Genetic Defects and New Colonies

Dr. Omni,

Comments below.
From: Dr. Omni
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies

From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
To:
Sent: Sbado, 23 de Dezembro de 2000 19:15
Subject: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies

All,

All,

Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on space
colonies?

If youre talking about birth control, yes. If youre talking about
eugenics, no.

I would presume that visitors and new members would have to pass through
quarantine to assure freedom from contagious diseases such as TB, so what
about genetic disorders?

A colony may be the root of many thousands of generations and much suffering
and premature death may be prevented if simple steps are taken at the
on-set. This is especially critical if the colony is heading for a distant
star system. If we know how to prevent the passage of defective genes on to
offspring, are we not obligated to do so?

So, youre talking about eugenics and here we go to deep and smelly ethical
swamps with references to Nazism. I dont want to walk in this unsteady
ground, however, and therefore Ill focus on the biological and cultural
side of the question.

It is kind of difficult to determine what is a "defect" and what is not in
Biology. Many genes that at first where diagnosed as purely deleterious
later where recognized as having some positive effect in the population;
sickle-cell anemia is the classical example.

Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is naturally personal and relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For the purpose of this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that results in the manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the subject, and may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the subject.

Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of genetic defects:
1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by age 45. If both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
2) Downs syndrome,
3) Lou Geregs disease.
4) Suseptability to cancers.

Also, in the cultural arena, sometimes some characteristic is considered a
defect, and other times those same characteristics doesnt matter or are
even considered desirable. An example is left-handed people: in other times,
they were considered "defective" and even malignant. (In Portuguese, the
word for left-handed, "canhoto", has a root that means "demon". A
medievalism that still survives in our language.) Nowadays, theyre
considered just one of two possibilities equally acceptable.

Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able to make a rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and I understand that this will vary over time and space. We should not presume to make that decision for others now.

Due to those cultural and biological subtleties, I would prefer the
population in an habitat to be genetically as diverse as possible. In fact,
my point of view is that such a diversity would be *specially* desirable for
an interstellar travel, since that might prevent problems associated with
endogamy in the long run.

Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean be "diverse". Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring to personality types such a: natural football players, natural soldiers, professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads, intellectuals, laggards, attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs, criminality, psychopaths, etc?
If debating, I would suggest that there may be some personality traits that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony, and that carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color would not be one of these traits since I view all humans as being members of the same race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, right?

(But maybe my arguments are a bit biased. I live in a country with *extreme*
human genetic diversity, and I would like to live in a space habitat just
like that.)

Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space colony, at least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may require high skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be rare IMO. I suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil colony, but in a more compact colony with solar powered air conditioning/recycling, working in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job available and even here not being able to tell the difference between a week and the shoot of a food plant would be no good.

In particular, should a colony continue to allow all comers to have as many
babies as they like, or should procreation be a privilege monitored by the
local society?

Some birth control is indispensable, since if you double your population you
have also to build a new habitat, and therefore any population increase
would have to be linked to the construction of new habitats. However, Im
against reproductive privileges given to some groups only. Again, this is
eugenics. Im in favor or limiting the number of children per couple to 2.2
or something like that.

Should drug addicts and alcoholics automatically loose parenting privileges?

No. First, although there maybe some genetic predisposition for some drugs,
I very much doubt that there is genetic predisposition for *all* drugs.
Second, the concept of "drug" is yet another thing that changes from time to
time and from culture to culture. At first, cocaine was a substance
perfectly integrated into the life of the indians; in the 19th century, its
use was kind of widespread in the Western world with no medical or law
restrictions; but nowadays it is seen as a horrible substance that must be
regulated at all cost. (In most countries. In the Netherlands, its use is
free, if I remember correctly, and probably there are other exceptions.) On
the other hand, substances that beyond all doubt are very hazardous to human
health, like alcohol and tobacco, are not regulated, or are much less
regulated.

Tom - The consumption of alcohol while pregnant should be illegal IMO and the tax on smoking should be sufficiently high to pay for the extra air-conditioning as well as the increased medical costs likely to result.

You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected babies that are sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in post-birth care since they are often born under-weight and premature. Studies show that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for these souls to be born to a drug-free family?

What about carriers of significant genetic disorders? Should the fertilized
embryos be "fixed", if possible, or what?

Should eggs and sperm be fertilized in a lab where the zygotes can be
examined for genetic defects, perhaps treated, before implantation? (For the
sake of discussion, lets assume that this is easily possible, OK?)

Well, now youre coming to the scenario that I think is more likely. In a
few years, or decades at most, I think, many parents will have the resources
and the will to produce engineered babies free of "defects" and blessed with
all "virtues" (depending on what is considered "defect" and what is "virtue"
in their societies/times). Of course, careful genetic manipulation and
assisted human reproduction are not (and probably will not be) the cheapest
things of the world, and just rich/middle class people will have access to
this. There are people concerned right know that this will lead to a upper
cast of rich genetically engineered bermenschen and a great poor mass of
just "normal" people. (This scenario is brilliantly shown in the movie
"Gattaca", for example; and was also seen, in some extent, in " The Time
Machine", by H.G. Wells.)

Tom - It would be good if we could come to a middle ground in this sensitive area.
What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning and what if many thousands of clones were available to choose from? Perhaps each zygot that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred times and the balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or perhaps for donation to the public?
What if medical insurance was universally available and that implantation of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents could choose from a picture book of what their children would look like based upon past births of the " series".

At minimal cost, parents would have the opportunity to trade their right to pass on their own set of genes with defects in exchange for a set of known genes without defects. Candidates for this service would be families with known problems of breast cancer, diabetes, etc.

