Practical Ethics

Precrime in Camden: using DNA profiles for crime prevention

The UK police has an estimated 5.3 million DNA profiles in its databases, of which about 850,000 are of people who were never convicted of any crime (including 24,000 samples of youngsters who have never been convicted, cautioned or charged with any offence). Although the European Court ruled that a policy of retaining profiles of innocent people is illegal, the Home Office seems keen to retain them anyway, at least for serious crimes. Now it is claimed by a police officer that police in Camden deliberately target young people who have not been arrested yet in order to obtain DNA samples. According to him it is part of a long-term crime prevention strategy to discourage future crime. But does pre-emptive acquisition of DNA profiles make sense as crime prevention?

Shining monkey, sadistic conclusion?

Japanese researchers have genetically modified marmoset monkeys, and demonstrated that the modification can be inherited by their offspring. The modification was the standard green fluorescent protein making the monkey's glow green under UV light, a marker to demonstrate that the modification worked (BBC shows a picture of their feet glowing "an eerie green", while the picture in Nature's News and Views shows the cute monkeys in normal light and the original paper shows both). The long-term aim is to be able to produce transgenic primates that could act as disease models for humans - many conditions do not map well onto mice and rats. But is it acceptable to introduce heritable illness conditions into animals?

Self-control matters - but to what extent can it be taught?

Recently in the news, a report published by the independent think-tank Demos reminds us of the importance of the capacity for self-control (it also mentions empathy, to which most of the following remarks apply) in determining life outcomes. It argues that self-control lessons should be taught at school if children, particularly from deprived backgrounds, are to be given the tools they need to succeed in life – low-self-control has for instance been shown to positively correlate with length of unemployment or criminal behaviour, and negatively with academic achievement. The report echoes renewed interest in the United States in a now famous experiment by Walter Mischel on deferred gratification, dating back to the late 1960s. Mischel tested the capacity of a group of four-year olds to resist the temptation to eat straightaway a marshmallow he had given them. The children who were able to refrain turned out to be better adjusted, more dependable and to do better academically on the whole later in life.

 

The report by Demos makes important points and its proposals deserve to be supported. Nevertheless, even if they are put into practice, we might still feel concerned about how effective we can expect them to be. There is indeed a body of evidence suggesting that the capacity for self-control is to a large extent genetically determined (Wright & Beaver, 2005; Beaver & al., 2009).

 

Preimplantation Genetic Screening: One Step Closer to the Perfect Baby?

Prospective parents will be able to screen embryos for almost any known genetic disease using a revolutionary “universal test” developed by British scientists, led by Prof Alan Handyside 
The £1,500 test, called karyomapping, which should be available as early as next year, will allow couples at risk of passing on gene defects to conceive healthy children using IVF treatment.  The “genetic MoT” will transform the range of inherited disorders that can be detected. Currently only 2% of the 15,000 known genetic conditions can be detected in this way. Not only can it test for muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease, but it can be used for testing for the risk of developing heart disease, cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer's in later life.

If evolution grinds to a halt, we move on

According to professor Steve Jones human evolution is grinding to a halt. The reason is, at least in the developed world, we have so good living standards and hence low mortality that we are not suffering any selection. He also argues that the mutation rate has been reduced because changes in reproduction and the larger gene pool. He concludes: "So, if you are worried about what utopia is going to be like, don't; at least in the developed world, and at least for the time being, you are living in it now." As I see it, he has a very modest view of utopia. More seriously, do we have some kind of obligation to evolve?

Identifying Sperm Donors, Genetic Privacy and Public Benefit: How to Have Your Cake and Eat It Too

A story in today’s Daily Mail reveals some of the harms experienced by children born to sperm donors. Since 2005, children born to sperm donors have had access to the identity of the man who donated sperm that created them. But prior to that point, donors were not required to disclose their identity. These children are often susceptible to diseases which have a genetic component, like diabetes or bowel cancer, and are unaware that they have such susceptibility. They also sometimes describe a sense of not fitting in with their family, having a different personality and character. Many desperately and vainly seek out their biological fathers.

