--------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the
Techno-Eugenics Email List Newsletter
Number 7
April 16, 2000
Supporting genetic science in the public interest
Opposing the new techno-eugenics
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Issue Number 7 of the Techno-Eugenics Email List
newsletter, as far as we know the only on-line newsletter
focused on the politics of the new human genetic and
reproductive technologies. If you're receiving this news-
letter for the first time, please see the instructions for
subscribing and submitting items at the end of this message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"[W]e can easily imagine an arms race developing
over GNR [genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics]
technologies, as it did with the NBC [nuclear,
chemical, and biological] technologies in the 20th
century....This time...we aren't in a war...we are
driven, instead, by our habits, our desires, our
economic system, and our competitive need to know."
-- Bill Joy, Chief Scientist and co-founder, Sun
Microsystems, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us,"
Wired, April 2000 (see below)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
I. RECENT EVENTS
1. Computer scientist Bill Joy warns of dangers posed
by
genetic engineering, nanotechnolgoy, and robotics
2. Conference on "Extended Life / Eternal Life"
3. Biodevastation 2000 addresses human genetic technologies
II. NEWS AND POINTERS REGARDING TECHNO-EUGENICS
1. New book by Gregory Stock and John Campbell promotes
human germline engineering
2. Council for Responsible Genetics issues "Genetic
Bill of
Rights"
3. More media attention to advocates of techno-eugenics
III. MORE LINKS TO NEWS ABOUT HUMAN GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES
1. Japan may make human cloning a crime
2. Jeremy Rifkin's comments on proposed moratorium on
somatic gene therapy trials using viral vectors
3. Scandal over Iceland's plan for a private gene database
4. EU challenges patent on human cloning
5. Atlantic Monthly article on corporate-university ties
6. Critique of the "basketball gene"
IV. NOTICES AND REQUEST FROM THE EDITORS
1. Summer course on human genetics offered at UC Berkeley
2. Correction to TEEL #5
V. ABOUT THE TECHNO-EUGENICS EMAIL LIST NEWSLETTER
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I. RECENT EVENTS
1. Computer scientist Bill Joy warns of dangers posed by
genetic engineering, nanotechnolgoy, and robotics
A widely noted essay by Bill Joy in Wired magazine (April 2000)
raises pressing political and ethical questions about developments
in genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics. In "Why
the
future doesn't need us," Joy warns that "enormous computing
power...
combined with the manipulative advances of the physical sciences
and the new, deep understandings in genetics...open up the
opportunity to completely redesign the world, for better or worse."
(See <www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html>.)
Joy is co-founder and Chief Scientist of Sun Microsystems,
and a
well-known figure in the world of computing. Writing about human
genetic technologies, he notes that "If...we were to reengineer
ourselves into several separate and unequal species using the
power of genetic engineering, then we would threaten the notion
of equality that is the very cornerstone of our democracy."
The main focus of Joy's concern about genetic technology, however,
is the possibility of a genetically engineered "White Plague,"
released either "militarily, accidentally, or in a deliberate
terrorist act."
Joy's prediction that the emerging technologies are likely
to profoundly alter humanity, society, and even life on earth
is widely shared among those working in computer and genetic
engineering fields. His concerns, however, are far from
universal. At a forum titled "Will Spiritual Robots Replace
Humanity by 2100?," held on April 1 at Stanford University,
an
overflow audience respectfully applauded Joy's remarks. But the
crowd seemed at least equally enthusiastic about the far more
sanguine views of Ray Kurzweil, author of The Age of Spiritual
Machines, and Hans Moravec, often described as a "robotics
guru."
Very much like the advocates of human germline manipulation,
Kurzweil and Moravec celebrate the far-reaching changes that genetic
engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics will bring. They argue
that restrictions on these fast-developing technologies, or choices
among them, are not feasible. Moravec was quoted in a Wired news
article saying, "We will turn into robots. It's both inevitable
and
desireable." (See <www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,35424,00.html>.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Conference on "Extended Life / Eternal Life"
A conference titled "Extended Life / Eternal Life,"
held in March
at the University of Pennsylvania, brought together scientists,
ethicists, and theologians to discuss technical advances that
might
lead to significant increases in human longevity.
The conference was co-sponsored by Penn's Center for Bioethics
and
the John Templeton Foundation, which has supported advocates of
human
germline engineering, as well as programs to educate theologians
on
the benefits of free markets.
A two-part report on the conference in Reason magazine by Ronald
Bailey viciously savages those speakers--including Leon Kass,
Daniel
Callahan, Eleonore Stump, and Audrey Chapman--who voiced skepticism
about "the conquest of death." Bailey, who has authored
numerous
attacks on environmentalism, summarizes the skeptics' concerns--
including questions about eugenics and about equity in the
allocation of medical resources--as "the usual tired litany."
