🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34196@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
<stuff about crossing an orangutang and a human deleted> 
>
>As I posted many months ago, there is a little discussion of the difference
>between chimps and Man at the back of Stephen Jay Gould's THE MISMEASURE
>OF MAN.  He thinks that the essential difference is neoteny, i.e. that
>humans are a neotenized version of an ancient ape.  Neoteny is the
>preservation of juvenile characteristics in the adult--a sort of arrested
>development.  This is possible explanation for things like the large head
>size relative to body size in humans.

     Gould is going long on speculation here.  "Proof" of this speculative
statement is tenuous at best.  The fact that neotany exists is interesting
but it neither means nor proves that the human is a neotanized version
of the ancient ape.

>If the Human Genome Project is pushed to completion, it has the potential
>to discover such "clocks" in the genetic programming of growth.  This would
>potentially make possible the development of super-humans, with exagerrated
>neoteny, and proto-humans, with retarded neoteny. It might also lead the way
>toward the neotenization of inferior species, such as chimps, to increase
>their intellectual capacity.

(1) The human genome project, in its present incarnation, is a waste of
    money and talent.  It ought to be either scaled back drastically or
    even axed completely until there is a steady commitment for "small
    science," with money left over for "big science" projects.

(2) The idea that you project, species engineering, is frightening, grossly
    unethical, and just plain wrong.  Without adequate safeguards, such
    work can conceivably lead down the path of creating inferior species
    of humans (or superior species of lesser primates) which can then be-
    come slaves of "superior" humans.  Such an action is definately on
    ethically unstable foundations (at best).  If you claim to have cre-
    ated an inferior human, you have the problems of human slavery.  If
    you have created a superior chimp, you likely have cruelty to
    animals.  How do you propose to protect such creatures?  And why, be-
    yond scientific mountain-climbing (e.g.  Why did Sir Edmund Hillary
    climb Mt. Everest?  Because it was there.) do you propose to en-
    gineer such species?  You have not stated any ethically noble purpose; 
    therefore, your proposal, as it stands, is ethically invalid.

    I would point out that, in the United States, science depends on
    public trust and acceptance of what is being done.  It isn't easy
    to conduct experiments which correct genetic defects such as ADA
    deficiency (which leads to SCID), because there is a public mistrust
    of scientists, and because scientists all too often (IMO) pursue the
    science with a cursory nod (at best) to the ethics.  It is a fearsome
    thing to be supported by public trust, and experiments such as yours
    demand the highest attention to public trust.

>This is indeed the most important scientific endevour ever conceived.  It has
>the potential to improve not merely Man's knowledge, but Man himself.
>An increase in Man's mental abilities is like a multiplier which could be applied
>to all future achievements of Man.  No other breakthrough could provide
>benefits of such enormous and lasting value.

     Pure speculation with no proof.  And what improvements would you
make?  Or would you rather *I* decide?  Or maybe we should let some
religious leader decide?  Maybe we could delete the genes that program
for conservatism?  How about liberalism?  Maybe we could delete the
genes for homosexuality?  or how about including genes that make every-
one bisexual?  You're treading on ethically thinner and thinner ice.

>To shrink from this experiment is the greatest disservice we can provide
>to future generations.  Destiny demands it!  The future heroes of science
>will be those brave men and women (and perhaps a few smart chimps) who can
>see past the "morality" composed by the clique of small-brained bureaucrats
>who make the guidelines required to receive government funding.

     You don't suppose that "small-brained bureaucrats" might consider 
themselves beholden to the morality of the public which pays taxes and
votes, do you?  As I've already said, science in the United States (no
make that the Western world) rests on support by the public.  Until you
wake up to that, and realize that what you've have so glibly proposed
amounts to bureaucratic dictation of moral standards (or at least a
dictate that public morality is irrelevant to scientific pursuits), you
will most likely be continually frustrated in your desire for species
engineering.  As for me, though I work in the area of molecular biology,
I feel that the use of the tools and techniques of my trade for the
purpose of species engineering of higher animals is wrong, at least at
this time, because the ethical foundation to do such work has not been
laid properly.  Conducting science in a ethical vacuum (partial or com-
plete vacuum is irrelevant) is a prescription for either future catas-
trophe or a future shutdown of science by an outraged public.


-=-
*********************************************************************
*Bob Woodman                  * "A job not worth doing well is not  *
*INTERNET:  woodman.1@osu.edu *  worth doing."--Salvador Luria      *
*********************************************************************