CRISPR

CRISPR is a relatively new term that describes new discoveries and new technology in the world of genetics. CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and refers to short repetitions of base pair sequences in bacterial genomes which naturally occur as part of bacterial genetic defence mechanisms against invading viruses. These CRISPR sequences are used by bacteria to store genetic memories of past viral invasions that might otherwise lead to the destruction of the bacterial cell. Next to a CRISPR sequence is a segment of DNA that represents part of a viral genome from a previous encounter with that virus. It is like the bacteria store a photo of all of the viruses that previously tried to kill them and then recognize that virus when it shows up again. Cas9 enzymes search through the cell for these potentially dangerous pieces of DNA and then make RNA copies that will guide the Cas9 enzyme to the dangerous viral DNA and cut it in two so that the virus is defeated. If a new virus shows up, Cas9 first makes a copy of the new viral genome and inserts it in between the CRISPR sequences so that it is ready for the next time this virus tries to invade.

This biological system within the cells of bacteria has been exploited and used by genetic scientists to create a tool that can be used to edit the genome of humans and other research subjects. So, you may also hear people refer to CRISPR technology as it is used for gene editing in medicine and research. Cas9 and other CRISPR enzymes recognize strings of DNA about 20 base-pairs in length and can therefore be engineered to be very specific and targeted. This has allowed researchers to load Cas9 with a specific sequence that can then target where they would like to cut out a piece of DNA, say to knock out a gene and determine what that gene does, knock out a rogue gene that is malfunctioning, or to cut out a defective gene and replace it with a properly functioning gene. Recently, scientists in China used this technology to engineer cells to potentially treat lung cancer. In this case, CRISPR technology was used on immune cells taken from the patients and a gene was disabled. The protein, PD-1, normally slows down or ends an immune response (something that is normally needed but exploited by cancer cells) and so researchers inactivated it so that the body might continue to mount an immune response against the cancer cells in the lungs. This represents the first time CRISPR technology has been used in such a way in human trials.

As one can readily see, this technology has vast implications and has the potential to solve many medical problems. CRISPR could repair the mutation that causes Cystic-Fibrosis in a family’s genetic makeup, or repair the gene that causes genetic forms of colon cancer such as Adenomatous Polyposis Coli (APC). It also brings with it the possibility of ethical challenges. It could be used to substitute the gene for blue eyes in place of the gene for brown eyes (or the opposite exchange); or it could be used to substitute a gene that codes for average height for a gene that codes for exceptional height (really handy if you are trying to build an Olympic basketball team). Taken to logical conclusions, CRISPR technology could be used to build a super-race of humans and even create genetic enhancements that cannot yet be imagined (think real life X-Men mutants). Scientists in China have already published data showing that they had successfully modified the DNA on nonviable human embryos. They could have just as easily been working on viable embryos.

In a future where diseases can be eradicated and enhancements can be made, what becomes of the average person with defects or no enhancements? Should we concern ourselves with this? A few years ago, the movie Gattaca attempted to engage audiences in questions related to such issues. Now, nearly 20 years later, genetic technology has advanced to nearly the point predicted in that movie. What will another 10 years of medical and technological advance look like in our world? How might we prepare now for the ethical questions yet to come?

For further explanation and discussion, read this article on the modification of DNA in nonviable human embryos.

Robotic Laws

Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.[1]

Conversations about driverless cars just got a little more difficult. Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" cannot help robotic cars in situations where they must choose between harm to passengers or harm to pedestrians. A recent article[2] in Science News includes the following graphic and explanation to illustrate the point.

J.-F.Bonnefon et al/Science 2016

"Driverless cars will occasionally face emergency situations. The car may have to determine whether to swerve into one passerby to avoid several pedestrians (left), swerve away from a pedestrian while harming its own passenger (middle), or swerve away from several pedestrians while harming its own passenger (right). Online surveys indicate most people want driverless cars that save passengers at all costs, even if passenger-sacrificing vehicles save more lives."

Of course one might argue that, on average, humans are no better at such moral dilemmas. Perhaps the issue is that with a robotic car we know exactly what we will get. Programming will determine the choices a driverless car will make in any given situation, whereas humans are much less predictable and the choices they make are dependent upon the degree of altruism resident in the individual driver. Many times, in a moral dilemma, we do not know how an individual human will respond. Will they choose to sacrifice themselves for the sake of strangers? Will they sacrifice themselves and their child for the strangers? What about the scenario in which their pet would be sacrificed for the sake of unknown pedestrians? We may do surveys and get a statistically accurate average on the answers to these questions but we know that there would be outliers and unique decisions made at the spur of the moment. With robotic programming, the driverless car does not make a choice, it simply follows the program with which it was built. This puts the onus on the manufacturer rather than a driver or a car or a robotic brain. In a litigious society, this may be the problem that slows the progress of driverless cars.

