Customer Reviews

Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Genetic engineering of humans: we can do it; we should do it; and we will do it.
The author of this book is one of tbe best apologists for genetic engineering alive today, and this book is a fine example of his sound argumentation and comoon sense. He is unashamed of his position, delightfully unabashed, and one gets the impression while reading the book that he is very excited to be alive and be witness to the incredible advances in genetic engineering now taking place. Those who support the genetic engineering of humans should read the book, along with those that don't.

As of this date, human cloning is being debated not only in the United States but all over the world, and a cloned embryo is now gestating inside of a woman somewhere in the world. This is indeed an exciting development, but the author says that the fuss over human cloning is unwarranted, but for different reasons than those opposed to it. Copying a human being is insignificant, he argues, compared to what can be done with engineering the human germline. The focus should be, the author argues, on how we are to proceed with this technology, a technology that he clearly supports. He is one of the few that does, oddly, out of the collection who themselves are responsible for the major advances in genetic engineering.

But what of other ways of engineering improvements to human beings? Artificial intelligence and robotics have shown every indication of finally taking off, after decades of promises to that effect. Will humans, already inserting pacemakers, computer chips, and othe devices into their bodies, use this technology to enhance their vision, auditory capabilities, intelligence, etc? Who needs germline modification when this type of technology is available for enhancing human performance? The author argues that this will not be the case, that the human biological organism is too complex for this to happen. Also, the current level of knowledge on biological/electronic interaction is too primitive for such things as direct brain linkage. In addition, human beings will be reluctant to allow surgical implants such as these to be inserted into their brains.

Although his arguments against the occurence of electronic enhancement are good, the author, with his advocacy of germline enhancement, may be expressing a worry that artificial intelligence and cyberelectronics may "win out" over biological approaches to human enhancement. Will there be competition between biotechnology and cybertronic technology for the enhancement of human capabilities in the decades ahead? A silicon-vs-carbon-race for this purpose could prove to be a very interesting one.

The author is very honest and very frank is his discussions in the book, and such honesty is greatly appreciated in this time where genetic engineering is a frightening possibility to some. This omission of "tact and prudence" in discussions of genetic engineering serves better the purposes of rational debate and eases suspicions on the use of germline enhancement.

The accelerating field of bioninformatics and its role in germline manipulation is emphasized many times by the author. Faster computers, cheaper DNA chips, and sophisticated sequence matching algorithms will increase the enticement to perform reliable and safe genetic engineering. One can extend the author's logic to future scenarios where each individual's genome will be sequenced and digitized in a database. Combinatorial mathematics will then allow a pair of humans to determine with confidence the genetic make-up of their offspring. Subjective preferences of the parents, always a factor in the selection of mates, and this translating of course into their children, will become much more sophisticated using 21st century genetic engineering. The freedom to choose is the basic premise and right here, its results will just occur at a faster time scale than evolution has done.

The author is also an advocate of the free market when it comes to the inevitable choices involved in genetic engineering of humans. Considerations of cost and practicality will determine the prevelance of use of genetic technologies. What can be corrected by simple technology will eliminate the need for genetic engineering to do the same. A pair of glasses to correct for nearsightedness is a simpler and more economical approach than germline enhancement for better vision in our future children.

The author has successfully countered the current most popular arguments against genetic engineering in this book. He has done it with fairness and confidence, and with a command of the ethical and scientific issues involved. It remains to be seen of course whether wide-scale genetic engineering of humans will indeed occur in the next decades. One can say with confidence that it will occur in at least a few cases. But one thing is certain: this is indeed an exciting time to be alive, that the contemplation of the technology of genetic engineering is exhilirating, and its actual use even more so......

As E.O Wilson notes in his blurb for the back cover of this book, it is amazing how few philosophers are really willing to pay attention to and write about genetic engineering. Especially in light of Stock's thesis: Genetic engineering, like it or not, is comming, ready or not.

Honestly, I thought that Stock's book would be one of the few to really provide moral arguments for genetic engineering, particularly 'extratherapeutic' engineering. While there is a little of that, the book devotes much more time to exploring the inefficacy (in a utilitarian sense) of government regulations and bans on therapy. In that sense, his book is not quite a moral response to ethical luddites like Kass and McKibben, but governmental luddites like Fukuyama.

