Should Genetic Engineering on Humans Progress?

In 2009, the Canadian-French sci-fi/horror film Splice was released in theaters, telling the story of two scientists playing God and the animal-human hybrid that comes of it. With a disturbing plot and gruesome ending, it gives a chilling warning for the dangers gene splicing present. Now while this movie and terms like “gene splicing” may call to mind an idea of a futuristic, alternative universe, genetic engineering actually plays an important role in the reality we live in. With biomedical advancements being made every day (or so it seems), humanity is approaching the next step in our evolution, which can be both exciting and terrifying.

There are regulations for this progress implemented all over the world. Researchers at Hokkaido University in Japan discovered in 2014 that 29 countries had an outright legal ban on gene editing, while other countries’ regulations were more ambiguous. Some countries, like China, India, and Japan, had bans but did not necessarily have legal enforcement behind them, while others, like the USA, had a moratorium on this research.

However, in this article written by the Associated Press, it was recently revealed that, for the first time in American history, US scientists edited the genes of human embryos. Officials at Oregon Health & Science University confirmed that the experiments took place there and were purely “an exercise in science” in which the embryos were never supposed to be implanted into a womb or allowed to develop.

And in this article from the Washington Post, also released in the past week, it was said that this experimentation might lead to the ability to “altering human heredity,” which in turn could lead to preventing inherited diseases.

Although this progress is certainly exciting, it raises safety concerns and ethical predicaments. It could mean improvements to our health and well-being, or it could cause the rise of “designer babies” and mad science. All in all, it poses the question—should genetic engineering be allowed to progress indefinitely?

There are many professionals who undoubtedly believe so—Jennifer Doudna, a molecular biologist and leading pioneer in this field, is one of them. With a Ph.D in biochemistry, she is a professor of chemistry, molecular, and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and in this TED Talk, she gives a detailed and informative explanation of CRISPR-Cas9, the technology she co-invented that edits genomes.

CRISPR stands for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” and CRISPR-Cas9 could essentially help us cure genetic diseases. For instance, scientists in Philadelphia used CRISPR to extract the DNA of an integrated HIV virus from the affected human cells. And the research team led by the Oregon Health & Science University used CRISPR to repair the genetic mutations in the embryos.

Doudna obviously supports this progress, yet she still brings up how she and her colleagues “called for a global pause in any clinical application of the CRISPR technology in human embryos” to fully consider the ethical implications. After all, they do not want to create an abomination like the creature from Splice (and for good reason).

However, CRISPR is not the only gene editor in this field. In a web article by Stephen Chen of the South China Morning Post (which has since been removed because of controversy), NgAgo, used by Dr. Han Chunyu and his team and Hebei University of Science and Technology, is said to rival CRISPR. It was initially considered a “scientific breakthrough” in gene-editing but was recently revealed that the findings were unable to be replicated, meaning Dr. Chunyu was forced to withdraw his paper from the scientific journal.

That being said, because of mistakes like the one mentioned above and the ethical dilemmas gene editing present, others firmly believe that it, particularly any involving human genes, should be moderated and even halted altogether. Dr. Paul Knoepfler, an American biomedical scientist and author, focuses on this idea in his presentation concerning the ethics of “designer babies,” or genetically modified human embryos with pre-determined, desirable traits.

(Note: this talk was delivered a month after Jennifer Doudna’s lecture, and thus could be considered an extension or even rebuttal of her ideas, but notwithstanding.)

Knoepfler uses detailed hypothetical situations to describe what children could be like in 2030 with genetic modification technology on the rise. His stance is that while he loves the progress being made, he believes “it opens the door to people going too far.” He explains some of the pros of genetically engineered children, like how they would be less susceptible to diseases which means lower healthcare costs for a society. He also brings in the opposing argument—the support of progress—often, like when he mentions the example of in vitro fertilization. This example demonstrates how human genetic modification has helped humanity in the past, which supports the view that this science should not be stifled.

Moreover, Michael Bess also addresses the dilemmas of designer babies and genetically engineered humans in his novel Our Grandchildren Redesigned: Life in the Bioengineered Society of the Near Future, coming to the conclusion that moderation and restraint are more ideal. Bess is the Chancellor’s Professor of History at Vanderbilt University and has received major fellowships from foundations like the National Human Genome Research Institute, which shows his dedication to the topic. He discusses the advancement of genetic engineering for humans and the implications they hold for the future, eventually describing benefits for new bio-enhanced capabilities which include longer lifespans, more human interactivity, improved emotional and mental control, and overall more complex forms of intelligence and insight. Such benefits could create a greater socioeconomic divide because of the technological expenses and unregulated population growth—as well as discord between modified and unmodified humans due to conflicts of human authenticity and genetic fads.

