Thursday, March 14, 2013

BioEthics Article 2


Is it Ethical to genetically engineer humans to have certain desirable traits?  What traits would be okay and what traits wouldn't be?  You probably have already eaten genetically engineered vegetables and fruit, but would you eat genetically engineered meat (like from Big Blue up above)?


Think performance enhancers are a problem now?
Welcome to the era of the genetically engineered superathlete
Posted: Tuesday March 11, 2008 12:27PM; Updated: Wednesday March 12, 2008 10:52AM
By David Epstein
I am one of the most avid sports fans you'll find," Se-Jin Lee says. It's true. He'll watch anything. Basketball. Football. Fútbol. Billiards on channel seven-hundred-whatever. As a graduate student in the '80s Lee used to sit in his car in the driveway with the radio on to listen to the games of faraway baseball teams. Even now, in his lab at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, he easily rattles off the NCAA basketball tournament winners in order from 1964 to 2007. And, like anyone who values fair competition these days, he's disturbed by the issue of performance-enhancing drugs in sports.
Why, then, is Lee working to usher in technology that will make even today's most inventive doping methods look primitive? A professor of molecular biology and genetics, the 49-year-old Lee studies genes that tell muscles what to do -- genes that he knows how to change. As clever as chemists are in altering steroid molecules to avoid detection (recall BALCO's THG, a.k.a. "the Clear"), those designer drugs can be spotted once antidoping agencies know what to look for. Even human growth hormone will be detectable soon, after a valid blood test becomes commercially available. But if athletes develop ways to alter their genes, the very blueprints for their own muscles, there may be no test of blood or urine that can pick that up.
Lee is pushing the frontier of genetic research into muscle building because the same breakthroughs that could boost performance in sports might also bring about a medical revolution. Advances could not only reduce or eliminate the effects of diseases like muscular dystrophy but also give senior citizens back their strength -- which, often, would amount to giving them back their lives.
In 1995 in his lab on North Wolfe Street, Lee and two colleagues identified the function of myostatin, a protein that tells muscles when to stop growing. It does so, scientists believe, by signaling "satellite cells," or stem cells that lie dormant around the muscle until they're needed to build or repair it. Experimenting on mice, Lee inactivated both copies of the gene in the animal that code for myostatin. The result: Over four to six weeks the rodents developed twice their normal muscle mass without a formal exercise regimen. After Lee's results were published in 1997, he was awash in e-mails from people with muscle-wasting disease (no surprise) offering themselves as subjects for human experiment. He got similar offers (surprise!) from bodybuilders and athletes. Imagine: double the muscle mass. Could he do to them what he had done on the mice?
Some of the athletes barely knew what they were inquiring about. They'd ask Lee where they could purchase some myostatin. "Of course, they didn't want myostatin," he says. "They wanted to block it." But if they could block it with a synthetic gene, the alteration would be a part of their DNA, and it would last for years at the center of their cells. The most straightforward way of detecting the new gene would be to remove a piece of the muscle and probe for it, a procedure most likely too invasive for widescale use. It would be enough to make one long for the simplicity of the steroid era.
The year after Lee's mice results went public, H. Lee Sweeney, a physiology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, published a paper detailing his own mighty mice, which he had injected with a gene engineered to produce a muscle builder called insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1). Sweeney, too, was inundated with inquiries from athletes. He says a high school football coach and a high school wrestling coach volunteered their entire teams as guinea pigs.

