Season 4, Episode 13: The Truth

The law of unintended consequences comes back to haunt NorBAC in 2010, when a Spanish flu pandemic erupts across the globe - with dire consequences for humanity. Eventually, it becomes clear that the research that led to Bob's clone contained a fatal flaw: The attempt to "improve" humanity by altering our genetic code has created a strain of humans that carries reactivated viral pathogens in its DNA. 3.2 million children are now active disease vectors because of their endogenous viral inheritance. This episode highlights the pitfalls of 'improving' humanity by showing a directly negative result--pandemics, in this case. But what if Dr. Roth's process had worked? Would those 3.2 million 'new humans' constitute an improvement over us?

CAN WE IMPROVE HUMANITY?

There's little public debate about the ethical "rightness" of curing disease. Of course, the elimination of polio in many parts of the world and the total eradication of smallpox were deemed triumphs of human ingenuity and proof of the value of our social systems, which allowed these treatments to be spread far and wide. With new scientific approaches and understanding - e.g. genomics and stem-cell research - come greater understanding of the mechanisms our own cells use to develop, repair themselves and monitor their own reproduction. Armed with such knowledge, we can foresee a future - perhaps one not too far off - when we have conquered the many of the last, most terrifying foes of the human organism, like cancer and even old age itself.

But in this past season of ReGenesis, Dr. Roth attempts to do something that is, qualitatively, entirely different. He proposes to not just cure the ills that assail us, but actually improve humanity. The problem is, the reasoning process Roth (and subsequently Bob and Nina) uses to plan this improved humanity is the same reasoning process we use when we set out to cure diseases. Basically, fixing and improving are very different things, with very different outcomes and pitfalls.

Few people would deny the moral acceptability of performing gene therapy (if and when it is possible) on a child born with a defective gene that will result in a crippling, shortened lifespan. One could also imagine widespread genetic screening to give parents the option of not passing on the worst heritable diseases. From here it's a short step to fixing the genes of such prospective parents, so that they can have children of their own who will not pass on such heritable conditions. Personal compassion for the individuals involved is a reasonable motivating force for such decisions.

We can allow our personal compassion to sway our decisions in such cases because the end result is a 'normal,' or healthy human being as we understand it. It is the restoration of something that would have been there anyway but for an accident of genetics.

What Roth wants, however, is not to fix something, but rather to add something that wasn't there before. He is, by definition, not restoring the organism to its natural, evolved state; instead, he is creating a new kind of human. He believes humanity suffers from a lack of empathy, and the 'cure' is to create a new breed of human with greater empathy. The problem is that this is only his diagnosis and it's not one that can be objectively supported, the way that a diagnosis of Huntington's or cancer can be supported.

Viewers of the show are likely to have a strong reaction against what Dr. Roth is doing. It's not because he's wrong to be an idealist; it's because he's diagnosed us all as sick, and many of us would disagree.

WHAT COUNTS AS AN IMPROVEMENT?

Roth's reasoning might still be rational in those cases where no one would disagree about what constitutes an improvement. For instance, every parent hopes their child will be at least as smart as the other kids in school-and at least as athletic, as attractive, as ambitious. Well, what if they could be? If we isolated the genetic components of high intelligence and were able to engineer them into our children, what parent would say no? It's normal to want such things for your offspring; so Bob and Nina's actions are ultimately rational.

We know, of course, that catastrophe on a global scale can result from a billion individually rational acts. The best current example of this is climate change, which is being caused by the collective decisions of billions of people to own cars, warm their homes, and purchase items that allow them to thrive in our society. If the technology for genetic improvement existed, the same logic of personal advantage would drive us - at least some of us - to use it.

But introducing one new highly-advantaged human into society is different than introducing millions. It's not that human society has survived and thrived despite having a range of different people with different characteristics and capabilities; it may very well be that we've thrived because of it. At the very least, a high degree of genetic variation is useful to a species. A planet of Brad Pitts and Angelina Jolies might look good, but it would not necessarily be healthy.

Our understanding of what would count as an improvement for our children is predicated on those children growing up in human society as it is now. That is, we can only judge according to what we know. But what if everybody else was making the same choices as us, and making the same 'improvements' to their children? History contains no examples of a society comprised of highly advantaged individuals. By the time our kids grew up, what counts as 'better' might have changed. If all the kids are smart, brilliant and beautiful, and all refuse to work in what some would consider menial positions, then the one who finds the most work may be the modest, quiet and unobtrusive hard-worker. While the others struggle for glory and power, he might quietly thrive. What counts as 'better' depends on our social context, and if we change human nature, we change the context that allows us to judge which traits are better.

This past season of ReGenesis highlights an ethical dilemma all humanity now faces: the decisions we make for our own good and the good of our children may not be the right decisions for their future-or even, for the survival of our species.
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish.
--William Carlos Williams

-- Karl Schroeder

About the Author

Karl Schroeder is an award-winning science fiction writer and author of eight books. He also consults on technology foresight for clients such as the Canadian government and military. His articles and commentary can sometimes be found on the popular weblog WorldChanging.com, and he maintains his own website and blog at www.karlschroeder.com.

Want to read and learn more?

For more on genetic and other forms of human enhancement, visit these sites:
http://www.thehumanfuture.org/themes/human_enhancement/background
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/genetherapy/gtenhance/
http://www.bioethics.gov/background/humangenetic.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_enhancement