Why genetic engineering is banned in the Star Trek universe

[Pawelk198604]

I think genetic engineering has great potential for curing disease and whatnot, but as an autistic person, I'm also rather afraid of its abuse--there are certainly many people who would be eager to remove autism from the gene pool. The scariest thing is not its abuse by an evil cabal of scientists, but rather, it's abuse by masses of well-intentioned but misguided people. When technology advances further, so that these risks become major, I would support a ban on these kinds of applications of genetic engineering.

I do not agree with you, I have autism in the form of Asperger's Syndrome, a relatively mild form. But I wanted me to be like the rest of the people.

[Nuke]

go watch gattaca.

[Pawelk198604]

go watch gattaca.

I saw this movie is good. I really liked how this guy cheated those doctor:).

But the world does not have to be like this.

[Kimberly]

I do not agree with you, I have autism in the form of Asperger's Syndrome, a relatively mild form. But I wanted me to be like the rest of the people.

Sure, but is your personal discomfort really a reason to want to eliminate your entire group? I'm sure there are black people that would prefer to be white due to the way they get treated, but obviously the solution to racism is not to eliminate difference, but to try and end disparate treatment.

Not all people with autism have problems, so I don't think there is any justification for eliminating autism. If you do have problems, you can get therapy or take medication--that doesn't infringe on others' rights.

[falofonos]

The main difficulty with genetic engineering more capable humans in trek was the preconception that stronger, smarter faster people would all be sociopathic and for some reason want to control their inferiors.

In reality the main problem with genetic engineering is that we have very little clue what most of the genetic code does or how it behaves in the wild. Stories about how genetic engineered crops are the future are largely put out by large agri-corps, the same corps that sell single generation terminator seeds to third world countries to promote sales. (seeds will not produce reproductively viable plants)

Everyone growing almost identical strains of wheat or rice, what could possibly go wrong?

[dharak1]

Well, its not infringing on rights AT ALL. Do you think curing polio infringed on peoples rights? If it did well, how so? I think if possible every disorder and disease should be eliminated in every way and no matter what.

[Kimberly]

Well, its not infringing on rights AT ALL. Do you think curing polio infringed on peoples rights? If it did well, how so? I think if possible every disorder and disease should be eliminated in every way and no matter what.

That's a false analogy, though. Polio is undesirable to everyone who has it, while autistic people do not necessarily experience problems because of it. Of course you typically only see severely afflicted people in the media, and parents of children with a problematic form of autism often have no idea what it's like for autistic people without problems. Equating autism with polio betrays that you have a very narrow (but sadly common) view of autism.

[Pawelk198604]

Sure, but is your personal discomfort really a reason to want to eliminate your entire group? I'm sure there are black people that would prefer to be white due to the way they get treated, but obviously the solution to racism is not to eliminate difference, but to try and end disparate treatment.

Not all people with autism have problems, so I don't think there is any justification for eliminating autism. If you do have problems, you can get therapy or take medication--that doesn't infringe on others' rights.

Hey, I do not intend to liquidate any social group, I have Asperger's Syndrome and Autism by it, but I think that genetic engineering will allow us some time to eliminate the negative aspects of autism once and leaving the good ones.

For now most AS spectrum persons look like augments from "DS9 Statistical Probabilities" episode:D

PS. Lieutenant Reginald Barclay from TNG look as Asperger's person in my opinion

[ZedNova]

We shouldn't attempt major changes in the human gene until we can control every aspect of it. One gene to make you immune to Aids might make you expel extremely pungent gas frequently.

[DaRocketCat]

I'm all for science, but it would have to be extremely regulated!

[Warshawski]

Well, its not infringing on rights AT ALL. Do you think curing polio infringed on peoples rights? If it did well, how so? I think if possible every disorder and disease should be eliminated in every way and no matter what.

Um. I have Asperger's Syndrome, and I don't mind it at all. So you, and anyone who thinks as you do, can jump off a cliff. I like being different. Tyvm, frak off.

~Adrienne

[Scotius]

OK, so you are fine with being autistic. But what about people who do have severe form of authism, and it makes their lives difficult? And what about other, less benign genetic illnesses? Should we abandon curing them because you feel affronted? FYI I do suffer from a genetic illness. No, i do not consider myself crippled. I work, have hobbies and enjoy my life to the fullest. But it doesn't change the fact that i can't do some things healthy people take for granted. If there would be a cure for this one glitch in my DNA, i would go for it in a heartbeat. If you are happy with your malady, that's fine. But world is not revolving around you. For some of us any progress in the field of genetics is a ray of hope.

