Biologist George Church Curates Beneficial Genetic Variants Don Emmert/AFP via Getty Images
“Why should only tall people have access to tall genes? And why should only intelligent people have access to smart genes? Instead of accepting genetic inequality, we aim to provide everyone the opportunity to select beneficial genes for themselves and their future offspring. Genetics should not be a game of chance.”
This is the vision of Bootstrap Bio, a startup striving to empower future parents by enhancing genetic qualities for their children. While it seems that affluent families might already have genetic advantages, the pressing question remains: Can we genuinely enhance our children’s genetics if we choose to?
To understand the possibilities, I began with the List of Protective and Enhanced Gene Variants, curated by Harvard biologist George Church. When I inquired about the list’s purpose, Church explained that it addresses common questions from his lectures—such as whether all rare genetic variants are detrimental and what types of enhancements might be feasible. This list is particularly popular among transhumanists interested in genetic engineering for superhuman traits.
Let’s delve into its details.
Are You Sure You Want Extra Fingers?
The list is intricate, containing over 100 items, yet only about half represent specific genetic mutations linked to concrete effects, with the rest stemming from animal research or medical trials. Church identified mutations that may yield significant “positive effects,” from disease resistance to lower aggression levels in men.
Some traits on this list, however, may not be universally desirable. For instance, a mutation could theoretically lead to six fingers on each hand, enhancing “manipulative capabilities.” But is that really an improvement? Imagine trying to find gloves that fit!
Additionally, two genetic deletions that cause pain insensitivity are also featured, yet lacking the ability to feel pain is not an enhancement—children who are pain-insensitive can suffer severe injuries.
Many remaining traits appear to fall into the “nice to have” category but may not warrant genetic modification. For instance, “low odor production” seems unnecessary in an era of deodorants. While I would appreciate being able to hold my breath longer or endure high altitudes, I doubt my descendants will value these traits as much.
Only a limited number of mutations confer highly desirable characteristics, like extended lifespans or enhanced intelligence—traits for which wealthier prospective parents might be willing to pay. Still, we lack sufficient confidence that incorporating these mutations into children will actually lead to increased intelligence or longevity.
Less Sleep, But at What Consequence?
It is crucial to note that some associations may be misleading, and certain genetic variations might not produce the anticipated effects. Moreover, achieving the desired outcome may depend on combinations of other specific mutations.
Trade-offs are often present too. For example, high-intelligence mutations may increase the risk of future blindness, and resistance to norovirus might predispose individuals to Crohn’s disease, as noted in Church’s list. Personally, I would prefer to be a bit less intelligent and tolerate occasional bouts of norovirus rather than risk potential consequences for my children.
Most variants do not explicitly list drawbacks, but that does not imply they are without consequences. Consider mutations associated with sleep deprivation; the essential role of sleep in maintaining brain health suggests that trade-offs likely exist.
Moreover, many people fail to realize that our understanding of these genetic variations is still developing. In many instances, it is uncertain whether a specific change is genuinely beneficial. This is because biologists must study vast populations—tens of thousands or more—carrying a particular genetic mutation to ascertain both its positive and negative effects.
Creating a Fair Genetic Lottery
To maximize the likelihood that an individual will benefit from genetic engineering, multiple genetic modifications may be necessary simultaneously. This is especially true concerning traits promoted by Bootstrap Bio, as height and intelligence rely on hundreds of mutations, each contributing marginally. The challenge is that we currently lack the technology to safely implement multiple changes in human embryos, much less hundreds at once, as discussed in my previous article on preventing genetic illnesses.
I support the idea of genetic enhancement for children—it’s preferable to leaving a child’s destiny to a random genetic lottery. However, I remain skeptical about the immediate feasibility of heritable genome editing. Expanding studies like the UK Biobank, which tracks large populations over the years to clarify genetic variant effects, is essential.
Finally, the notion that companies offering genetic enhancements can create a fairer world deserves scrutiny. Currently, a fifth of all children worldwide are born shorter than their potential due to inadequate nutrition, and many lack access to quality education. Those genuinely interested in enhancing children’s life chances should prioritize ensuring that all children meet their existing genetic potential rather than focusing narrowly on selective gene enhancements.
Topics:
Source: www.newscientist.com