Regards,

Tom

Lucio

Comments below.
From:
Dr. Omni
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Saturday, December 23, 2000 10:40 PM
Subject:
Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)" <
tntucker@...

To: <
spacesettlers@egroups.com
>
Sent: Sbado, 23 de Dezembro de 2000 19:15
Subject: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
All,
All,
Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on space
colonies?
If youre talking about birth control, yes. If youre talking about
eugenics, no.
I would presume that visitors and new members would have to pass through
quarantine to assure freedom from contagious diseases such as TB, so what
about genetic disorders?
A colony may be the root of many thousands of generations and much suffering
and premature death may be prevented if simple steps are taken at the
on-set. This is especially critical if the colony is heading for a distant
star system. If we know how to prevent the passage of defective genes on to
offspring, are we not obligated to do so?
So, youre talking about eugenics and here we go to deep and smelly ethical
swamps with references to Nazism. I dont want to walk in this unsteady
ground, however, and therefore Ill focus on the biological and cultural
side of the question.
It is kind of difficult to determine what is a "defect" and what is not in
Biology. Many genes that at first where diagnosed as purely deleterious
later where recognized as having some positive effect in the population;
sickle-cell anemia is the classical example.
Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is naturally personal and relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For the purpose of this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that results in the manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the subject, and may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the subject.

Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of genetic defects:
1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by age 45. If both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
2) Downs syndrome,
3) Lou Geregs disease.
4) Suseptability to cancers.

Also, in the cultural arena, sometimes some characteristic is considered a
defect, and other times those same characteristics doesnt matter or are
even considered desirable. An example is left-handed people: in other times,
they were considered "defective" and even malignant. (In Portuguese, the
word for left-handed, "canhoto", has a root that means "demon". A
medievalism that still survives in our language.) Nowadays, theyre
considered just one of two possibilities equally acceptable.
Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able to make a rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and I understand that this will vary over time and space. We should not presume to make that decision for others now.
Due to those cultural and biological subtleties, I would prefer the
population in an habitat to be genetically as diverse as possible. In fact,
my point of view is that such a diversity would be *specially* desirable for
an interstellar travel, since that might prevent problems associated with
endogamy in the long run.

Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean be "diverse". Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring to personality types such a: natural football players, natural soldiers, professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads, intellectuals, laggards, attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs, criminality, psychopaths, etc?
If debating, I would suggest that there may be some personality traits that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony, and that carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color would not be one of these traits since I view all humans as being members of the same race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, right?

(But maybe my arguments are a bit biased. I live in a country with *extreme*
human genetic diversity, and I would like to live in a space habitat just
like that.)
Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space colony, at least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may require high skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be rare IMO. I suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil colony, but in a more compact colony with solar powered air conditioning/recycling, working in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job available and even here not being able to tell the difference between a week and the shoot of a food plant would be no good.
In particular, should a colony continue to allow all comers to have as many
babies as they like, or should procreation be a privilege monitored by the
local society?
Some birth control is indispensable, since if you double your population you
have also to build a new habitat, and therefore any population increase
would have to be linked to the construction of new habitats. However, Im
against reproductive privileges given to some groups only. Again, this is
eugenics. Im in favor or limiting the number of children per couple to 2.2
or something like that.
Should drug addicts and alcoholics automatically loose parenting privileges?
No. First, although there maybe some genetic predisposition for some drugs,
I very much doubt that there is genetic predisposition for *all* drugs.
Second, the concept of "drug" is yet another thing that changes from time to
time and from culture to culture. At first, cocaine was a substance
perfectly integrated into the life of the indians; in the 19th century, its
use was kind of widespread in the Western world with no medical or law
restrictions; but nowadays it is seen as a horrible substance that must be
regulated at all cost. (In most countries. In the Netherlands, its use is
free, if I remember correctly, and probably there are other exceptions.) On
the other hand, substances that beyond all doubt are very hazardous to human
health, like alcohol and tobacco, are not regulated, or are much less
regulated.
Tom - The consumption of alcohol while pregnant should be illegal IMO and the tax on smoking should be sufficiently high to pay for the extra air-conditioning as well as the increased medical costs likely to result.

You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected babies that are sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in post-birth care since they are often born under-weight and premature. Studies show that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for these souls to be born to a drug-free family?
What about carriers of significant genetic disorders? Should the fertilized
embryos be "fixed", if possible, or what?
Should eggs and sperm be fertilized in a lab where the zygotes can be
examined for genetic defects, perhaps treated, before implantation? (For the
sake of discussion, lets assume that this is easily possible, OK?)
Well, now youre coming to the scenario that I think is more likely. In a
few years, or decades at most, I think, many parents will have the resources
and the will to produce engineered babies free of "defects" and blessed with
all "virtues" (depending on what is considered "defect" and what is "virtue"
in their societies/times). Of course, careful genetic manipulation and
assisted human reproduction are not (and probably will not be) the cheapest
things of the world, and just rich/middle class people will have access to
this. There are people concerned right know that this will lead to a upper
cast of rich genetically engineered bermenschen and a great poor mass of
just "normal" people. (This scenario is brilliantly shown in the movie
"Gattaca", for example; and was also seen, in some extent, in " The Time
Machine", by H.G. Wells.)
Tom - It would be good if we could come to a middle ground in this sensitive area.
What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning and what if many thousands of clones were available to choose from? Perhaps each zygot that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred times and the balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or perhaps for donation to the public?
What if medical insurance was universally available and that implantation of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents could choose from a picture book of what their children would look like based upon past births of the " series".

At minimal cost, parents would have the opportunity to trade their right to pass on their own set of genes with defects in exchange for a set of known genes without defects. Candidates for this service would be families with known problems of breast cancer, diabetes, etc.
Regards,
Tom
Lucio