James Watson—Genetic Libertarian

The current issue of Discover has a fascinating interview with biologist James Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. For example:

Discover: You are Jim Watson. You're put in charge of how we as a society are going to react to issues raised by genetics?stem cells, bioengineering, and the like. What would you do?

Watson: Well, my sensibility is very libertarian. Just let all genetic decisions be made by individual women. That is, never ask what's good for the country; ask what's good for the family. I don't know what's good for the country, but you can often say what's good or bad for the family. That is, mental disease is no good for any family. And so if there's a way of trying to fight that, I'd let a woman have the choice to do it or not do it. Not give in and have the state tell you to have a certain sort of child. I would be very frightened by the state telling you one way or the other.

Seems exactly right to me.

Comments

[Sir Real]

Wonderfull- prettier, better spoken nobility. In the past the rich were taller because they recieved better nutrition- now, they can have the genes to match.

Raymund-

Comparing the cost of regulating gene-mod versus allowing the most rigidly solid class system since caste's to develop? The social costs you dismiss are the little things like "All men are created equal".

[Ben]

Interesting interview - Watson comes off as much more glib than he often(?) is; my mom worked at CSHL for years and her run-ins with him were uniformly odd.

[Anonymous]

The state won't ever tell you one way or the other to have a certain sort of child, they'll just offer some economic incentive to go along with what they want.

[Anonymous]

The state won't ever tell you one way or the other to have a certain sort of child, they'll just offer some economic incentive to go along with what they want.

[Raymund]

Sir Real,

"Comparing the cost of regulating gene-mod versus allowing the most rigidly solid class system since caste's [sic] to develop?"

Your fear appears based on two faulty assumptions.

First, you assume human gene-mod will only be available to the upper middle class and above. If cosmetic surgery is any guide, that's incorrect. I don't have the ref handy, but IIRC a majority of plastic surgery patients make less than $50K/yr. (In the Economist a few weeks ago). Or, if private schools are any guide, that's also incorrect. No refs, but I'd guess there are millions of American families making less than $50K/yr who send their kids to private schools to give their kids the best available education. Were I a lower middle class parent, I'd take the biggest loan I could to make sure my kids were gene-mod'd for excellent health, extreme intelligence, and other desirable traits.

Second, you assume superior genes would somehow automatically confer both higher social status and greater success. Prenatal environment, early childhood, and blind luck all have an impact on whom someone becomes. And even if all those dice come up 6s, I've known intelligent stoners, intelligent slackers, and intelligent people with such arrogance and poor social skills that they get fired from job after job.

"The social costs you dismiss are the little things like "All men are created equal".

Jefferson et al. only meant equality before the law. Equal freedom to take actions not directly harmful to others. The Founders did NOT seek equality of results, or even necessarily equality of starting positions. They envisioned a society in which nothing would stop a person, genetically modified or not, from applying to an elite university, starting a business, or pursuing happiness in any other way.

[Anonymous]

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ridley03/ridley_print.html

http://www.core77.com/reactor/opinion_06.03.asp

[Nicholas Weininger]

To add to Raymund's first point: sure, at first genetic modification technology will be expensive and available only to the rich, but as time goes on, demand-driven innovation will push the prices down. There'll be a lot of money to be made by the first person who figures out how to do gene mods that the middle class can afford-- so someone will figure it out. Nothing in the nature of gene modification makes it inherently expensive.

I marvel at how often leftists keep bringing up this stupid "oh no, it'll increase INEQUALITY! Run!" argument, despite millions of historical examples proving them wrong. Take automobiles: a hundred years ago, a car was a luxury item affordable only to a small percentage of the population. I can just imagine Sir Real's 1903 predecessor complaining about how only rich people were going to have access to fast individual mechanical transportation, and everyone else was going to be stuck with trains and horsecarts forever.

[Hank]

Imagine 3 generations from now, everyone is tall, strong and thin. Shapely and handsome. Intelligent and articulate. Disease (mental, congenital, viral etc...) free, lithe, agile, 20/15 vision and a perfect set glimmering white chompers.