[Warshawski]

OK, so you are fine with being autistic. But what about people who do have severe form of authism, and it makes their lives difficult? And what about other, less benign genetic illnesses? Should we abandon curing them because you feel affronted? FYI I do suffer from a genetic illness. No, i do not consider myself crippled. I work, have hobbies and enjoy my life to the fullest. But it doesn't change the fact that i can't do some things healthy people take for granted. If there would be a cure for this one glitch in my DNA, i would go for it in a heartbeat. If you are happy with your malady, that's fine. But world is not revolving around you. For some of us any progress in the field of genetics is a ray of hope.

You seem to be missing my point. Dharak was for eliminating all genetic disorders and diseases everywhere, and it sure seemed like they were for it whether the people who actually have the disorders want them cured/fixed or not. If you want your illness fixed, then sure, you should have it fixed. But forcing it on people before they can make the choice for themselves? That's pants-on-head retarded, not to mention barbaric.

[Kimberly]

OK, so you are fine with being autistic. But what about people who do have severe form of authism, and it makes their lives difficult? And what about other, less benign genetic illnesses? Should we abandon curing them because you feel affronted? FYI I do suffer from a genetic illness. No, i do not consider myself crippled. I work, have hobbies and enjoy my life to the fullest. But it doesn't change the fact that i can't do some things healthy people take for granted. If there would be a cure for this one glitch in my DNA, i would go for it in a heartbeat. If you are happy with your malady, that's fine. But world is not revolving around you. For some of us any progress in the field of genetics is a ray of hope.

I think we should be reasonable here, and not apply a one-size-fits-all approach. Obviously there are genetic disorders we should attempt to get rid of, without a second thought. But there are also cases, as with autism, where it is rightfully controversial. Parents-to-be are often ignorant of such things, especially given the stigma attached to autism, so given the choice of having a child without autism, most would take it in a heart-beat. It would essentially mean the elimination of an entire personality type, both the good and the bad instances. I think that's clearly undesirable and should be regulated against.

If it were possible simply to fix the negative aspects of autism, as someone suggested, then everyone could be happy with that. But that's unlikely to be the case, and the lobby for "curing" autism is quite strong.

Like many, you have an ignorant stance on autism--you assume it's necessarily a "malady". It's definitely understandable that you'd get that impression, but it simply isn't true.

[Scotius]

I apologise for my outburst. I'm just fed up with people having knee-jerk reaction at mere mention of genetic manipulation (OMG!OMG!THEY'RECREATING MONSTERS!WEAREGOINGTODIE!KILLITWITHFIRE!). Homo sapiens is no longer bound to obey laws of unforgiving Nature. Thanks to civilisation, medicine and protective society genetic misfits have a chance to live - but why stop here? Why not cure those deficiencies if it's possible? However, you do have a point Kimberly - there is a lot to discuss, moral choices to make and research to conduct. But we will not make any progress if we'll mulishly oppose any initiative in this direction.

[DaRocketCat]

Republicans and hardcore conservatives in general would have to disappear of the face of the earth.

[WhiteWeasel]

Isn't anyone noticing a gaping hole here? The more and more we use technology the more dependent we become to it. There reports and hypothesis that innovations like medicine, and hygiene could make people more sick or make them more prone to allergies. Since your body is prevented from exposure you build up less resistance since the medicine is doing all the work for you. Also don't hand wave it with MOAR genetic engineering, if for whatever reason we're cut off/can't/stop using it we could be in a lot of trouble.

We shouldn't attempt major changes in the human gene until we can control every aspect of it. One gene to make you immune to Aids might make you expel extremely pungent gas frequently.

^ Human DNA is very complex, if even the slightest mistake is made, it could have serious repercussions. Imagine going into KSP's source code or your persistence sfs. and adding just one little random space or comma and see if it works "all right". And oh, with DNA the code is several thousand times more complex, and can't be fixed just by pulling up notepad.

Edited August 7, 2013 by WhiteWeasel

[Pawelk198604]

I think we should be reasonable here, and not apply a one-size-fits-all approach. Obviously there are genetic disorders we should attempt to get rid of, without a second thought. But there are also cases, as with autism, where it is rightfully controversial. Parents-to-be are often ignorant of such things, especially given the stigma attached to autism, so given the choice of having a child without autism, most would take it in a heart-beat. It would essentially mean the elimination of an entire personality type, both the good and the bad instances. I think that's clearly undesirable and should be regulated against.

If it were possible simply to fix the negative aspects of autism, as someone suggested, then everyone could be happy with that. But that's unlikely to be the case, and the lobby for "curing" autism is quite strong.

Like many, you have an ignorant stance on autism--you assume it's necessarily a "malady". It's definitely understandable that you'd get that impression, but it simply isn't true.

This is what I meant. If we could remove the negative aspects of autism, it would be cool

People with autism will be always, the best mathematician and artist, are autistic, and most people want that their kids be genius, and that it's impossible without some dose of autism :-)