One problem is that historically, donors gave sperm on the condition of anonymity. Thus they consented believing they would remain anonymous. This was the case in Victoria, Australia, where similar problems have been reported.  The option to remain anonymous was thought to be necessary to ensure a supply of willing donors, and to protect donors from financial and other claims made by their offspring.  But now we place greater value on the genetics of the donor and many children wish to know their biological father and his genes.

So donors have a legitimate interest, based on the conditions of their consent and self interest, in protecting their anonymity. How is this interest to be weighed against the interests in their offspring accessing knowledge about them?

Needles in Haystacks and Individuals in DNA Pools

An article recently published on PLOS Genetics showing that (and how) individuals can be identified by their DNA within large publicly accessible pools DNA has led to genetic data being removed from publicly accessible websites by the NIH and the Wellcome Trust. As one geneticist quoted in Science put it “We have a false sense of security with pooled data.”

My Genes, not a Doctor's

California has sent cease-and-desist letters to firms offering Web gene tests to consumers. The legal reason is that California law requires a licenced physician to order any lab tests. This follows from a similar crackdown in New York. Wired responds by top 10 reasons that regulators should not hinder genetic testing. Is there any good reason to limit public access to genetic testing besides protecting incumbents and gatekeepers?

Same species, different needs: could 'genes for' improve the way we treat animals?

The New Scientist recently reviewed a variety of studies showing that many traits often supposed unique to humans are in fact shared by animals. There is evidence that apes, dolphins, songbirds, elephants, and monkeys share with humans some of the most important aspects of behaviour associated with speech; killer whales have distinct cultural groups; great apes and some monkeys have a degree of understanding of the minds of others, enabling them to deceive; chimpanzees, gorillas, and crows use tools; and there is suggestive evidence that elephants, magpies, baboons, whales, and chimpanzees demonstrate emotional behaviour, and that monkeys and rats are capable of drawing primitive moral distinctions.

Claims that animals have capacities usually thought unique to humans are controversial, and those who make them are often accused of anthropomorphising animal behaviour. Plausibly, there is often more to such accusations than concern for explanatory parsimony. As humans, we profit from using animals—for food, research, sport, and so on—in ways that we would not use other humans, and suggestions that animals are more like humans than we usually suppose place an unwelcome demand on society to rethink its ethical stance towards animals. This suggests that a clear division between humans and other species is important to us in justifying the discrepancies between what we view as ethical treatment of other humans and what we view as ethical treatment of non-human animals. Pragmatically speaking, if we humans wish to retain a privileged moral status, and if our privileged moral status is at least partly due to our being different to other animals in certain important (usually biologically-based) respects, then it is in our interests to resist attempts to draw similarities between humans and other animals.

HFEA and Regulating Reproduction:Triumph for Rationality and Victory for Secular Ethics

MPs voted on Tuesday on two of the most controversial issues surrounding reproduction- the provision of IVF treatment, and the availability of legal abortion. Under the new laws, IVF clinics will no longer have a legal requirement to consider the need for a father, but will instead be asked to ensure provision of 'supportive parenting', removing any barrier to single women and lesbian couples conceiving through the treatment. In a separate amendment, MPs were asked to consider the legal time limit on abortion, which currently stands at 24 weeks. Given the option to reduce this limit to 22, 20 or even just 12 weeks, MPs voted by a comfortable majority to stick with the status quo. 

The UK is now at the forefront of rational reform to legislation governing reproduction and research. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has now approved the creation of human admixed embryos, with important implications for scientific advance.

Blog on Admixed Embryos
Savulescu, J., The Case for Creating Human -Non Human Cell Lines, Bioethics Forum
Human Enhancement papers, media and other resources for free download

It has also reformed the regulation of reproduction in a thoroughly sensible manner.