Liberation Biology

Scientist Lee M. Silver on cloning wars, bioethical battles, and new and improved genes

From the May 1999 issue

(Page 5 of 5)

Reason: In Remaking Eden, you suggest that in the future there will be genetic haves and genetic have-nots. Do you still think that way?

Silver: In the paperback edition, I basically backtrack. Evolution--the old-fashioned way, through natural selection--will stop because people will choose which genes to add to their children. Now those new genes will enter the gene pool of the whole human species, which is inextricably connected. If nothing else, the spread of AIDS around the globe has conclusively demonstrated that no human populations are sexually isolated from any other populations. And so, over many, many generations and in the distant future, these genes will spread throughout the gene pool. There is still going to be a question of access. Will genetic technologies be available to only 10 percent of the population? I don't believe it will be that restricted. The top 50 percent? The top 80 percent? Who knows? There are certainly poor countries whose citizens will have less access, but the fact is that the enhanced genes will spread. They will travel around the whole gene pool.

Reason: You are hopeful that these technologies will not only be widespread but fully accepted one day?

Silver: In the long term, I don't have any doubt that these technologies are going to be accepted. There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding in the public realm right now, exacerbated by some bioethicists. But there is a basic common sense that seeps into the general population. If you see a better technology that is beneficial, doesn't hurt anybody, helps either you or your children be happier or more successful or healthier --and that is what biotech does--common sense tells you that people are going to accept it and desire it.

Reason: George Annas wants to create a federal human experimentation agency that would require biotech proponents to prove that there is an important social purpose for a line of research before they would be allowed to pursue it.

Silver: I think he is completely misguided. We already have procedures that we go through in this country to test new medical protocols. It is true that privately funded researchers don't have to do this, but almost all of them do it anyway. They have institutional review boards that look at experiments to make sure they are ethical and to make sure informed consent is obtained. I think informed consent is critical. I think that before any prospective parents use genetic therapies on their children, they have to be informed of everything. But I think George Annas is wrong.

Reason: You don't see, at this point, any particular reason for more federal laws regulating biotech?

Silver: No. That is not to say that I don't think there are certain ethical rules that I hope are followed. But the question is, what is the best way of making sure they are followed? I do not believe in a free-for-all. But my feeling is that very often when we are talking about the federal government, we are talking about some members of Congress who have their own particular goals in mind. Often you end up with something that you didn't start with. So even if somebody initially suggests a very rational rule, by the time it actually gets passed into law, it could be something totally different than what was intended.