Most of you know I am a technocrat.  The official definition is that a technocracy is a government where experts and professionals are appointed to administer governmental functions.  If we really ever expected  to “drain the swamp”, that’s what we’d really need.

Instead, our government appoints folks who lack sufficient knowledge to even know what the agency to which they are appointed to lead is supposed to do.  (And, that same person – Rick Perry- couldn’t even remember it’s name when he wanted to abolish it.) Or, corporate lobbyists are appointed to run our Environmental (Andrew Wheeler) and Interior (Ryan Zinke) agencies.  Or a corrupt banker (who launders Russian money in his offshore bank) to run our Commerce Department (Wilbur Ross).  OK.  I am already getting sick.  And, that’s not the point of this post, anyway.

The real issue is that technology is amoral.  (Amoral: unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.) It’s what we do with technology and science that determines whether an action is moral or immoral.

I’ve discussed this before.  About 4 years ago, when I was discussing the second microbial patent issued by the US Patent Office.  (The first was Chakrabarty’s patent for General Electric [GE].)

We were attacked by a professor from Cornell (it turns out the Charlottesville synagogue where we started services hired his nephew as our rabbi) who was adamant that we were immorally going to destroy the world.  Because our bacteria converted ammonia to nitrogenous gases; which meant (to him- and incorrectly) that nitrogen fixation microbes would not be able to accomplish their tasks, when our microbes were released to the world.

That wasn’t the first time folks attacked a development as immoral.  After all, many folks still consider nuclear energy immoral because it led to the atomic bomb.  Even though (if we could develop processes to handle the waste) it does provide a carbon-free power system (nuclear power), cancer treatment (radio-isotopes), even a water recycling system that are also “children” of that technology.

Years ago, when we (my fellow staff at ASTRE) considered the use of stem cells to grow replacement organs, we were also attacked.  Because we were using those cells recovered from embryos.  And, within a dozen months or so, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (to an appropriation bill) was enacted into law in 1995.  Outlawing any federal funds for research with embryos and embryonic stem cells.  (Yes, this means private research could possibly continue- but if any federal funds find their way to the firm, it immediately runs afoul of this rule.  So, in essence, the research is outlawed.)

But, now, it’s CRISPR.  Whether it was invented by Francisco Mojica, Feng Zhang, Emmanuel Charpentier, or Jennifer Doudna, is immaterial.  (CRISPR-  Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats).  CRISPR lets folks modify the DNA of organisms.  It is supposed to be used (by scientific agreement- we are now into morality of use) to proffer resistance to microbes.

Oh, wait.  He Jiankui (Southern University of Science and Technology, China- but was trained at Stanford) thought otherwise.  He just used CRISPR to modify the genes of twin girls to be resistant to HIV (human immunodeficiency virus, aka AIDS), because their father has AIDS.

The issue is that there are more efficient and safer ways to preclude HIV infections.  And, scientists and technologists (in the profession) have been clamoring to ensure this work doesn’t continue.   (It didn’t hurt that a slew of them were in Hong Kong for the 2^nd International Summit on Human Genome Editing, a meeting sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Medicine, the Royal Society (UK), and the Academy of Science of Hong Kong.)

The organizing committee of the meeting stated: “Even if the modifications are verified, the procedure was irresponsible and failed to conform with international norms,”  in a consensus statement.   Dr. David Baltimore (Nobel Prize Winner,  and at various times at MIT, CalTech, Rockefeller University, and the Salk Institute) declared “there has been a failure of self-regulation in the scientific community.”

It seems that China will now bar such efforts as a result of their protest; they’ve suspended  He’s project and Xu Nanping (Vice Minister, Science and Technology) averred that the research “flagrantly violated our national regulations and flagrantly broken the scientific world’s ethical bottom line…”

He Jiankui  feels that CRISPR is the key to eradicating lethal genetic diseases without pharmaceuticals.   He’s not alone. (Like that play on his name?)  For many years, those working in the field have favored a limited approach (they call it cautionary), but no outright ban on gene editing.

Instead, they want the human research to be held back until certain conditions have been met.  [In 2017,  the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine  released a report stating that  genome edits  “might be permitted” (if these traits were heritable) if the reasons and research were transparent and the changes satisfied an unmet need.  (There are other criteria as well.)]

On the other hand, a significant number of folks (a census has not been taken to prove it this were the majority or not) worry that folks will use CRISPR to modify their child’s eye color, gender, intelligence, or height.

Until this week (of 27 November), those arguments were all theoretical.  Or, were they?

After all, two decades ago, some New Jersey docs found out that many a couple attempting fertility treatment failed to conceive.  It turned out that there was a little something that was defective within the egg.  So, a slight manipulation- some of the cytoplasm from folks with healthy eggs was injected in those who were opting for in vitro fertilization, was essayed.    When it worked, the FDA was less than pleased.    They wanted clinical trials!  And, then (of course!), Congress got into the act.  And barred the procedure.

Why?  Because, while we all think of our DNA as the 23 gene pairs in the nucleus, our mitochondria (consider these as the power plants of our cells) also have DNA.   And, that DNA is what was being adjusted.  Those couples that had the cytoplasmic manipulation were actually producing children with the DNA from three (3) different parents- mom, dad, and the cytoplasmic donor.  (By the way, the Brits have just approved this sort of testing to proceed.)

Looks like this isn’t such a new moral dilemna.

Where do YOU stand?

Today is the 3rd day of Chanuka.  (Tonight is the 4th night).  May you be enlightened by this holiday of lights.