Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Health

The future will envelope us

Gene ExpressionBy Razib KhanMarch 18, 2013 2:32 AM

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Frankensteins_monster_Boris_Karloff.jpg

Emily Anthes has a new book out, Frankenstein's Cat. It looks quite interesting, but I'll be honest and admit I doubt I'll get to it, mostly because I am relatively sanguine about genetic modification. I don't think it's a qualitative difference from what's been going on for 10,000 years. To me all genuine concerns about this area don't fundamentally have anything to do with the core idea of genetic modification (e.g., rather, it is about control of the means of production, etc.). If you are wondering if you might like the content of Frankenstein's Cat, I would recommend this 40 minute interview of Anthes on NPR. It strikes me that she's presenting a rather "balanced" perspective, acknowledging the concerns of some, while attempting to highlight the genuine benefits of genetic modification. Speaking of which, one thing which came out in the NPR interview is that some animal geneticists are actually moving to places like Brazil to do their work because of disquiet about the nature of their research. In this specific case it had to do with replicating the anti-bacterial properties of human milk for goats using trans-genic methods (I presume). The host naturally expressed difficult to suppress revulsion at the idea of "human genes" in "animals." To be pedantic of course we are ourselves animals, and what is a "human gene" supposed to even mean? A substantial portion of the human genome does not derive from humans. On the one hand it's sad when American researchers have to go abroad when their work really isn't that objectionable. If, for example, they were modifying goat milk with cow genes that would not arouse as much concern, even though fundamentally the process is the same. Intuitive folk biology and a moral sense of the special character of humanity which is somehow ineffably tied up into our form and genetic character bubble up unbidden. But in nations like Brazil where diarrhea is major public health concerns these wisdom-of-repugnance intuition lack as much relevance. There is often the presumption that genetic engineering will be accessible only to the rich. And yet I wonder perhaps if being "wholly organic" might become a sort of signal of affluence and conspicuous consumption, with those closer to the margin of poverty engaging in various transformations which are ethically, morally, or aesthetically disquieting. Addendum: Organisms which have been modified to have human genes have been around for a while obviously. What seems new on the horizon is the industrial scale, and likely real world (as opposed to basic science) application.

2 Free Articles Left

Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 70%

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In