Since the gene genie escaped from the bottle a decade ago, researchers have discovered dozens more genes that appear to affect athletic performance. This is old news in the rodent community. Scientists have created mice whose bodies are flooded with oxygen-carrying red blood cells, creating greater endurance. Other mice have been engineered to produce extraordinary amounts of growth hormone, while still others metabolize fat and carbs in such a way that they can live like couch potatoes yet run like marathoners.
Significant safety hurdles remain before gene therapy is widespread for humans. The most efficient means of delivering a synthetic gene is by attaching it to a virus that shuttles it into human cells. Viruses are great at that. They can also trigger the immune system in a way that can lead to fatal results. In 1999 Jesse Gelsinger, an 18-year-old with a rare liver disease who had volunteered for a gene-therapy trial, died from a massive immune response to the virus used in the treatment. And the dangers extend beyond the immune system. In a gene-therapy trial in France, 12 boys were successfully treated for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency, commonly known as Bubble Boy syndrome, but at least three of them developed leukemia.
One delivery method -- flushing the bloodstream with the desired gene -- is simple enough, says Sweeney, that it could be achieved by a clever undergrad in a molecular biology lab. The method is not very efficient and hasn't been thoroughly tested, but it hints at the possibilities for the spread of gene tampering in sports. Despite the unknowns and the dangers, chances are good that someone at the Beijing Olympics in August, someone willing to weigh his or her mortality in gold, will have undergone gene transfer in an attempt to enhance performance. "Even when I tell them it's not safe," Sweeney says, "some athletes are willing to try anything."
The signs are ominous. In January 2006, during German track coach Thomas Springstein's trial on charges of providing performance-enhancing drugs to minors, evidence emerged indicating that Springstein had attempted to procure Repoxygen, a gene-therapy drug developed to treat anemia by prompting cells to produce EPO and, in turn, red blood cells. (He was found guilty of giving illegal substance to minors and received a 16-month suspended sentence.) In addition, Mauro Di Pasquale, the 1976 world powerlifting champion and an Ontario physician who has written several books on sports doping, says he knows that athletes are experimenting with gene doping, with the help of Chinese doctors and researchers.
Human data relating to myostatin has been hard to come by. Soon after his discovery, Lee attempted to identify potential test subjects with natural mutations in their myostatin genes. He placed an ad in Muscle and Fitness, and close to 1,000 muscle-bound men and women responded. But after collecting samples from 150 of them, he has yet to find a single one with the myostatin mutation he had engineered in his mice.
From his study of Belgian Blue cattle, Lee knew the mutation could occur naturally. A cross between the Shorthorn and the Holstein, which have been bred for some 150 years, these massive animals look as if their skin has been stuffed with watermelons. Lee got in touch with Dee Garrels, owner of the Lakeview Belgian Blue Ranch in Stockton, Mo., who sent him samples for testing. Garrels knew Belgian Blues were strong -- her 2,500-pound bull once ripped a metal restraining gate off its hinges with its horns to get at a cow in heat -- and Lee found out why. He discovered that they had mutations in their myostatin genes.
Lee didn't see the power of a human myostatin mutation until Markus Schuelke contacted him in 2003. A pediatric neurologist in Berlin, Schuelke had been summoned three years earlier to examine a jittery baby in the nursery at Charité hospital in Berlin, where he was taken aback by the newborn's chiseled calves and sculpted quads. By the age of four the boy could hold up a pair of 6.6-pound dumbbells at arm's length. Schuelke had been monitoring the boy's development, and he got in touch with Lee, who confirmed the boy had mutations on both myostatin-coding genes, leaving no detectable amount of the protein in his body.

Apparently it ran in the family. The boy's mother, who was 24 when she gave birth to the "superbaby," had a mutation on one of her two myostatin genes, presumably leaving her less of the protein than normal but not so little that she was as muscle-bound as her son. Nevertheless, she is a testament to the tantalizing temptation of gene-doping. Superbaby's mother, the only adult in the world with a documented myostatin mutation, was a professional sprinter.
The world anti-doping agency has banned gene tampering in athletes and spent millions attempting to develop tests to identify it. Such a procedure will require technology unlike any employed by antidoping scientists. The theory, according to Ted Friedmann, the scientist leading WADA's search for gene-doping countermeasures, is to fight genes with genes. If one medical breakthrough is revolutionizing doping, perhaps another can beat it back.
Thanks to the Human Genome Project, someday all of us could carry our entire genetic blueprint on a microchip, which we'd present to doctors during medical treatment. As that technology matures, Friedmann hopes athletes' genomes can be screened, and that gene-doping markers or signatures will emerge.
As pharmaceutical companies race to turn genetic research into medicine, new gene-therapy drugs could come to market en masse over the coming years. In practical terms it will be impossible to develop specific tests for each of them. "We can keep buying instruments and keep building labs," says pharmacologist Don Catlin, founder of the UCLA Olympic Laboratory, "but [the antidoping] industry isn't like Exxon. There are certain limits."
Perhaps a time will come when there is no longer a need to define those limits -- not because of new artillery in the war on doping but because gene therapy will have become so widespread that it will be as controversial as Flintstone chewables. So far Sweeney has aided antidoping officials. "But I've often told WADA my position would change if [gene therapy] is proven to be safe," he says. "Then we're withholding something that would make the athletes healthier."
That would, in turn, raise a new series of questions: What is it we seek to gain from sport? Do we want to see larger-than-life behemoths swatting 600-foot home runs? Or do we prefer to see people more like us pressing the limits of their strength and skill? After all, with their doctors and coaches and cutting-edge equipment, professional athletes, doped or not, are hardly us.
The gravest danger in the debate over gene transfer is not that athletes might taint sport by tampering with their genes. It's that by abusing such treatment, they'll create the same stigma for gene therapy that they have for steroids.
Pat Furlong has felt the effects of that stigma. She is the head of Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy. Her two sons began life happy and healthy, "and then over 10 to 15 years, you watch them go away, helpless," she says. Part of her job is to persuade parents of kids with muscular dystrophy and their doctors that anabolic steroids are beneficial. "I get calls from parents nervous about steroids because of what they've heard," she says. "But the flip side is that steroids have benefits in people who are losing function. In Duchenne muscular dystrophy, it's all we have.
"We know there's no drug that will come without side effects, but steroids are an option to preserve and protect muscle for a few minutes longer, or a few months longer, or a few more years." The local newscasts, and Congress, rarely mention the part about how they can help kids with MD walk longer, which keeps their spines straighter and helps them breathe better.
As he stands at the edge, looking over the gene-doping precipice, Se-Jin Lee has similar concerns. The hysteria that will ensue when an athlete is caught gene-doping, Lee frets, will result in restrictions on gene-therapy drugs, making them hard to obtain by those who truly need them.
"If [an athlete] did cheat, it was his choice," Lee says. "If [the league] turned its back and allowed that to happen, it was their choice. Patients with debilitating diseases did not get there by choice."