---

[1] In 1942, the science fiction author Isaac Asimov published a short story called "Runaround" in which he introduced three laws that governed the behaviour of robots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaround_(story)

[2] “Moral Dilemma Could Put Brakes on Driverless Cars,” Bruce Bower, June 23, 2016, Science News, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/moral-dilemma-could-put-brakes-driverless-cars

Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's

CBC news online featured a video of Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum, New York, presenting a new statue to the public. I am sure it is quite an honour to have a wax figure made in your likeness but it does bring to mind a number of questions. How do they decide who to immortalize? What do they do when they run out of room for current statues? Where do they put the ones they no longer want to display? How long does fame last at Madame Tussaud’s?

Of course, Steve Taylor, had the quintessential song that makes all of the questions irrelevant and causes us to consider concepts of fame, infamy, the fleeting nature of celebrity, and genuine significance. Read through the following lyrics and see if you can even recognize the names of 1984 celebrities. How many of these would still have significance in our current culture?

Meltdown at Madame Tussaud’s

(Words and music by Steve Taylor; 1984)

(Listen while you read)

Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
The queen is losing face
Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
A national disgrace

It's the middle of the night at the London shrine
Could have been the janitor, could have been divine
Someone said the thermostat never did work
Now we've got the temperature going berserk

Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
The queen is losing face
Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
A national disgrace

Celebrities, statesmen, history's elite
They're dripping in the hallways, they're starting to secrete
They're pouring out the pores, they're shrinking on the spot
Someone take a photograph--get 'em while they're hot

Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
The president looks alarmed
Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
A general's been disarmed

Feverish at Fleet Street--story of the year
"Get the Facts--House of Wax Photo Souvenir"
"Shameful" Says the Times, "Maybe Done By Vandals"
Panic on Wall Street--put your stock in candles

I thought I heard a ghost say
"Had my hands in my pockets on the Judgment Day
Nobody told me there's fire in the hole
Had the world by the tail but I lost my soul"

Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
A rock and roll hotel
Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
They're blending very well

Elvis and the Beatles have seen a better day Better off to burn out than to melt away
Dylan may be fillin' the puddle they designed
Is it gonna take a miracle to make up his mind?

Athletes on the floor; Meltdown, They're running out the door

Bad boy McEnroe couldn't keep his cool
Now he's with the rest of 'em, wading in the pool
"Howard Hughes--Billionaire" says the written guide
Pity that his assets have all been liquefied

"Celebrity status only got in the way
Had my hands in my pockets on the Judgment Day
You can't take it with you--there's fire in the hole
Had the world by the tail but I lost my soul"

Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
The queen is losing face
Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
A national disgrace

Down in the dungeon--the Chamber of Horrors
Look at all the criminals soften to the cores
They're mixing with the head of state floating down the lane
Good, bad, there they go down the same drain

Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
(It really is a pity you know)
Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
(A lot of bees gave their all for this)
Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's

Personal Autonomy and Society

[Thirty one years ago] I could make objective observations about my kids without parents getting offended. But now we handle parents a lot more delicately. We handle children a lot more delicately. They feel good about themselves for no reason. We've given them this cotton candy sense of self with no basis in reality. We don't emphasize what's best for the greater good of society or even the classroom.1

Up until the cultural revolution of the 1960s, the good of society trumped the good of the individual in the western world. A few examples will help to demonstrate this. In the United States, from 1940 to 1975, individuals could be drafted into military duty. Prior to the 1960s, most medical decisions were made by professional physicians; and, as shown in the previous quote, teachers were given the benefit of the doubt that they knew what was best for our children.

Then western culture began to emphasize the concept of personal autonomy to a much greater degree. The U.S. revoked the conscription act, the patient was given much more say in medical decisions, abortion became a matter of rights related to a woman's choice, and parents and the child were consulted to a greater degree in matters of education. Today, in Canadian Parliament, we see a debate regarding doctor assisted suicide that hinges upon the rights of the individual and, to some extent, the values of society. At this point in history it is clear that personal autonomy has a much larger impact on such decisions than ever before.

Canada's Supreme Court last debated this issue in 1993 when Sue Rodriquez argued that the laws that prevented her from receiving assistance in her death violated her charter rights. At that time, the court decided that "certain rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are trumped by the principles of fundamental justice."2 At this time it is unclear whether the same argument will hold sway.

Is it perhaps time to say that the pendulum of public opinion in the Western World has swung too far toward personal autonomy and individual rights? Personal ". . . autonomy has been criticized as being a bad ideal, for promoting a pernicious model of human individuality that overlooks the importance of social relationships and dependency."3 Could it be that we have sacrificed too much of our community consciousness for the sake of personal flourishing? As early as 1969, Emmanuel Lévinas saw "The emphasis on autonomy . . . as part of our selfish and close-minded desire to strive toward our own fulfillment and self-gratification rather than being open to the disruptive call of the other’s needs."4 He challenged his readers to consider the value of heteronomy: the value of "subjection to the law of another."

How far will our culture go in establishing personal autonomy as the final trump card? Is it not time to consider whether there might be some limits upon the concept of personal fulfillment?


1 Source: an unnamed Tennessee elementary school teacher in Time magazine, 2/21/05
2 http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/10/doctor-assisted-suicide-sparks-debate-amongst-cbc-readers.html "Doctor-Assisted Suicide Sparks Debate Amongst CBC Readers," October 14, 2014.
3 http://www.iep.utm.edu/autonomy/ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Autonomy."
4 http://www.iep.utm.edu/autonomy/ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Autonomy."