Bailey writes: "It never occurs to the would-be ethicists
to
wonder...that the same greedy capitalism they so disdain is the
only known way of vastly improving the lives of tens of millions
of their fellow human beings."
Bailey appreciatively quotes Gregory Stock, who told the conference
that "extending lifespan is the least of your worries...genetic
enhancement is really what large numbers of people want."
But
Stock also tried to be reassuring, saying, "We are not moving
toward
a cataclysmic reckoning...Instead I offer you the image of birth.
Like birth this period is messy, bloody, and traumatic, but it
is
the beginning of a new era. Future humans will look back on this
period as the time when the very bases of their lives were laid
down and thank us."
Bailey's report is available at <www.reason.com/opeds/030600.html>
and <www.reason.com/opeds/030700.html>. An article of similar
tone
and substance, by Reason editor-at-large Virginia Postrel, appeared
in the April 17, 2000 issue of Forbes. Postrel's article is posted
at <www.reason.com/opeds/forbes/041700.html>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Biodevastation 2000 addresses human genetic technologies
As anticipated by its organizers, Biodevastation 2000 turned
out to
be the largest gathering to date in the U.S. of activists opposed
to
genetically modified foods. Held in Boston March 24-26 to coincide
with the annual meeting of the Biotechnology Industry Organization
(BIO), Biodev 2000 drew about a thousand registrants for dozens
of
workshops and panels. About 4000 participated in a March 26 rally
near the BIO convention site.
The Biodev 2000 conference included several sessions on the
threats
posed by human genetic manipulation. Speakers on the "Human
Genetics"
panel were Alix Fano (Campaign for Responsible Transplantation,
<www.crt-online.org>), Ruth Hubbard (Harvard University
and Council
for Responsible Genetics, <www.gene-watch.org>), Gregor
Wolbring
(University of Calgary and disability rights activist), and Marcy
Darnovsky, co-editor of this newsletter.
Media interest in human genetic issues was piqued by BIO spokes-
people's repeated use of promises of medical advances to defend
biotechnology in general. Massachusetts Biotechnology Council
executive director Janice Bourque, for example, claimed in a
front-page Boston Globe article that "biotechnology works
today"
for "cures for patients who suffer from diseases" (Peter
J. Howe,
"Biotech leaders, foes come to town," March 26, 2000,
page A1).
While much of the local press coverage downplayed substantive
issues to focus on what city and police officials claimed was
a
potential for a "Seattle repeat," there were partial
exceptions.
A Boston Globe sidebar titled "Biotech debate: Promise and
controversy" included the questions "Will only the rich
get
access to promising, expensive therapies?" and "Will
[the Human
Genome Project] lead to pressure to create `designer babies' in
laboratories through genetic manipulation or abortions of
`imperfect' fetuses?" (Peter Howe, March 26, 2000, page A18).
Biodev 2000 was organized by Northeast Resistance Against Genetic
Engineering (NERAGE) and co-sponsored by almost 30 regional and
national organizations. In a summary statement after the event,
organizers wrote, "We have shown the world that we will not
allow
corporations and state governments to turn the world into a
laboratory for the development of a brave new world of capitalist
control. We have made our voices heard: humanity and nature are
not for sale, not for profit, and not for capital-driven
experimentation."
For more information, see <http://boston.indy-media.org>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
II. NEWS AND POINTERS REGARDING TECHNO-EUGENICS
1. New book by Gregory Stock and John Campbell promotes human
germline engineering
(Gregory Stock and John Campbell, eds. Engineering the Human
Germline: An Exploration of the Science and Ethics of Altering
the Genes We Pass to Our Children (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2000. 169 pages, $29.95.)
Stock and Campbell are the organizers of the 1998 UCLA Symposium
that kicked off the current campaign in support of human germline
engineering. This new book is the latest move in that campaign.
The editors acknowledge that the topic of germline engineering
is
"fraught with controversy" and needs to be "carefully
examined"
through "widespread public debate." But these rhetorical
devices
hardly disguise their intent, which is to argue in favor of germline
engineering.
The first section contains essays by germline engineering advocates
Leroy Hood, Daniel Koshland Jr., Mario Capecchi, W. French Anderson,
Michael Rose, and Lee Silver. The second section includes transcripts
of the 1998 UCLA conference. The third section presents statements
by 17 other scientists and scholars, including opponents of germline
engineering such as Paul Billings, Ruth Hubbard, and Sheldon Krimsky.
Of the 136 pages of relevant text, 121 (89%) are by authors who
advocate germline engineering; only about 15 pages (11%) are by
opponents.
