Modified Marmoset in the Media
This week, researchers in Japan announced the first inheritable genetic modification of a primate. Scientists at Japan's Central Institute for Experimental Animals added to marmosets genes which cause them to glow under fluorescent light. In contrast to the first genetically modified monkey from 2001, this trait was then passed to a second generation.
The potential for medical progress from this accomplishment, through the creation of primate disease models, may be significant. But it also highlights the disturbing prospect of inheritable genetic modification (IGM) in humans. The work occurred in Japan, which - like almost all industrialized nations - prohibits human IGM. However, the United States has no such law.
American media coverage was remarkably thin, and only a minority of articles mentioned possible social and ethical implications. Rob Stein's piece for the Washington Post was an important exception, raising key concerns and citing (in its various editions) Lori Andrews and Stuart Newman.
But because the work marks the first time members of a species so closely related to humans have had their genetic makeup permanently altered, the research set off alarms that it marked a troubling step toward applying such techniques to people, which would violate a long-standing taboo.
"It would be easy enough for someone to make the leap to trying this on humans," said Lori B. Andrews, who studies reproductive technologies at the Illinois Institute of Technology's Chicago-Kent College of Law. "If you make this kind of change, it's passed on to all future generations. Many people think it's hubris to have people remaking people in this way."
The approach could tempt some to use the technique to try to engineer desirable traits in people, creating a society of genetic haves and have-nots, Andrews said. Others worried that the work could have additional disturbing implications, such as potentially blurring the line between species.
"It's hard to put your finger on what is it about this research that is likely to stimulate ethical debate besides the sort of gut feeling that this is not the right thing to do," said Mark A. Rothstein, a bioethicist at the University of Louisville. "But I think we'd better contemplate where this research is going and develop policies to deal with it before it slaps us in the face."...
"This is just another reason why we need to go behind the doors of the IVF clinics and create an oversight mechanism that works," Andrews said.
"There are always people who want to improve the human race. It's called eugenics and it has a bad history," said Stuart Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College "Every time I see a piece of technology that facilitates possibly genetically engineering humans I'm concerned about it."
It was picked up by the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, and San Francisco Chronicle. Wire services Associated Press and Reuters delivered short items. The US's leading two national papers - the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal - did not even cover the story.
News articles from overseas fared somewhat better. Those in the Financial Times, the Guardian, the Times of London, Agence France Presse, and the venerable Daily Mail all brought up concerns, including quotes from Helen Wallace of GeneWatch and David King of Human Genetics Alert. Surprisingly, Steve Connor at the Independent cited the marmoset report as raising the possibility of eradicating human disease through genetic modification, and as an occasion to revisit the UK's ban on the practice.
Previously on Biopolitical Times: