David King warns of consumer-driven eugenics

The debate over hybrid embryos has displayed the very worst aspects of behaviour of the scientific and science policy establishments.
 
Characteristics of the embryo
We have been told that cloned cytoplasmic hybrid embryos (where the DNA of animal eggs is replaced by human DNA) will be 99 per cent human, 1 per cent animal. This is simply untrue: at least until the stage at which stem cells are extracted, the majority of the embryo’s molecular components will come from the animal egg.
The claim is based on a crude genetic reductionist assumption that the characteristics of the embryo simply reflect its DNA content. In fact, they will depend crucially on the success with which the human DNA is reprogrammed to begin embryonic development. Because cloning is so unnatural, this is highly inefficient; now these scientists will worsen the problem by asking animal proteins to re-programme human DNA.
 
Contrary to the recent Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS) report, there is abundant evidence that, even if stem cells are obtained, they will be so abnormal as to be useless or misleading.
 
Judging success
The Science and Technology Committee, some of whose members publicly supported this research before even beginning its inquiry, is wrong to say that to make these obvious points is to ‘misuse science’. The Nobel prizewinners who signed up to scientific mis¬statements should be ashamed of themselves. 
The AMS has now retreated to the position that the value of the science can only be established by doing the experiments. This is not good enough: we must make judgements about the benefits and the chances of success, because they are important in weighing whether to allow scientists to cross established ethical lines.

Attitudes to mixing species
Public concern, meanwhile, is dismissed by the AMS as an irrational ‘yuck reaction’, or as the usual pro-life objection to embryo research. Funnily enough, it is about what it says it is about: mixing species. 
Ordinary people, who see the whole organism, view species as qualitatively different ‘ kinds’. Their different characteristics are what define the species: leopards have spots, zebras have stripes. The basis of revulsion is the inadmissible mixing of things that are different and should be kept apart, and the creation of entities that are not integrated wholes. 
For molecular biologists, species are made from the same molecules, and species difference derives from differences in DNA sequences, which are quantified in percentage similarity figures. Within this paradigm, species differences are a matter of quantitative differences. The mixing of human DNA and animal eggs is unproblematic in this view, because the two are not ‘really’ different in kind. 
Both the popular and the molecular reductionist view have their merits. Scientists should show a little humility, and realise that ordinary people’s concerns are not ‘irrational’, nor ‘misunderstandings’, but stem from an equally valid world view, focused on the whole organism.

Genetically modified embryos
Meanwhile, the far more important issue of genetically modified (GM) embryos has been ignored. The government is proposing to allow scientists to begin developing the technology to create GM human beings. We should not be reassured by the temporary ban on creating actual GM babies, since government documents have made their long-term aim perfectly clear. 
Since my organisation began campaigning on this issue, the government and the AMS have invented scenarios of varying plausibility for the use of genetic modification in basic research, but these are little more than fig leaves. 
This is the first time that any country has sanctioned genetic modification of human embryos. Nearly all other European countries have banned human genetic modification for ethical and social reasons. Consistent with this approach, the EU has banned research aimed at the development of both human genetic modification and reproductive cloning in the last two Framework Programmes. 

Designer babies
The reasons for the ban are compelling: whilst there are many other ways of avoiding genetic diseases, only genetic engineering can produce ‘enhanced’, ‘designer babies’, and that is where the real market will be. If we cross this line, we will create a consumer-driven eugenics, in which children will be treated as commodities and parents will compete to give their children genetic advantages over those who cannot afford the technology.
Although we now have ‘public engagement with’ rather than ‘public understanding of’ science, it seems that little has changed from the days of food scandals and the GM debate. We still have a science policy elite which listens only to scientists and a scientific establishment which not only manipulates science but is incapable of understanding the public’s concerns. Get ready for the backlash.
 
Dr David King is a former molecular biologist and Director of Human Genetics Alert, an independent secualr watchdog group which supports abortion rights