This book provides an excellent account of the arguments that
proponents of germline engineering believe will ultimately prevail.
Opponents of germline engineering need to become familiar with
them
if we are to counter and overcome them.
A report on the 1998 UCLA "Engineering the Human Germline"
conference
can be found at <www.ess.ucla.edu:80/huge>. Stock and Campbell
also
have a new website, <http://research.mednet.ucla.edu/pmts/germline>.
Selected Quotes:
Daniel Koshland: "I can't see any possible reason for
not allowing
enhancement therapy. We are facing monumental problems with the
population explosion, environmental pollution, the shortage of
fossil fuels, and the serious lack of leadership....Should we
turn
our back on new methodologies that might bring us smarter people
and better leaders?...If we could help the common man have children
who could more easily get jobs and do better in a computer society,
should we say No?" (page 29)
Gregory Pence: "Some day soon, when the opportunities
arise, we will
see the wisdom of allowing parents maximal choice about their
future
children....I personally would feel *obligated* to give my future
children such benefits....Others might disagree and choose not
to
do so for their children--a decision I would respect. What I
fail
to understand is how other people--or the federal government--could
think it just to prevent me from benefiting my future children
in
this way." (page 113)
Lloyd Cohen: "[T]he presumed immorality of genetic manipulation
remains largely a mystery to me....[Some are concerned that parents]
will provide their own offspring an advantage that others with
fewer
financial resources will not have available. To those morbidly
concerned with absolute equality of result, this may seem a
substantial problem. It does not seem so to me." (page 143)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Council for Responsible Genetics issues "Genetic Bill of Rights"
The Cambridge-based Council for Responsible Genetics has just
released a ten-point Genetic Bill of Rights that addresses concerns
including biodiversity, life patents, genetically engineered food,
biopiracy, eugenics, genetic privacy and discrimination, and human
germline manipulation.
Point 6 reads, "All people have the right to protection
against
eugenic measures such as forced sterilization or mandatory screening
aimed at aborting or manipulating selected embryos or fetuses."
Point 10: "All people have the right to have been conceived,
gestated,
and born without genetic manipulation."
For the complete Genetic Bill of Rights, see <www.gene-watch.org>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. More media attention to advocates of techno-eugenics
The central figures in the push for a techno-eugenic future
continue
to receive favorable treatment in the mainstream media. Here's
a
sampling:
o In a special issue of Time magazine, "Beyond 2000"
(November 8,
1999), Lee Silver adopts a whimsical tone to fantasize a marketing
campaign for germline engineering by the "St. Genevieve"
fertility
clinic in the year 2025 (pages 68-69). The advertising pitch
that
Silver imagines is called "Organic Enhancement" because
"the DNA
molecules added to embryos are totally organic" and "all-natural."
Silver even writes the text for the clinic-of-the-near-future's
web
page: "[K]eep in mind, you must act before you get pregnant.
Don't
be sorry after she's born. This really is a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity for your child-to-be."
o Among the many other turn-of-the-millenium articles on the
future
of human genetic technology was one called "A Small Leap
to Designer
Babies" by Sheryl Gay Stolberg (New York Times, January 1,
2000,
page 7). Stolberg includes short quotes from critics of human
germline engineering Ruth Hubbard and Paul Billings, but gives
far
more space to Gregory Stock, Lee Silver, and W. French Anderson.
o In March, an Associated Press article by Daniel Q. Haney
appeared
in newspapers across the country. The CNN Interactive version
was
titled "Scientists Predict Another Hard Choice for Parents:
Their
Babies' Genes" (March 6, 2000); the Baltimore Sun called
it "`Designer
Babies' Just Genes Away" (March 15, 2000). The article extensively
quotes Gregory Stock, Lee Silver, and John Campbell; it presents
as
critics of human germline manipulation only Thomas Friedmann and
Huntington Willard, both of whom are actually active advocates.
Willard and Friedmann are quoted saying that it will take longer
to perfect designer-baby technology than Stock, Silver, and Campbell
believe.
o A New York Times op-ed piece by Lee Silver (March 16, 2000)
argues
that there's nothing wrong with private ownership of the human
genome.
"In truth, no geneticist can deny that the secrets of the
human genome
will serve mankind [sic] most fully through the profit-motivated
efforts of pharmaceutical and biotech companies," Silver
writes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
III. MORE LINKS TO NEWS ABOUT HUMAN GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES
1. Japan may make human cloning a crime
Legislation that would criminalize human reproductive cloning
and
the creation of human-animal chimeras has been drafted by a Japanese
government agency. According to unidentified sources cited in
Japanese media, offenders could go to prison for 3 to 7 years.