27 comments:

  1. Creating humans that are genetically engineered to be "super humans" sounds ethically wrong. I don't understand what the purpose of that would be. Helping people with genetic mutations is different from creating muscular people. We have so far evolved and adapted well enough to our environment so, bulking people up for sports is pointless. By inactivating myostatin it can cause muscles to take up a lot of body mass and energy.
    I think it would be fair to introduce the blockage of myostatin to people with muscular dystrophy and other similar illnesses.
    I would not eat the meat from that cow even if it's muscles are natural.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liz, why you so SMART :]

      Delete
    2. P.s Sorry for the missing question mark

      Delete
    3. You forgot the period mark on the other one too.

      Delete
    4. You forgot the OF between because and chemistry. :P

      Delete
    5. Liz, your so puny. Your jokes are of the hook. LOL

      Delete
    6. http://media.tumblr.com/55d290b844383365a82e606a68c75df9/tumblr_inline_mjl0lqbOff1qclt3z.gif

      *eye twitches*

      Delete
    7. 0_________________0"

      Delete
  2. If everyone were able to use this, I mean every single person, then I'd be all for the genetical engineering. Why not test to see the limits that science can take us? But since this most likely will not be offered to everyone, I don't think it should be used, especially by athletes. I would not go anywhere the meat from Big Blue. That's just freaky.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't think that genetic engineering should be done to anything unless special circumstances are met. To do this just to be better than other people (which is why athletes would use this) is no reason. Something like a birth defect or an accident of some sort would be a good reason to do this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is not okay to to genetically engineer for certain traits. We are all different individuals in this earth. Some of us will acquire specific traits that others will not. It is just a matter of fate. Anything that changes who we naturally are just enhances us and changes who we are meant to be. Also, it is not safe for everyone and can be fatal, as mentioned in the article above. Better safe than sorry in this case.
    He looks like a mushy, slightly burnt marshmallow. I would not eat the meat. Yuck. :(

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think it would be right to enhance people just to improve their performance. However, if they are born with this extra gene then they should be able to compete in normal activities like everyone else. We are all born equal, well almost all, and that is how it should stay and the natural talent of the person should shine through, not and enhanced one. Natural talent will always be better then enhanced. That cow looks like it is about to explode and i wouldn't eat it even though steak is my favorite food.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I dont think people should use genetic enhances to improve their performance, unless they need it as a way to live each day. For example if someone needs a shot of something similar that will bulk them uop because they are anorexic or they have a birth defect, then it would be okay. But, if it is only used to improve someone just to be the best at say a sport, then to me it is exploiting the medicine and not using it for other things more beneficial. I would not eat engineered meat like Big Blue because it is too weird. Also if there were possible mutations that could detrimentally alter our genes, then we would all be exposed to this possible epidemic. So no I wouldn't eat Big Blue because I also don't like steak. It's too much meat for me and if a normal cow is too much then I would most definitely not eat the genetically enhanced cow.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well is not this awkward. I cannot even imagine someone birthing out a child and assuming they will be the next superman on command.
    I do not think it is ethical to genetically engineer humans to have desirable traits, because it is not fair to those who have legitly worked hard all their life to then be beaten out by a scientific creation. We are born in our own unique way and to genetically create certain desirable "humans" is like building a robot. This world will be filled with robots and technology.
    The traits I think that is acceptable are those that can cure or help illnesses. Mainly the whole idea is ridiculous to me. It is great that we are rapidly advancing in technology, but everything is becoming unnatural. This upsets me!
    Lastly, that cow looks like a cow in a cow in a cow in a cow. At least vegetables & fruits are healthy for me. That monstrous cow will give me a heart attack. I want to poke it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Before answering any of the questions, I'd like to say that this idea of "creating" a superhuman seems cool, but only because it reminds me of Batman and Spiderman. Anyways, going back to the issue at stake, I personally believe that it is ethically wrong to use genetic enhancements to improve people's performance. If we want to be better and stronger, we should work hard and do it normally, without the necessity to generically engineering some of their traits. The only way that this would be acceptable to use would be in a situation where they would help cure people from illnesses or if it is a matter of live or death. I think that the cow picture above looks nasty and I would definitely not eat it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I do not think it is right to engineer humans to have certain traits. If they would like to be stronger, they need to work on it themselves. The only time I feel it would be right to use the traits to treat illnesses or help someone get stronger after an accident (like a car crash), but they would only get enough to get them going again. I would never eat the cow. It looks really gross.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I do not think that genetic engineering should be allowed. I imagine a human who has genetic engineering will look like The Hulk and I would not want to get him angry. Athletes should not be able to use it. I mean, really? Steroids are bad enough and now we'll have someone who looks like a freaking balloon playing basketball or football. I think their uniform would have to be a size XXXXXXL or something like that. Lastly, that cow... It looks like it could beat me up without breaking a sweat.

