Katherine Mangu-Ward | August 23, 2006
Scientists have bred a
stain of mice that are permanently
cheerful, by removing the TREK-1 gene, which realted to
seratonin transmission in the brain. The mice "represent the first
time depression has been eliminated through genetic alteration of
an organism." The head researcher said the mice "acted as if they
had been treated with antidepressants for at least three weeks" and
speculated that this discovery could open up a new strain of drugs
to treat depression.
But why think small, even if we are talking about mice? The debate about genetic engineering too often slips into squabbles about all those frivolous parents who will want blond, blue-eyed sons. Let's talk about this instead--what happens when parents have the option to genetically insure against depression?
Interesting tidbit: One way scientists test mice for depression is to dangle them by their tails. Mice that don't struggle are labeled "depressed."
See a Reason-sponsored debate on human genetic enhancement here.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Obviously, the first step is to genetically engineer humans to have tails so they (we) can be tested for depression.
There is an old Twilight Zone episode where they force the guy
to undergo the surgury to make him good looking and happy just like
everyone else. I would like that is an exageration, but maybe not.
First, what is depression? Psychologists have pretty much defined
everything to fit under the rubric of "depression". A lot of great
artists, thinkers, writers, composers and musicians have suffered
from depression. I don't think it is too far of a stretch to say
that their "depression" such as it was contributed to their art and
by extension to the world.
If we really do get to the point where we can genetically engineer
out things like depression, there is a real danger that we start to
define "depression" or "hanicaped" as anything that is different
and we end up genetically engineering ourselves into a horribly
bland world.
The irony is that many of the posters and Reason staff who think
this technology is wonderful would absolutely hate the world it
might create. If living forever means living forever in a world of
genetically programed "shiney happy people", death is looking
better all of the time.
Ah ha, now I know what the members of studio audience to
�America�s Funniest Homes Videos� have in common, lack of a TREK-1
gene.
On another note, maybe the mice that don�t struggle realize from
past experience they won�t get hurt, or that struggling doesn�t
matter too much when something 800 times larger than you has you by
the tail. TREK-1 could be the �smart� gene, not the �depressed�
gene.
"I don't think it is too far of a stretch to say that their
"depression" such as it was contributed to their art and by
extension to the world."
I'd have to give idea a "iffy" rating. While depression may have
shaped what sort of people they were and what sort of art they
made, in general real chemical depression prevents people from
wanting to do much of anything, and as such generally can
definately be said to hurt the production of art. Whether or not it
in some way helps it is debatable, but it's pretty certain that
depression hurts it.
I'm reminded of a quote from one of Asinov's short stories ("The Greatest Asset", I think): "Man's greatest asset is the unsettled mind."
'One way scientists test mice for depression is to dangle them
by their tails. Mice that don't struggle are labeled "depressed."
'
NOW I understand why my boss says I'm 'depressed.'
Excellent post, John.
Like me, my son is chronically anxious. Which is to say, he
inhabits anxiety like it's a time zone, or the weather. He doesn't
have to have a real, rational reason to be anxious: when he's in
that zone, whatever drifts into his field of perception pulls his
anxiety towards it. This morning it was some stupid standardized
test, which he can ace, so it's not like he really has anything to
worry about, but try telling him that. Tomorrow he might be fine,
or it might be some other damn thing he's sweating. *sigh* It's
hard to see your child like this. But if I could have ordered up an
alternative, would I do it? Absolutely not. I'd rather teach him
how to live with his anxieties, to manage them as a part of who he
is.
We have a tendency to say, in a situation like this, "I have an
anxiety disorder," which has the effect of making the anxiety
external to oneself. Not, I am anxious, but I have this thing, this
alien will that makes me anxious. I have a disorder, like a trick
knee or something, so if I can correct it, what's the problem,
right? But in my son -- and in me, too -- this tendency towards
anxiety is an inextricable part of personality. For me, at any
rate, it has always been the source of my sense of humor (such as
it is), my work ethic (ditto), the pleasure I take in music and
books, and so on. For good and ill, I want my (and my
son's) bad stuff. The bad stuff makes the good stuff possible. To
will it away -- or to contemplate the ability to do so for an
unborn child -- is somehow monstrous, like willing a death. (Like,
if you say, I wish I was the King of Spain, you are actually
wishing your own oblivion, because you are not the King of
Spain, and he's not you, and in saying you want to be him you are
wishing the replacement of yourself, not just yourself wearing an
ermine robe.)