Without spoiling the book for you, I will summarize some of his reasons (so you get the flavor: 1.) like abortion, there is simply too much demand for such therapies (and those that don't believe this should look at how much we spend on 'anti-aging' pills and surgeries). Thus, there is too much incentive for consumers to form black markets should bans be in place. 2.) Due to the plurality of world politics, such bans are, at best, regional. While Germany might ban research, China surely will not. 3.) Like abortion and drugs, black markets will be more dangerous that publically visible and monitorible legal ones. 4.) Bans or strict controls are going to cost astronomical amounts of money (and privacy) to prevent and catch law-breakers.

There. I've only given you a taste, and if any of those arguments sound frail, read the book. The elaborations are first rate! This brings me to two small complaints.

First, Stock tends to get ahead of himself in that the first half of the book is filled with sweeping proclomations like, "In the future we might be able to do x. Even though most scientists don't believe me on the feasibility on x, I really do think it could happen." In other words, he makes strangely radical predictions, reminds you that they are stragely radical predictions and simply defends them by saing that anything is possible.

Second, Stock will occasionally come off as a will-o-the-wisp cheerleader. Particularly when he addresses concerns about the efficacy of unregulated markets, Stock simply tells us that we need not worry and that markets have taken care of themselves in the past, therefore they will work in the present. While I believe him (being the libertarian that I am), too many people i know share a scepticism of the market for Stock to dismiss the argument so curtly (assuming he wants to convince anyone). Other examples of this will-o-the-wisp style are in the book (though not enough to get annoying).

To conclude, as this book has much more to do with cost/benefit analysis of regulation (that more or less winds up in favor of free markets) rather than ethical philosophy, the book will be much more interesting to political thinkers than bioethicists or philosophers. In fact, I would suggest reading this book and Fukuyama's "Our Posthuman Future" together as they take the same questions (where to regulate biotech) and come to different conclusions.

With insight and intelligence Gregory Stock discusses the future possibilities of human genetic engineering. He is willing to state that when these technologies are safely available and we have the ability to alter our genes and control our genetic destiny, it will be very difficult for us to walk away and decide to ignore or criminalize the ability to cure hereditary disease or extend life. Stock has written a brave and uncompromising book, and whether you are thrilled or angered by his words, it is likely to be a book that helps frame our human future.

I picked up this book just based on its title (a highly inadvisable practice), which was the first of many dissapointments I had with this book. First off, "Redesigning Humans, Our Inevitable Genetic Future" would be more appropriately named "Redesigning Our Children, Humanities Inevitable Genetic Future". You see, this book isn't really about redesigning "us", it's about a technological process called "germline engineering". This technology intervenes with "germ cells" (like sperm and egg) to alter their blueprint (from which our biology originates).

Granted, germline engineering is interesting, and I think the author makes a good case for its "inevitability", but in my humble opinion if you're broadly interested in how science will one day alter mankind's basic physical makeup, or specifically interested in how science will alter our biology, there far more interesting reads than this one.

Which brings me to the meat of my point...I'm not arguing Gregory Stocks credentials, and clearly he's a very well educated, well researched scientist (Director of the Medicine, Technology, and Society program at UCLA), but from the outset of this book, he seemed way too biased towards germline engineering, and almost arrogant about germlines superiority as an agent of future change vs. other interesting technology vectors. On page 20 he summarily dismisses an entire scientific school of thought centered around machine augmentation of biology and capability (headed by such credentialed scientists as R. Kurzweil) with the following statement:

"People may dream of enhancing their minds by embedding chips in their brains, but a sophisticated interface between our nervous systems and silicon would be incredibly complex"

...Duh! Augmenting mankind's basic physical essence (that we've had for hundreds of thousands of years) isn't childs play for any scientific approach. But that was pretty much his "that's that on that" basis. VERY FRUSTRATING inadequacy to someone who believes the contrary (I'd at least like someone to offer better basis in approach than that).

And in considering the benefits of machine or biological augmentation of capability (sensory or performance related) he writes:

"Indeed, I cannot imagine any apparatus that would serve us better than our own healthy heart, which responds so perfectly to our changing activity and emotions and is so well matched to the capacities of the rest of our circulatory system. A healthy human heart represents the ideal to which any replacement must aspire..."

What about 10X durability, what about real-time diagnostic feedback, or predictive capability? That's just off the top of my head! It's a bit ironic that this kind of narrow mindedness is coming from such a proponent of change...