    ReplyDelete
  11. People are born with limits and it should stay like that, But thats no way to advance as humans. Unlike the class i kinda support the idea. Every generation is getting better at sports, and knowledge. To me it would be okay to genetically at birth to enhance a person. So that if he is already born with great endurance to have even better endurance. If you are born with less then enhance him to a normal level and if you have down syndrome genetically change it so he's normal. Set standards. If you are grown and at your limit it would be wrong to genetically cheat though. If we don't allow ourselves to advance then we won't be able to live longer. We won't have stronger hearts, we won't have thicker/thinner skin to adapt to weather. I am still kinda on the fence about the idea though. Because there will be people who will cheat the system and create a human something completely different. Oh and changing our looks is a no go, I don't want to see a million good looking people. No one knows how the future of humans will be like anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh if the cow taste good and doesn't get me sick, ill eat it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I believe genetic engineering would ruin sports. Peoples fascination with sports is based on the extraordinary talent of natural human beings. Making someone into an athlete will destroy others interest in the sport. There are athletes who get th MVP in their respective sport and they worked for it they weren't designed to get it. Plus, i wouldn't touch a cow that looks like it could go ten rounds with a grizzly bear and win.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This article was rather interesting to read to say the least. Personally, I do not believe that it is ethical to genetically engineer humans to have certain desirable traits. It is basically the equivalent of somebody taking steroids, except this would be considered "genetic". People can just not be lazy and actually work for how they want to look and perform. Maybe if they are extremely ill, like in a life or death situation, it would be acceptable, but that is the only way. I could never possibly eat a piece of meat that came from a genetically engineered animal like that cow. That is so disgusting, just glancing at the picture above of Big Blue makes me want to vomit.

    ReplyDelete
  15. After reading this article I would say its definitely not ethically right to modify these genes. Even though these more "natural" than steroid I still feel like this gives a unfair advantage. If someone wasn't born with the ability to be super strong shouldn't be modify so that they can be. Especially just so that they can play a sport or for any shallow reason. We should be focused on more important things like how to saves lives from cancer. If I knew what I was eating something that looked like Big Blue I would not eat it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kasey does not believe that genetic engineering people to have certain genes or "superhuman" properties is ethical. The people would have the super strength and all but it would be unfair to other if they play sports or compete in contests or tournaments, but that also would not be entirely "fair" either because that person did not choose to be like that. If the person that naturally has that gene is different though if it is natural than it is okay. Kasey would however eat the meat from big blue if offered as long as it tastes okay.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Personally, I think engineering "super" humans or improving athletic performance from deactivating their myostatin or other gene altering processes is pointless. Whether it's ethical or not, which I think if it benefits people's health & well being than it should be okay & opinions of what is ethical or not depends on the individual, is not the point; the question is will this benefit humanity as a whole. What benefits that affect the greater good arise from creating a new genetically altered race or improving one's athletic ability? People can and will probably abuse this discovery for their own personal gain. A discovery like this should not be available to the public where people can have easy access to gene altering substances. Athletes should test and push their limits rather than depend on altering their genes to have certain desirable traits like the ability to easily build muscles. However, individuals that are born with conditions that increase their muscle growth should be able to compete fairly since they are not being bred or altered to have these traits.
    On the other hand, research in this field can lead to further discoveries that can help individuals with muscle or other disorders. Already, individuals with muscle dystrophy can find hope in this so one day their conditon can be cured. Using the discovery to benefit society and individuals is how it should be & not for entertainment purposes like sports.
    It's just my view on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and no I would probably not eat meat that was genetically altered, like Big Blue... unless I didn't know. I mean meat is meat. If it doesn't affect your body in a harmful way than it shouldn't matter. It all depends on personal preference I guess.

      Delete