I have no faith in the state to say anything intelligent about what
choices we are all to make for ourselves, and I am saying nothing
about what this rather disturbing story means for public policy.
But it is worth taking a moment to consider the gravity of what
that choice means.
Although I think a lot of creativity and inventiveness, especially in the arts, would be lost if we engineered out things like bipolarity and depression, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. But it's like this strange Stockholm Syndrome kind of thing, you know? Where you start to actually embrace the illness? Just strange, is all.
If nobody is ever depressed or anxious, then nobody has any
incentive to change the world for the better. Look at the names of
the men who filled our history books; guys like Martin Luther King
and George Washington didn't change history because they were
content with the status quo.
That said, if someone has clinical depression so severe they simply
can't function, telling them to suck it up rather than take medical
steps to solve their problem would be utterly cruel.
John and phord, excellent arguments. I get really, really scared
by the prospect of fooling with the germ line in humans to
eliminate the possibility of illness, especially something like
depression which has a broad range of symptoms. Even in cases like
Tay-Sachs or sickle-cell, which are inevitably deadly diseases,
elimination of the entire complex of genes that cause them has some
serious consequences. We just can't know what else we're fooling
with, or what horrors we'll produce down the line. (It's also
possible that this risk will be reduced. Until then, I really think
caution is the best policy.)
Having said that, I think we can't spend enough money on research
to treat the symptoms of genetic diseases. My uncle committed
suicide, after two years of treatment for depression so severe he
had hallucinations. It would have saved all of us much pain if
there had been some treatment for him. I just think there's an
important distinction between therapies addressing expressed
symptoms of a disease affecting an individual person and therapies
designed to eliminate from an entire population any gene that can
cause that illness.
I wouldn't want my kids to be happy all the time; they're much quieter when they're depressed.
Music would certainly suck if we were all happy. It's hard to write Bela Lugosi's Dead when you're happy.
Music would certainly suck if we were all happy. It's hard to write Bela Lugosi's Dead wen you're happy.
Jennifer, contra my earlier quote, I have to point out
that "if nobody is ever depressed or anxious, then nobody has any
incentive to change the world" for the worse, either.
Doesn't mean that I want to get rid of unsettled minds, but it's
not like unsettled minds aren't a huge source of trouble, too. I'm
resisting the urge to go Godwin, but that's too obvious an example
to ignore. Adolf the successful painter probably doesn't go into
politics. In some other universe, he, Picasso, and Marie-Thérèse
Walter were involved in some sort of threesome of love and
creativity.
Of course, to the extent that someone can be depressed, unsettled,
or even flat-out insane without harming others, they should be able
to stay that way, if they want. In fact, it would take quite a bit
of bad behavior before I could rationalize forcibly or
even preemptively changing someone's mental state. The obvious
cliché here is that the cure may be worse than the disease--what
are the side effects of such a treatment? Would we have stupider
people? Amorality? Who knows? This is dangerous territory,
monkeying with behavior on a genetic level before there's an even a
person with behavior to deal with. Even a genetic propensity for
depression does not guarantee that the person in question will
actually be depressed.
I remember back in the day when i was a psych student, I
remember seeing a study that showed that depressed people were
generally better able to accurately asses reality.
That a person when depressed was more truly aware of his
surroundings than when he was happy.
The depressed person was better able to describe the way his
friends thought about him and to describe his surroundings.
Something to consider. If the study was accurate, or correctly done
that is.
Maybe if we neutralized the server squirrels' TREK-1 genes they'd get off their lazy asses.
Nature has a discussion about this topic...
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060821/full/060821-7.html
" So what kinds of enhancement are people thinking about?
There was a talk at this conference on 'virtue engineering' by
James Hughes of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
in Hartford, Connecticut. He spoke about the idea of using
technology to enhance moral behaviour. A lot of people have trouble
with impulse control, for example, and they might benefit from
pharmaceutical help.
In the context of marriage, an interesting possibility is the use
of pharmaceuticals to regulate the pair-bonding mechanism. There
are a small number of hormones, such as vasopressin and oxytocin,
that might help us form bonds with others. It could be possible to
prevent the levels of these chemicals from trailing off, and to
infuse romance into fading marriages � like a technological form of
counselling."
Will the libertarian program include freedom enhancements?
As someone who has dealt professionally with a number of
clinically depressed patients, I find John's comments perverse. He
romanticizes depression the same way that other people romanticize
the human spirit when dealing with cancer or the holocaust. It's a
Reader's Digest view of life for those who enjoy the drama of
someone elses' suffering.