A Parable

Once there was a wealthy business man who passed away. People knew him as an upright entrepreneur, a leader who served in a mid-level political role, and a man of character. He was well loved and it was expected that many would attend his funeral and speak of his kindness to others, his generous gifts to the poor, and the grace with which he served and cared for his family.

The entrepreneur had left a will that contained instructions for his own funeral. In those instructions he asked that six specific people be given the honour and responsibility of carrying his casket and speaking of him at his funeral. People were surprised to see who the business man had chosen to fulfill this role as pall-bearers.

The first pall-bearer was a man who had sued him in a business deal. This same pall-bearer had many arguments with other business people and had sued or threatened to sue others. He was known as an unscrupulous dealer. Another pall-bearer was a woman who had accused the deceased man as the father of her child hoping for financial gain. Her case had been proven to be unfounded. A third pall-bearer had been a political rival who had mounted an extreme campaign against the business man in a bid to discredit and unseat the business man in a particular election. And so it went, each pall-bearer was found to be someone who had a disagreement with or had spoken publicly against the deceased man.

A large crowd gathered at the funeral to see what these enemies of the man would say at his funeral. Each pall-bearer came forward and struggled with something to say. All could tell that they were uncomfortable with the situation and had little they could say either for or against the man. The lawyer for the deceased business man was then instructed to read a statement the man had prepared before his death. In it the business man said, that it was his desire that half of his wealth be given to the poor and if anyone felt that he had cheated anyone in any of his business or personal dealings then that person should be paid back four times the amount they had been cheated. No one came forward with an accusation but it was noted that several of the pall-bearers went and settled arguments and debts they had with other people in the community. The people of the community organized their own tribute to the deceased entrepreneur and people came forward and spoke for many hours regarding the character and love of this man. And so it is that we shall be known by our deeds toward our enemies.

Character

I had a dream last night that prompted me to think about the word "character." More specifically, I have been thinking about "good character." What does it mean to be a person of good character? In this dream I was asked for my opinion of a definition of character. The definition I was given was, "the ability to ask good questions." I considered the definition and said, "yes, it is the ability to ask good questions but also the ability to make good choices." Good character is about asking good questions and making good choices whether or not anyone will ever see our good questions and good choices. J. C. Watts said,

Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught.

May each of us seek to be a person who lives in such a way that our secret choices might be shouted from the roof-tops without fear or fault.

Science-Spirit

Margaret Somerville is one of our best ethical thinkers. In a speech she delivered at the Sydney Institute in 2007 she went head to head with Richard Dawkins and James Watson in presenting this way-forward in the discipline of ethics. Her “science-spirit” view is also a valuable descriptor for a way of integrating science and faith.

I suggest that three views about the proper roles of science and religion in society are currently competing with each other. I call them the “pure science” view, the “pure mystery” view and the “science-spirit” view.

Proponents of the pure science view believe our rational cognitive capacities are our most valued features. This view is intensely individualistic, liberal, post-modern, and personal rights-based. It is uncomfortable with uncertainty and seeks certainty through science.

The pure mystery view is often associated with fundamentalist religious beliefs. People who espouse this view tend to be conservative, traditional and protective of community. They often adopt a literal reading of symbolic discourse. Like people in the pure science camp, they are uncomfortable with uncertainty, though they seek certainty through religion instead of science.

Adherents of the science-spirit view are excited by the new science, experiencing it as increasing our sense of wonder and awe. But they also believe ther is “more” to humans than their genes – that we also have a spirit dimension. Science-spirit people are comfortable with uncertainty and recognize that it can require them to draw lines in grey areas when dealing with ethics. They accept there is much we cannot control. And they try to hold science and mystery in creative tension.

The burning question the science-spirit view raises is this: Can we find the moral will, political consensus and the courage to recognize that in some circumstances we have to say “no,” even at personal cost; at the cost of less rapid “progress” in science; at economic cost and at a political cost?

With the new techno-science we hold the essence of life in the palm of our collective human hand and, with this, the future of the planet and of ourselves, including our very nature. With stakes this high, we need the courage to say “no;” the courage to exercise “wise ethical restraint.” In working out what that requires, one of the most fundamental questions we must constantly ask ourselves is: Can the future trust us?*

For an award winning view of a future in which humans do not say “no” and do not use “wise ethical restraint,” see the writings of another Canadian author, Margaret Atwood. Her fictional book entitled Oryx and Crake (Seal Books, 2004) offers a particularly bleak picture of a world without ethical restraint.


*This quote is an excerpt of an adaption of a speech delivered at The Sydney Institute, June 4, 2007. See Geez magazine issue 10, Summer 2008, pages 58-61. Margaret Somerville is founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec. She received the 2004 UNESCO Avicenna Prize for Ethics in Science, and is author of The Ethical Imagination (Anansi, 2006).

Destinations and Hand-baskets

I must preface this by saying that there is much good in this world. But sometimes, as I read the news, I find myself wondering, "Where are we going? . . . And why am I in this hand-basket?"