Redesigning Humans: Choosing our genes, changing our future, by Gregory Stock [Paperback 2003]
|
Pick This * DescriptionA groundbreaking work, Redesigning Humans tackles the controversial subject of engineering the human germline -- the process of permanently altering the genetic code of an individual so that the changes are passed on to the offspring. Gregory Stock, an expert on the implications of recent advances in reproductive biology, has glimpsed the inevitable future of biomedical engineering. Within decades, Stock asserts, technological advances will bring meaningful changes to our offspring; this scientific revolution promises to fundamentally alter the human species. With recent findings presented in a new afterword, Stock's provocative assessment cuts through the debate to envision an age of radical biotechnological advancement and unprecedented human choice.
|
Rave Reviews (4)*
1) A breath of fresh air
by Dr. Lee D. Carlson on April 28 2002
30+ helpful votesGenetic engineering of humans: we can do it; we should do it; and we will do it.
The author of this book is one of tbe best apologists for genetic engineering alive today, and this book is a fine example of his sound argumentation and comoon sense. He is unashamed of his position, delightfully unabashed, and one gets the impression while reading the book that he is very excited to be alive and be witness to the incredible advances in genetic engineering now taking place. Those who support the genetic engineering of humans should read the book, along with those that don't.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......
2) Preparing for the Next Addition to the Culture Wars!
by Kevin Currie-Knight on February 14 2004
20+ helpful votesAs E.O Wilson notes in his blurb for the back cover of this book, it is amazing how few philosophers are really willing to pay attention to and write about genetic engineering. Especially in light of Stock's thesis: Genetic engineering, like it or not, is comming, ready or not.
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.
3) An uncompromising look at our human future
by Anonymous on June 07 2002
10+ helpful votesWith insight and intelligence Gregory Stock discusses the future possibilities of human genetic engineering. He is willing to state that when these technologies are safely available and we have the ability to alter our genes and control our genetic destiny, it will be very difficult for us to walk away and decide to ignore or criminalize the ability to cure hereditary disease or extend life. Stock has written a brave and uncompromising book, and whether you are thrilled or angered by his words, it is likely to be a book that helps frame our human future.
4) Make way for the future
by Anonymous on March 31 2002
10+ helpful votesThis book stunned me. It changed my ill informed fears about future biotech and gave me an insight into the possible amazing benefits. This book is a great antidote to all the scare mongers who seem to be writing on this subject. It really has a large and positive message.
Credible Critiques (1)
1) An interesting but narrow view of extraordinary new science.
by Christian Hunter on March 02 2004
20+ helpful votesI picked up this book just based on its title (a highly inadvisable practice), which was the first of many dissapointments I had with this book. First off, "Redesigning Humans, Our Inevitable Genetic Future" would be more appropriately named "Redesigning Our Children, Humanities Inevitable Genetic Future". You see, this book isn't really about redesigning "us", it's about a technological process called "germline engineering". This technology intervenes with "germ cells" (like sperm and egg) to alter their blueprint (from which our biology originates).
Granted, germline engineering is interesting, and I think the author makes a good case for its "inevitability", but in my humble opinion if you're broadly interested in how science will one day alter mankind's basic physical makeup, or specifically interested in how science will alter our biology, there far more interesting reads than this one.
Which brings me to the meat of my point...I'm not arguing Gregory Stocks credentials, and clearly he's a very well educated, well researched scientist (Director of the Medicine, Technology, and Society program at UCLA), but from the outset of this book, he seemed way too biased towards germline engineering, and almost arrogant about germlines superiority as an agent of future change vs. other interesting technology vectors. On page 20 he summarily dismisses an entire scientific school of thought centered around machine augmentation of biology and capability (headed by such credentialed scientists as R. Kurzweil) with the following statement:
"People may dream of enhancing their minds by embedding chips in their brains, but a sophisticated interface between our nervous systems and silicon would be incredibly complex"
...Duh! Augmenting mankind's basic physical essence (that we've had for hundreds of thousands of years) isn't childs play for any scientific approach. But that was pretty much his "that's that on that" basis. VERY FRUSTRATING inadequacy to someone who believes the contrary (I'd at least like someone to offer better basis in approach than that).
And in considering the benefits of machine or biological augmentation of capability (sensory or performance related) he writes:
"Indeed, I cannot imagine any apparatus that would serve us better than our own healthy heart, which responds so perfectly to our changing activity and emotions and is so well matched to the capacities of the rest of our circulatory system. A healthy human heart represents the ideal to which any replacement must aspire..."
What about 10X durability, what about real-time diagnostic feedback, or predictive capability? That's just off the top of my head! It's a bit ironic that this kind of narrow mindedness is coming from such a proponent of change...
Ok, so setting aside my problems with the book, I did find a number of interesting new understandings. In particular, this book gave me a firmer grasp of the extraordinary and near-term potential to modify our offspring, it solidified my position on human cloning (as a benign diversion from the real important decisions we as a species will need to face), and reinvigorated my interest in "somatic therapy" (the altering of existent biology with gene-loaded viral pathogens).
If you're a physco for this kind of stuff, read the first 80 pages of this book, and skim through the rest. If you're passively interested in this kind of science, consider reading Ray Kurzweil "Age of Spiritual Machines", Hans Moravecs' "Robot", or "The Spike" by Damien Broderick.
I hope this was helpful.