It's true that some people with mental illness have produced great
art. 99.9999999% do not. A great many more end up jobless, homeless
and drug addicted, or commit suicide. The balance of suffering does
not justify another painting of sunflowers.
Jennifer, depressed people do not want to change the world.
Depressed people have no motivation to act at all, because they
don't derive pleasure from anything. They don't enjoy eating, or
music, beer or sex. The world would not be any worse without
depression.
Commenters are conflating big-D Depression (as in Clinical) with depression (as in sadness). Disappointment is not Clinical Depression, nor is unhappiness. APL is 100% correct.
Uh no, he's not. I am not going to reveal a bunch of personal business on here, but APL is NOT right. He's right to say that many people suffer when it comes to elevated moods, be it mania or depression, and that they struggle to maintain jobs and famiiies and relationships. BUT...those highs and lows do indeed produce some of the most fascinating writings and pieces of art. I imagine Nietschze's insanity is a good example of this. Like I said, I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but there is a time where people learn to adapt and kind of enjoy their illness, even if it makes them completely miserable.
Ayn Randian - I don't think APL is saying no good art or writing
has come from depression. I know I'm not. I'm saying that in most
cases, there really aren't any artistic bonuses to
depression.
Put another way, depression is aesthetically neutral.
Who cares as long as it's a choice. Yes 99.9%(or less) of
'clinically depressed' people probably aren't any better for it,
but some people are.
This brings to mind something I thought of back in the days of the
ILOVEYOU virus... a real "I Love You" virus that infects your
neurons with a couple genes for producing MDMA... Throw that in a
cold or flu virus and watch the world descend into a giant puddle
of love... or something like that... it could happen..
really!
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Ren -n- Stimpy's 'Happy, Happy,
Joy, Joy' helmet yet...
I have to go with APL here - there's a distinct difference between having a sombre outlook on life, and being clinically depressed. The latter is simply awful, and while awfulness and suffering of various kinds will - on occasion - produce great art, that doesn't mean we should glorify suffering.
Ren -n- Stimpy's 'Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy' helmet
Stimpy: "Are you feeling any better?"
Ren: "No I'm not feeling any better. Wait! What are you up
to?"
Stimpy: Holds something behind his back and says "Oh,
no-othing."
Ren: "What have you got behind your back? You're hiding something
from me... aren't you? What is it you're hiding? All right let's
see it, okay, hand it over!"
Stimpy: Quickly slams the Happy Helmet onto Ren.
Ren: "Hey! What is this thing? Get it off of me!"
Stimpy: "It's the happy helmet, Ren. Now you'll always be happy!
And this is the remote control. And I use this dial to control how
happy you are!"
Ren: "You sick little monkey! Why I oughta-"
Stimpy pushes a button on the remote control and Ren freezes. His
mouth curves into a smile and he tries to fight it.
Stimpy: "Hey, it works!" He pushes the button again. This continues
for a few more times.
Ren: "No! Got to fight it! Can't lose control! Will strong.... body
weak....."
Finally Ren snaps and becomes insanely happy.
BUT...those highs and lows do indeed produce some of the
most fascinating writings and pieces of art.
Bipolar disorder is associated with some pretty impressive
successes, whether they be financial, political, mathematical or
artistic, but this is due to the hypomania of
bipolar disorder, not the depression.
I would certainly enjoy being hypomanic all the time, as people in
that state tend to be charismatic and astoundingly
productive.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but there is a time where people
learn to adapt and kind of enjoy their illness, even if it makes
them completely miserable.
No one enjoys depression. Depression is a state where, by
definition, enjoyment is absent.
I'm just guessing here, but I'm thinking that Captain Kirk wouldn't put up with this sort of thing.
Actually some people enjoy depression... after swinging high for a while I enjoy the low. It's kinda comforting in a way and nice to let my mind rest. There are a couple shades to my depression though, and some of them are never enjoyable. I imagine there are a lot of people out there who think differently, which is why we should all be free to use whatever drugs in whatever quantities we choose.
I would imagine that jasno is dead-on accurate for most people, although APL, you have a point, the lows have to be contrasted with the hypomania in order to be enjoyed either way. I couldn't imagine never having the highs.
I would imagine that jasno is dead-on accurate for most ill people, although APL, you have a point, the lows have to be contrasted with the hypomania in order to be enjoyed either way. I couldn't imagine never having the highs.