How is this increasing inequality? In fact, maybe we would all be too equal....

[Crick]

"Human genetic modification" has been happening for decades. Its more vulgar form is called miscegenation.

(Look it up.)

[Plutarck]

Adding to the critique of the whole class-system and elitism arguments: this would still be nothing but an argument for government funding for the poor to allow them to make the same choices. It makes absolutely no sense WHATSOEVER that because not everyone would be able to afford something at a given price, then no one should be permitted to have it.

Otherwise, why not call for a ban on toothpaste, Rolls Royces, and Armani suits? These all give people quite a bit of competitive advantage, and are only open to certain economic classes of people. So why don't we do away with them as well?

[Plutarck]

miscegenation
n.
1. A mixture of different races.
2. Cohabitation, sexual relations, or marriage involving persons of different races.

[Latin miscere, to mix. See meik-. + genus, race. See gen-. + -ATION.]

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright ? 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Glenn C]

Sir Real:
All men are created equal? Tell that to the children with Down's Syndrome. Cerebral Palsy is another plus. Autistic people have absolutely the same chances to succeed and prosper that others do. Cystic Fibrosis isn't a real handicap, we should certainly stop any treatment that might eliminate that condition. Muscular Dystrophy and MS? Obviously psychosomatic in your world. BTW, what planet did you say you were from?

[Arthur Frain]

Oh who cares what that hack Watson has to say? Rosalind Franklin was the unsung hero of the whole DNA structure search. Unfortunately she didn't exercise the proper cautions when dealing with radiation and died of cancer at a young age. I would much rather have read about her thoughts on the matter.

[joe]

A pretty good recipe for starting an arms race.

[Ron Bailey]

Hi Arthur: Please read the interview. Watson is more respectful of Franklin's work than you might think.

[Raymund]

joe, if the State steps in and either (i) heavily regulates permissible genetic modification of one's children or (ii) outlaws it entirely, the "arms race," by which I presume you mean "parents spending more and more money to give their kids a genetic starting point comparable to other kids'," is even worse: more money would have to be spent to fund the gene-mod facility's regulatory compliance overhead, or a couple's clandestine trip to the "fertility clinic" in Ciudad Juarez.

Human genetic modification may have some individual and social costs, but a Federal bureaucracy or War On Gene-Mod would have even more.

[Sean]

Franklin took a good picture (x-ray crystallography), she had good data, but she didn't know how to interpret it correctly. Watson & Crick did gain early access to this data in a less than ethical manor (a reviewer of Franklin's paper, incorrectly interpreting the data, showed it to W&C when he shouldn't have), but they were the ones who got it right. They determined the double helical structure. She was indeed a good scientist, and played an important role (an may have deserved to share the nobel if she hadn't died), but she wasn't the one who made the connection that got us where we are today. Many a nobel has been won by people who correctly interpreted data that was collected by others (usually post-docs, techs, or grad students working in their own lab).

[Anonymous]

Neil, if you think that some American people are repugnant toward miscegenation, you haven't been to Los Angeles lately, have you.

[Neil Block]

This is all assuming, of course, that people are actually willing to perform genetic modification. I'd say the majority of people in this country have a strong moral objection to such "tampering," as some call it. This is not to say that genetic modification of humans should be illegal -- I'm all for it (huzzah for personal freedom), but the ability for the technique to catch on will be severely hampered by the American peoples' current repugnance toward it. Forgive my lack of an historical anecdote of a similar argument to illustrate my point; perhaps someone else has one in mind.

[Anonymous]

well, as long as it can make my penis longer. then okay.

[Wilson Julie]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.PILLS-PENIS-ENLARGEMENT.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 08:03:53
'Love -- a grave mental disease.' Plato

[Lieber Katherine]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://penis-pill.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/20/2003 11:03:37
You are free and that is why you are lost.

[Neufeld Josh]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 68.173.7.113
URL: http://drugs-online.drugsexperts.com
DATE: 01/09/2004 08:15:14
During the Samuel Johnson days they had big men enjoying small talk; today we have small men enjoying big talk.