This not only provides a clear idea of what of this technology could mean for the future of human society, but also the implications it has for the rich and poor of all nations. Socioeconomic standing is always an important consideration when theorizing the effects scientific progress could have on society. It is one reason why Bess concludes that “restraint is the smarter path,” because rapid advancement could bring the destabilization of civilization as we know it.

Delivering a warning even more definite than Bess’s, five scholarly professionals discuss why no one should alter the human germ line (egg and sperm cells) in a scientific article published in the Nature News international weekly journal. They are thorough and professional in their argument, blatantly stating their opinions like “heritable human genetic modifications pose serious risks” and that it could have negative impact on work “involving the use of genome-editing techniques in somatic (non-reproductive) cells.” They give a clear warning when they state “the precise effects of genetic modification to an embryo may be impossible to know until after birth” and examples of how the gene-editing can presently be used, like how it can “offer a powerful approach to treat many human diseases, including HIV/AIDS, hemophilia, sickle-cell anemia and several forms of cancer.” Urging international discussion on the issue from the scientific community, they conclude that doing so could effectively discourage the alteration of the human germ line while also raising awareness about the dilemma.

Personally speaking, I have always been fascinated by genetic engineering. Though it once seemed like such an abstract concept—editing the DNA of living creatures, especially a human’s—I now see it is a realistic process that should be carefully considered. I realize that genetic engineering should not be allowed to progress indefinitely, at least not without some form of regulation, because it could mean the progression of eugenics and scientific extremism. As exciting as the idea of futuristic, engineered humans is to a science lover such as myself, I now better understand the detrimental effects it could have on society. Granted, genome engineering has been developing since the 1970s (according to Dr. Doudna), so this rapid development is not as rapid as we all think. Still, the conflict between unmodified and modified humans in the future could lead to even greater social divide, whether it be because of socioeconomic standing or appearance. However, I am filled with hope that CRISPR can help us cure genetic diseases and generally improve human well-being. All in all, I feel more educated on this topic and better prepared to react to its progress.


Further Reading:

© 2017 Obliquity of the Ecliptic

How To Breathe Underwater Like a Mermaid

Science is slowly but surely actualizing the possibility of being a mermaid. In this article, it is stated: “Scientists have made a breakthrough that could save patient’s lives and open up the possibilities for underwater exploration.”

Essentially, a tiny micro-particle (roughly 3 micrometers) was created that can be injected into the bloodstream, oxygenating blood without any help from the lungs. These particles contains three to four times more oxygen than human red blood cells, and they can allow humans to live up to 30 minutes without breathing before respiratory failure occurs. Though originally created for medical purposes (to prevent brain damage or organ injury from oxygen deprivation), it also opens the door for military uses or solutions to air pollution.

Or being a mermaid. Imagine being able to swim in the ocean without breathing for three times as long as a dolphin could. Or sit at the bottom of a pool for half an hour, watching the light dance on the tiles.

And this discovery was several years ago. Recent reports indicate these micro-particles are continually being used to save lives in hospitals and prevent environmental pollution by letting a crew fix underwater damage to oil rigs without scuba equipment. I can only imagine how this will continue to progress as it becomes more well-known.

Also, there appear to be no known negative side effects from it. In this article, they are described as a minuscule capsules of small bubbles of oxygen surrounded by a layer of lipids. Meaning that as long as they are injected in regulated amounts, they are completely harmless.

Now this is much different from perfluorocarbon, a breathable liquid which holds just enough oxygen for us to breathe it in safely for short periods of time. While perfluorocarbon sounds cool, the transition from breathing it in to breathing in actual air can be painful, since your lungs have to push the liquid from them. Which is why it’s (apparently) been used as a torture device, similar to water boarding.

But to focus on the matter at hand…

Perhaps saying “breathing underwater” is misleading, since technically, this advancement in science allows you to simply hold your breath for extended periods of time. But either way, it certainly has a wide range of possibilities, and I would love to experience it myself one day.

© 2017 Obliquity of the Ecliptic

Why Mermaids Could Exist (and more about various ocean anomalies)

Believing that mermaids exist may seem childish, but believing in a lot of things seems childish until you’re shown the science to back it up.