I'm fairly certain that if a person has hypomania they'd be considered bipolar rather than depressed... not having any high at all is unpleasant and there was nothing enjoyable about the experience. (I personally wouldn't count periods of relatively less misery as being a 'high'.)
1. Shouldn't "hypomania" in fact be "hypermania?" "Hypomania"
means "below mania" or "less mania."
2. I think the issue here is not so much whether it's great for any
particular person to be clinically depressed, but whether it's a
good thing to pursue treatments that eliminate the genes that
might, in certain circumstances, produce depression from the entire
population. Having been treated, unsuccessfully, for depression,
and coming from a family with a long and serious history of the
disease, I'm all for good treatments, but I'm terrified of any
treatment that just eliminates the genes associated with the
illness. This seems like using a sledgehammer for a job that
requires a tiny laser scalpel.
If altering this gene makes someone happy always and without reason, than perhaps it would a bad thing to tamper with (although really, would the tampered with person possibly mind?). If it simply reduces the probability of clinical Depression then why the hell wouldn't you want such a thing for your childeren? Even if we produced less great art, a contention I find dubious, I think wanting others to suffer so you have better novels to read is utter cruelty.
One reason I would object to monkeying with the gene, as opposed
to effective treatment of the symptoms, is that I think mental pain
sometimes serves the same adaptive function as physical pain: it
warns the suffer to STOP DOING THIS PAINFUL THING!!!!! Leprosy
victims lose the ability to feel pain in their extremities, and
consequently suffer exponentially greater harm because they lack
the signal to, say, quit touching the hot stove or the sharp stone.
I'm sure there are other mechanisms at work, but the nerve damage
first manifests, I believe, in the inability to feel pain.
Depression can be caused by environmental influences as well as
genes, and sometimes I think is an important cue to change one's
environment. To use one common example from my friends, being
miserable all the time is usually a clue to get out of a bad
relationship. I suffered because I had the worst boss in the
Western Hemisphere. Quit the job, lost the illness.
I am more familar than most with the consequences of serious and
untreated depression, what with my uncle killing himself. Still, I
hesitate to eliminate even the possibility of the disease when we
should be looking for more effective treatments for the damaging
symptoms.
Karen-Hypomania is the correct term. It's a state of mind that's below outright mania and characterized by cheerfulness and increased productivity. Mania involves grandiose thoughts, extreme insomnia, disconnected thoughts, inappropriate behavior and in advanced cases halucinations and can occasionally cause a complete psychotic break. Hypomania is actually quite pleasant. Outright mania is terrifying.
I grew up with man boobs. I was 17 and never kissed a girl.
never had any friends and was generally a miserable person. When I
was a kid, the other kids would grab my nipples and start twisting
them. I considered suicide many times.
I had a breat reduction three years ago and now experience a level
of happiness that I never thought possible. I'm sure in another
couple years I will be even happier and dread to think what
would've happened had I been before plastic surgery.
Before my surgery I had flunked out of high school. Since my
surgery I've gotten my GED, did two years of community college
maintaining a GPA in the high 3s and am starting this fall at one
of the best public universities in the country.
That's why my blood boils whenever I hear people talk about how we
should live with our faults and accepts ourselves and blah, blah,
blah. I owe my life to unnatural enhancements and would encourage
others to better themselves in any way possible
Let's talk about this instead--what happens when parents
have the option to genetically insure against
depression?
Well, in my case -- I'd take the option.
Depression runs in my family, and it is a miserable condition to
deal with.
Bob is the smartest person on this thread. Until we have tails, we will never be able to accurately diagnose, or even define, depression. I wonder how elimination the TREK1 gene affects learned helplessness?
I think it's a common misconception that eliminating depression
makes people apathetic.
It's only anecdotal of course, but when I got over my Depression
(with the help of drugs and a therapist), I did not become
lethargic and 'satisfied' with the world.
Instead, I was far more likely to stand up to social bullies, go
out and get shit done, and generally felt like I SHOULD act in the
world to make it more like I wanted (in whatever small way) because
I wanted to be happy.
Those who don't agree with me should take a hint from the mouse
test: The non-depressed mouse doesn't passively accept his fate.
HE's the one struggling to kick butt no matter what the odds. A
world without Depression would have far more strivers and
movers.
----------------------------
Bob & Wasnowski,
what are you talking about? The rest of us humans ALREADY have
tails. Are the two of you some kind of tail-less genetic
freaks?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245