Ok, so setting aside my problems with the book, I did find a number of interesting new understandings. In particular, this book gave me a firmer grasp of the extraordinary and near-term potential to modify our offspring, it solidified my position on human cloning (as a benign diversion from the real important decisions we as a species will need to face), and reinvigorated my interest in "somatic therapy" (the altering of existent biology with gene-loaded viral pathogens).

If you're a physco for this kind of stuff, read the first 80 pages of this book, and skim through the rest. If you're passively interested in this kind of science, consider reading Ray Kurzweil "Age of Spiritual Machines", Hans Moravecs' "Robot", or "The Spike" by Damien Broderick.

I hope this was helpful.

This book stunned me. It changed my ill informed fears about future biotech and gave me an insight into the possible amazing benefits. This book is a great antidote to all the scare mongers who seem to be writing on this subject. It really has a large and positive message.

James Watson, codiscoverer of the structure of DNA, asked, "If we could make better humans ... why shouldn't we?" That question is at the core of this book, and Gregory Stock responds in the affirmative. Not that we have a choice, he asserts; genetic engineering is coming whether we like it or not. And he makes a damn good case.

Rather than getting right to it, however, he begins with an anti-Kurzweil chapter. Ray Kurzweil is the author of the Age of Spiritual Machines, which projects the rapid development of artificial intelligence during the next few decades and the integration of human and machine intelligence (see my review). Stock argues that the interface between the human nervous system and silicon would be incredibly complex, making it highly unlikely we will be physically integrated with our computers within this timeframe. He believes that we will communicate much more effectively with the machines through our senses, becoming fyborgs (functional cyborgs).

Then he moves on to the main course, beginning with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Physicians have been performing genetic testing of embryos since 1989, with screening now available for a handful of genetic diseases. This technology will continue to expand, allowing parents to select specific embryos for implantation in the uterus, effectively enabling us to have children with certain genetic tendencies. The next advance, germinal choice technologies (GCT), will arrive within the next decade or two, allowing us to enhance our children's naturally occurring genetic inheritance. Artificial chromosomes, loaded with selected genes, might be the foundation.

Stock understands how divisive this issue will be, but argues that it can't be halted (not that he wants to stop it). He argues effectively for a reasonable degree of regulation, although he believes that the ultimate decision must remain in the hands of parents.

This is a book focused more on ethics and issues rather than technology. If you're interested more in the nuts and bolts of genetic engineering, look elsewhere. Whether you agree with him or not, Stock lays out the issues and his answers in a clear and compelling manner. It's an excellent exposition of the subject, one worth studying.

Stock's text proffers an encouraging viewpoint for future generations (germline engineering, embryonic screening, chromosomal modification, genetic expression, etc.). For extant generations, however, the message is less positive (difficulties of somatic engineering, gene therapy, cell repair; biopsychosocial issues with lifespan increase, biological enhancement, etc.), but he does envision extant generations (us) having greater quality and quantity of life.

His defensive arguments amount to "this is inevitable, deal with it" and "it's not about whether this will happen, but when", so if you're looking for ammunition against germline engineering, look elsewhere.

The text suffers from excessive repetition - each section and chapter needlessly repeats Stock's theses - and sometimes reads like a collection of undergraduate term papers stitched together. The target audience is generic, however, so take that critique as you will.

If you read professional journals like Nature, read the text, highlight areas of interest, and consult the copious bibliography for more in-depth coverage. If you read Scientific American or Discover magazine, you'll find some stimulating ideas, anecdotes, and predictions.

[and if you have the opportunity to hear him speak (I did), make an effort to attend]

Germline gene therapy is the manipulation of the genome at the germinal stage (i.e. at conception) as distinct from somatic gene therapy, which involves the manipulation of living cells. What I got out of this book was a clear understanding of how germline engineering (the author's area of expertise) will be easier to achieve, arrive sooner and be more ethically provocative than genetic manipulation that alters our bodies directly.

Early on in the book, Stock addresses some of the Kurzwellian predictions for our future biology and finds areas of disagreement with previous authors. This debate centres on Cyborgism, Fyborgism and the extent to which humans and machines will fuse. I didn't agree with him, but this is not to say he lacks structure or clarity in his arguments.

Be aware that Stock is an expert in germline engineering, a particularly controversial biotechnology. Perhaps understandably, he devotes much of the latter part of the book to addressing ethical dilemmas and social responsibility (something to note if this type of hand wringing doesn't exactly set you alight).