So that’s why I’m here today. To give you the science. Or rather, some factual information to support these theories. Now I’m not implying that you should believe in mermaids, because I make it a habit to not tell people what they should or shouldn’t believe in. However, what I’d like to do is provide some reasons as to why it’s not unrealistic to think their existence is valid. And true to my nature, I have included links to reliable sources below. Also, fair warning: I focus a lot on the Deep Sea zone, because it plays an important role in my theorizing. It’s also just a very fascinating marine biome.

But to return to the topic at hand:

Perhaps the greatest reason that mermaids could exist is that 95% of the ocean has been unseen by human eyes [1]. That’s right—even though the ocean covers more than 70% of planet Earth, we’ve only explored ~5% of it. And of course, mermaids don’t have to be ocean-dwelling creatures. They could exist in lakes, ponds, swamps, and more, which leaves more places for them to be discovered.

This is also good reason for why any water-based cryptid could exist. The Kraken, the Leviathan, and the Megaladon could all be living at the bottom of the sea in dark trenches and giant caverns, as completely oblivious to our presence as we are to theirs.

But really, that’s being theoretical (and while I don’t mean to digress, here’s a good argument for why the Megaladon most likely no longer exists). What isn’t theoretical is the undeniable appearance of the mermaid myth across different cultures and history. As seen in my previous post found here, mermaids first appeared as deities in Assyrian mythology between 700 b.c. to 1000 b.c. But it is said that mystical female entities were shown in cave paintings even earlier than that, in the late Paleolithic period about 30,000 years ago, which is when modern humans  gained dominion over the land and began to sail the seas. [2]

For a common mythological figure to appear in cultures and historical remnants across the world can mean a number of things, as any historian and anthropologist will tell you. It indicates an intermingling of stories and cultural values over time, interactions due to international trade and travel. However, it also is indicative of the fact that mermaids could exist around the world, hence why people around the world would create artwork as well as spoken and written legends about them.

Now theoretically, if mermaids did exist, it would be likely that they exist in the Deep Sea zone (600 feet/183 meters below the surface). So consider the fact that deep sea gigantism—a phenoma that caused the gigantic makeup of sea creatures dwelling on the sea floor, like with Japanese spider crabs, colossal squids, and different types of isopods—could mean if there were mermaids dwelling on the ocean floor, they could be the size of a whale.

beharkei: “Mermaid by Sergey Kolesov ”

(this beautiful piece of artwork is titled “Mermaid” by Sergey Kolesov)

Deep sea gigantism is influenced by pressure, or to be more specific, a combination of Bergmann’s Rule and Kleiber’s Law.

Bergmann’s rule is “an ecogeographical rule that states that within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder environments, and species of smaller size are found in warmer regions” [3]

Kleiber’s Law is “the observation that, for the vast majority of animals, an animal’s metabolic rate scales to the ¾ power of the animal’s mass” [4]

The results?

The Japanese Spidercrab, as aforementioned:

Image result for japanese spider crabs

The Colossal Squid:

Related image

(they can grow up to twice the length of a school bus)

And large isopods:

Image result for large isopods

The Deep Sea really is a wild place. It is extremely cold (about 4º C) and dark because of the lack of light, and most creatures are generally transparent or a brownish-black because of it. It’s home to Gulper eels, Snaggletooth fish, Sloane viperfish, and Angler fish.

And to continue the discussion of interesting ocean oddities, let’s not forget about brine pools, which are essentially pockets of seawater that are very salty and therefore denser than the surrounding water. [5] Because they exist on the seafloor and have distinct surfaces and shorelines, they often look like small lakes within the ocean (think of Goo Lagoon from Spongebob).

There’s also Sea Sparkles, which sound as fantastical as mermaids. Sea Sparkles, also known as Noctiluca scintillans, are small, non-parasitic, species of dinoflagellate that appear bioluminescent when disturbed. They can be found all over the world, often along the coast, in estuaries and shallow areas that receive lots of light, which facilitates the growth of the phytoplankton on which the Sea Sparkle feeds. [6]

They look like this:

Image result for sea sparkles

Magical, aren’t they?

So yes, sea sparkles aside, mermaids could exist in the real world. Unfortunately, they probably wouldn’t look like we expect them to look—as in, feminine and beautiful. If those pictures of isopods and eels aren’t indicative enough, merpeople are likely to be very large and more fish than human. They would probably appear quite frightening.

How frightening? Next month I will be covering mermaids in art, and I will be including all manner of spooky sea maiden pictures.

And remember, most of my reasoning is theoretical. I am not a marine biologist or anthropologist, so here is a very interesting article from a more reliable source about why mermaids couldn’t exist. It is (not surprisingly) more scientific than mine.

What do you think? Could mermaids exist?

© 2017 Obliquity of the Ecliptic