings only for their usefulness is directly contrary to the idea that humans have inherent dignity and worth, and as a result, respect for human dignity is lost across the board.

Additionally, the love that their father, Roger Camden, had for his first and second wives was a conditional rather than unconditional love.  He valued them not for their inherent dignity or worth but because of the convenience and happiness they offered him, or rather, how useful they were.  Once this usefulness fades, he divorces them, and his love is shown to be purely conditional.

As a result of this breakdown of the family, children in each of these stories are deprived of the love and human formation that is usually provided by a family.  They are seen not as human life, but as a commodity to be modified genetically to be the most useful and “perfect.”

These stories serve as excellent examples of the dangers of genetic manipulation and the importance of accepting and affirming life rather than exerting complete control over it.  And it is a lesson we would do well to learn before we ourselves become one of these societies from “the not too distant future.”

-PJ Jedlovec (pjjed)

The Circle of Life

First, I have to preface this post by saying that the film Gattaca was probably one of my all-time favorites. I could not put a number to where it would fall on any kind of list of mine, but I do know that the more time I spend thinking about it, the more I like it. It legitimately upsets me that the movie was not more of a commercial success in 1997. In fact, I kind of want to go back in time to change that, but all that business about collapsing wormholes kind of freaks me out — one reason that I am writing about the movie. Being the science-fiction nerd that I am (as we all are, truthfully), I acknowledge that normally SF of any kind does not even have to be that good for me to like it. However, Gattaca’s many levels of meaning have an appeal that I think make it a quality film from a more objective standpoint. Digging deeper into the film offers up a treasure trove of insights that are not obvious on an initial viewing; for instance, I was looking at an image of the movie’s theatrical release poster, which depicts the spiral staircase in Jerome’s apartment on it. It looks exactly like a strand of DNA! I did not even realize that before. To me, a movie is well put together if little details as insignificant as that relate to its overall meaning. I applaud Andrew Niccol for such skillful directing.

Many of the film’s overarching themes have been discussed: the near-future society’s eerie similarities to Nazi Germany, the dangers of a eugenics movement in an effort to perfect our “imperfections,” and the subtle role that homosexuality might play in the film. I want to focus on the closing scene of Gattaca, something that we touched on briefly but never really explored in depth. The ending is especially effective because it uses womb-like symbolism to convey a sort of “rebirth” for both Vincent and Jerome. After Vincent reveals his true identity to the doctor, he enters the belly of the spaceship through a tunnel that is oddly similar to an umbilical cord. The doctor does nothing to impede his progress, a sign that Vincent has ultimately defeated the system and has been accepted into the elite of Gattaca even though he does not have the genome for it. There is a sense that when he returns from his mission to Titan, his quality as a person will no longer be questioned. In this way he is being reborn into the genetic upper class, from where he might use his new status to fight the eugenic system on a larger scale. Similarly, Jerome also experiences a type of rebirth, although in quite a different way. For him, his rebirth is his escape from the half-life that he has only lived vicariously through Vincent all this time. He curls up into a fetal position, just like he was in the womb, in the incinerator simply to be reborn into whatever comes next. For both characters, the closing scene of Gattaca serves as an escape from their previous lives and a rebirth into a new existence.

Hadley Wilson, B3

Increased Understanding of Our Genome

Probably one of the most exciting breakthroughs in science in the past 20 years was the complete mapping of the human genome. For the first time, we have the complete “human cookbook”. However, our actual understanding of the intricacies of these roughly 3 billion base pairs is somewhat lacking. Yes, we understand the concept of gene expression and duplication, gene transfer using bacterial vectors, and even down to identifying point mutations in a single gene, but there is so much more to learn. With an increased understanding of our genome we could possibly utilize genes known as homeobox genes (Hox genes for short) which play a crucial role during embryonic development. Even the controversial stem cells (undifferentiated somatic cells) would be utilized.

With a complete understanding of the genes that make the 7 billion people on this planet, the possibilities (both good and bad) are endless. In The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer, rich individuals clone themselves. These “younger versions” of themselves are in turn used for their organs. Theoretically, this harvesting of organs from clones could extend one’s life span far beyond what is naturally feasible. In essence, this would create a sort of class war; the rich would utilize this technology to the fullest and extend their life spans while living healthier lives overall. However the poor, without access to this technology, would be forced to live a “natural” and therefore inferior life.

In the realm of science fiction, it is easy to extrapolate this technology. When war comes into play, the genetic engineering of soldiers to create an army of “super-soldiers” of sorts would be a popular theme. One can extend the class war to countries. Richer countries would be able to create amazing armies to beef up their own military while poorer countries would have to resort to the usual armies. The science fiction stories that could possibly stem from this advancement in genomics would be endless.

-Pranav Santapuram

 

Engineering Flaw

In thinking of ideas for my future science fiction story, I’m reminded of a lyric from one of my favorite bands, the Avett Brothers. They once said, “Ain’t it like most people? I’m no different, we love to talk on things we don’t know about.” The horrible grammar of this lyric aside, I find myself in this situation. Having read a huge number of amazing science fiction stories regarding relativity, time travel, and cosmology, I am extremely tempted to try my hand at just such a story. That being said, I am almost positive any attempt by me to write a story about advanced physics would become so bogged down in technical falsities that the plot would become irrelevant.

With this in mind, I’ve decided to stick with what I know: biology. The branch of this field that has undoubtedly received the most public attention in recent years has been genetics. With the advent of relatively cheap genetic screening and our newfound ability to manipulate DNA, this field offers a huge playground for science fiction writers to play around on. While the idea is still in development, what follows is a vague outline of what I hope to write.

In the not-so-distant future a private company (we’ll call it The Company for now), is able to genetically engineer children to the specifications of the parents. While this is the biggest scientific “tooth fairy” of the story, it is not completely implausible as our knowledge of the human genome broadens. In a seemingly miraculous showing of good faith, this company makes the genetic engineering affordable to almost everyone. While there would undoubtedly be groups of holdouts who don’t believe in such engineering (this allows the creation of a sort of underground, possibly protagonist group), the vast majority of parents would take advantage of this option in the hopes of providing a better life for their children.

In a single generation the vast majority of individuals in the world have been genetically engineered by The Company. This could be made more plausible by making an extremely intelligent, charismatic leader of the company who was the first person to be completely genetically engineered. His seeming perfection would be idealized by parents who want the same for their children. As the story progresses, the ulterior motives of this leader become apparent. In an attempt to gain control over what amounts to the entire world, he has inserted a “self-detruct” mechanism into the DNA of The Company’s engineered people. While this sounds cheesy, it is completely plausible biologically. While I haven’t picked an exact mechanism, one possibility could be a time-activated perforin gene. The time activation part could come as part of a natural circadian rhythm (or in response to puberty or some other biological process), and the resultant expression of perforin would cause a sufficiently bloody and painful death.

The crux of the action in the story relies on the fact that The Company has a cure for the self-destruct gene (most likely in some sort of genetic inhibitor). Because the human genome is so large, it would be nearly impossible for any independent scientist to find the correct location of the gene and create an inhibitor in time. The Company (with the leader as the antagonist) uses its possession of this cure as a means to make huge profits and shape the world to their desire.

The plot line will more than likely center on a genetically engineered individual who tries to gain access to the cure and distribute it for free (think a futuristic Robin Hood). This creates the possibility for interaction with non-engineered people, possibly resulting in some sort of love story. There are a lot of directions that the story could go, and I’m not exactly sure which one I’ll choose. That being said, I think the idea offers a lot of options and is a good place to start. Now I just hope no one has written it before.

– Joey