See <www.mainichi.co.jp/english/news/archive/200003/08/news05.html>
and
<www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3971457,00.html>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Jeremy Rifkin's comments on proposed moratorium on somatic
gene
therapy trials using viral vectors
The death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger last fall in a gene
therapy
trial led to revelations of hundreds of adverse effects in other
trials that had not been reported to the proper U.S. government
agency.
Some trials have been shut down, and Congressional hearings have
been
held.
For Rifkin's remarks, see <www.biotechcentury.org/breaking.html>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Scandal over Iceland's plan for a private gene database
In 1998, the Icelandic parliament approved a controversial
project
to create a genetic database on the country's population. In
January
of this year, it granted the biotech company deCODE an exclusive
license to the database for 12 years. Now Icelanders are up in
arms
because of new accusations that deCODE gave large donations to
Iceland's
political parties while the bill granting deCODE exclusive rights
to
the database was being considered.
See <www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35024,00.html>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. EU challenges patent on human cloning
In February, Greenpeace discovered and publicized that the
European
Patent Office had granted a patent that included human reproductive
cloning. The Patent Office immediately admitted a "mistake"
and
asked that a third party file a notice of opposition, which would
allow it to revoke the patent. Greenpeace, hundreds of individuals
and organizations, and the German government did so. On March
30,
the European Parliament voted 285 to 133 to oppose the illegal
patent,
and called for better control of the Patent Office.
See <www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/highlights/pat/00_02_24.htm>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Atlantic Monthly article on corporate-university ties
An excellent article about the increasing commercial entanglements
between universities and corporations is "The Kept University,"
by
Eyal Press and Jennifer Washburn, The Atlantic Monthly, March
2000.
See <www.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/o/issues/2000/03/press.htm>.
For a response to the article by UC president Richard C. Atkinson,
see <www.ucop.edu/ucophome/pres/comments/industry.html>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Critique of the "basketball gene"
"A Feckless Quest for the Basketball Gene" is the
title of an op-ed
piece by UC Berkeley biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks
in the
April 8, 2000 New York Times. Marks critiques the genetic reductionism
exemplified by a new book called "Taboo: Why Black Athletes
Dominate
Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It" by Jon Entine.
See <www.nytimes.com/00/04/08/oped/08mark.html>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. NOTICES AND REQUEST FROM THE EDITORS
1. Summer course on human genetics offered at UC Berkeley
The Integrative Biology Department at the University of California
at
Berkeley offers a summer course that provides an excellent introduction
to and overview of the science and technology of human genetics.
The
class meets Mondays through Thursdays, 9:30-11 am, June 19 to
August 11.
See <http://summer.berkeley.edu/summer2000/dept_integbi.html>.
If you know of similar classes in your area, or can recommend
on-line
courses or other resources for learning about human genetic technologies,
send us the information and we'll publish it in upcoming issues
of this
newsletter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Correction to TEEL #5
TEEL #5 summarized an article by Ann Ashburner (COMTEX Newswire)
about a speech given to the Royal Society by fertility specialist
Lord Robert Winston. According to the COMTEX article, Winston
stated that "genetically modified babies are inevitable."
An attendee at that Royal Society lecture has informed us that
the
quote attributed to Winston is inaccurate. According to our informant,
the misquote is a "prime example of how the media like this
story of
inevitability." In fact, Winston was "slippery, and
insisted that we
should keep the subject open, but he thinks that germline engineering
is probably a bad idea."
We regret the error.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
V. ABOUT THE TECHNO-EUGENICS EMAIL LIST NEWSLETTER
This newsletter stems from the work of academics, activists,
and
others in the San Francisco Bay Area who are concerned about the
direction of the new human genetic technologies.
We support technologies that serve the public interest. We
oppose
those--including human germline engineering and human cloning--that
foster inequality, discrimination, objectification, and the
commodification of human genes and tissues.
This newsletter is intended to alert and inform concerned individuals
about the new technologies and the techno-eugenic vision. For
at
least the next several months, the newsletter will be irregular
(a couple times a month), informal, and non-automated. We'd welcome
feedback, and suggestions about focus and format. A web site
will
be coming soon.
Marcy Darnovsky will moderate. Send submissions to her via
the email
address below.
Unless we hear from you, we'll keep you on this list. Please
let us
know if you don't want to receive the newsletter---we won't feel
rejected! On the other hand, feel free to forward it to others
who
may be interested, and encourage them to subscribe by reply to
Marcy.
If you're a new subscriber, let us know if you'd like to receive
back issues.
Marcy Darnovsky, Ph.D. Richard Hayes, M.A.
teel@adax.com rhayes@publicmediacenter.org