This is a timely book, generally well written. I particularly liked Stock's fascinating thesis on the potential of artificial chromosomes. This is worth the book's price alone.

Throughout the world, there are ongoing debates over whether the human genome should be tampered with. Legislation has already been passed prohibiting numerous variants of genetic engineering as it applies to humans. But in this book, Gregory Stock explains that we will eventually have the technology to change ourselves intrinsically, and that we will also use it. He strongly advises us to look toward the future and make decisions regarding how this newfound knowledge should be used, instead of simply whether it should be used.

Genetic engineering has the potential to cure nearly every disease on earth. For hereditary diseases, such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia, this is the only way they will ever be cured. There is much ongoing research into finding a cure for genetic diseases, and eventually those efforts will meet with success. Once this happens, parents could be screened for defective genes, and if they do have them, their children could be genetically engineered to not have them. It would be cruel to deny these parents the only option they have to bear a healthy child, and in this way, the engineering of the human genome will begin.

Once diseases begin to be cured through this method, a line will have to be drawn determining what is a disease and what must be lived with. Is high cholesterol worth curing? What about obesity, ADD, or nearsightedness? All of these have a strong genetic component, and could be significantly reduced through genetic engineering. Inevitably, different countries will have different laws regarding what is considered a disease.

Eventually, genetic engineering will extend into the realm of what isn't a disease, but which could be improved on. Attributes such as intelligence, life span, physical capabilities, and talents could all be under the control of prospective parents.

This book is a startling look at the near future of the human species, and whether you thing genetically engineered humans are a good idea or not, this book is worth reading. Dr. Stock does a superb job at approaching this subject from a neutral perspective, stating not what he hopes will happen, but which he believes will happen. He gives many other examples of what can be accomplished with genetic engineering as well as what has already been accomplished in animals. He also corrects many of the myths surrounding this technology, many which have come from popular science fiction. If you have any questions or doubts concerning genetic engineering, this is an excellent book to read.

Gregory Stock, director of the Program of Medicine, Technology and Society at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine, believes that the possibility of altering the genes of our prospective children is not some isolated spin-off of molecular biology but an integral part of the advancing technologies that culminate a century of progress in the biological sciences. "We have spent billions to unravel our biology, not out of idle curiosity, but in hope of bettering our lives," he writes in the first chapter of his new book Redesigning Humans. "We are not about to turn away from this."

Early in the book he summarily dismisses the theories of Kurzweil and Moravec et al about the merging of humans and machines as "techno-exuberance" and "far fetched". While his arguments in the main seem rigorous, I was bothered by statements such as "a healthy human heart represents the ideal to which any replacement must aspire, and except for a little more durability, no improvement is possible so long as we remain otherwise unchanged." A little more durability?! Personally I would prefer a heart that was rock solid, bullet-proof, self-repairing, 24x7x365x1000 - but perhaps that's just me.

Swiftly, however, the book leaves the domain of the potential cyborg and leads us squarely into Stock's preferred futuristic scenario, that of genetically-engineered, embryo-screened, humans. He provides methodical and lucid explanations of the difference between somatic and germline manipulations but the majority of the book is dedicated to possible scenarios, and the related ethics and issues, of germline choice technology (GCT).

He provides a conservative look at the possible futures of GCT, staying clear of "radical" ideas such as enhancing humans with the abilities of animals (such as ultraviolet and infrared vision, detection of magnetism, sonar, acute smell, etcetera) and concentrating on therapeutic benefits, such as eliminating the genetic causes for certain diseases from future humans.

According to Stock, it may be fruitless for Governments in the Western world to attempt to ban these technologies, as the combination of public demand and scientists willing to provide the services will merely push the GCT activities either underground or to a country more willing to support the emerging technologies. The real questions he addresses are not whether these technologies will appear, but when they will, who will have access to them, and how we will use them.

The final vision Stock projects is of a human race which eventually diversifies into the Enhanced and the Unenhanced; not different sub-species perhaps but different breeds. In the closing analysis, he believes that the opportunities far outweigh the risks and that the human race should embrace the new germline choice technologies in a free-market environment with real individual choice, modest oversight, and robust mechanisms to learn quickly from mistakes.

I suspect many in the transhumanist community might find Stock's book slightly conservative and timid, but for those like myself who are not well-versed on germline choice technology, it serves as a substantial and welcoming prologue to a subject matter which invites much deeper analysis.