Emergenesis. Genetic traits that may not run in families.

Traits that are influenced by a configuration--rather than by a simple sum--of polymorphic genes may not be seen to be genetic unless one studies monozygotic twins (who share all their genes and thus all gene configurations) because such "emergenic" traits will tend not to run in families. Personal idiosyncrasies that have been found to be surprisingly concordant among MZ twins separated in infancy and reared apart may be emergenic traits. More speculatively, important human traits like leadership, genius in its many manifestations, being an effective therapist or parent, as well as certain psychopathological syndromes may also be emergenic. These ideas reemphasize the importance of the role played in human affairs by genetic variation.     

DNA

The authors predict that in a few years, many areas of psychology will be awash in specific genes responsible for the widespread influence of genetics on behavior. As the focus shifts from finding genes (genomics) to understanding how genes affect behavior (behavioral genomics), it is important for the future of psychology as a science that pathways between genes and behavior be examined not only at the molecular biological level of cells or the neuroscience level of the brain but also at the psychological level of analysis. After a brief overview of quantitative genetic research, the authors describe how genes that influence complex traits like behavioral dimensions and disorders in human and nonhuman animals are being found. Finally, the authors discuss behavioral genomics and predict that DNA will revolutionize psychological research and treatment early in the 21st century.     

On the Universality of Human Nature and the Uniqueness of the Individual: The Role of Genetics and Adaptation

The concept of a universal human nature, based on a species-typical collection of complex psychological adaptations, is defended as valid, despite the existence of substantial genetic variation that makes each human genetically and biochemically unique. These apparently contradictory facts can be reconciled by considering that (a) complex adaptations necessarily require many genes to regulate their development, and (b) sexual recombination makes it improbable that all the necessary genes for a complex adaptation would be together at once in the same individual, if genes coding for complex adaptations varied substantially between individuals. Selection, interacting with sexual recombination, tends to impose relative uniformity at the functional level in complex adaptive designs, suggesting that most heritable psychological differences are not themselves likely to be complex psychological adaptations. Instead, they are mostly evolutionary by-products, such as concomitants of parasite-driven selection for biochemical individuality. An evolutionary approach to psychological variation reconceptualizes traits as either the output of species-typical, adaptively designed development and psychological mechanisms, or as the result of genetic noise creating perturbations in these mechanisms.     

Consumers’ Desire towards Current and Prospective Reproductive Genetic Testing

As our knowledge and abilities in molecular genetics continues to expand, so does our ability to detect certain conditions/traits prenatally; however, it is unknown if this increase in scientific ability will be utilized by the consumers of genetic services. Our study gauges the consumers’ opinion towards reproductive testing for diseases and enhancements. Prior to their initial visit with a genetic counselor, patients were asked to participate in a survey. These consumers were asked to indicate traits and conditions for which they would choose reproductive genetic testing. The majority of respondents would elect to have prenatal genetic testing for mental retardation (75%), deafness (54%), blindness (56%), heart disease (52%), and cancer (51%). Our results indicated that 49.3% would choose testing for a condition that resulted in death by 5 years of age, whereas only 41.1%, 24.9%, and 19% would choose testing for conditions that results in death by 20, 40, and 50 years of age, respectively. Most respondents did not desire testing for enhancements (e.g. 13% would choose testing for superior intelligence). Our study suggests that consumers desire more reproductive genetic testing than what is currently offered; however, their selection of tests suggests self-imposed limits on testing.     

Infrastructure and Scaffolding: Interpretation and Change of Research Involving Human Genetic Information

This essay addresses the relationship of interpretation to change, at two levels. One level concerns the revolutionary claims of molecular biology and biotechnology about using genetic information, read literally or with a minimum of interpretation, to reshape human life. The other level concerns the relationship in social studies of science and technology (STS) between interpreting projects in the life sciences and influencing their direction. On that level, the essay is experimental, employing a series of vignettes that introduce themes and questions—scaffolding—intended to stimulate readers to make their own connections between interpretation and change, in science, STS, and society. The vignettes in Part 1, which range from treatment of individuals with PKU or MAOA genes to personalized medicine and biobanks, indicate in different ways that the use of genetic information always requires social infrastructure. Once attention is given to the actual or implied social infrastructure, the prospect of reshaping life using human genetic information raises more questions than it answers. This thread carries over into Part 2, which speaks to an area of STS that needs more development, namely, conceptualizing the structure of the social context of scientific and technological developments and the nature of human agency in the ongoing restructuring of that context. The vignettes create a picture in which the influence on science of an STS interpretation will, like any effort to produce change, depend on how it links with other engagements and with the heterogeneous components that make up ongoing, intersecting processes of science in society.     

Enhancement and the ethics of development

Much of the debate about the ethics of enhancement has proceeded according to two framing assumptions. The first is that although enhancement carries large social risks, the chief benefits of enhancement are to those who are enhanced (or their parents, in the case of enhancing the traits of children). The second is that, because we now understand the wrongs of state-driven eugenics, enhancements, at least in liberal societies, will be personal goods, chosen or not chosen in a market for enhancement services. This article argues that both framing assumptions must be rejected, once it is understood that some enhancements--especially those that are most likely to garner resources and become widespread--will increase human productivity. Once one appreciates the productivity-increasing potential of enhancements, one can begin to see that enhancement need not be primarily a zero sum affair, that the social costs of forgoing enhancements may be great, and that the state may well take an interest in facilitating biomedical enhancements, just as it does in facilitating education and other productivity-increasing traditional enhancements. Appreciating the productivity-increasing potential of enhancements also makes it possible to view the enhancement debate in a new light, through the lens of the ethics of development.     

Exploring the Public Understanding of Basic Genetic Concepts

It is predicted that the rapid acquisition of new genetic knowledge and related applications during the next decade will have significant implications for virtually all members of society. Currently, most people get exposed to information about genes and genetics only through stories publicized in the media. We sought to understand how individuals in the general population used and understood the concepts of “genetics” and “genes.” During in-depth one-on-one telephone interviews with adults in the United States, we asked questions exploring their basic understanding of these terms, as well as their belief as to the location of genes in the human body. A wide range of responses was received. Despite conversational familiarity with genetic terminology, many noted frustration or were hesitant when trying to answer these questions. In addition, some responses reflected a lack of understanding about basic genetic science that may have significant implications for broader public education measures in genetic literacy, genetic counseling, public health practices, and even routine health care.     

"Doctor, would you prescribe a pill to help me … ?" a national survey of physicians on using medicine for human enhancement

Using medical advances to enhance human athletic, aesthetic, and cognitive performance, rather than to treat disease, has been controversial. Little is known about physicians' experiences, views, and attitudes in this regard. We surveyed a national sample of physicians to determine how often they prescribe enhancements, their views on using medicine for enhancement, and whether they would be willing to prescribe a series of potential interventions that might be considered enhancements. We find that many physicians occasionally prescribe enhancements, but doctors hold nuanced and ambiguous views of these issues. Most express concerns about the potential effects of enhancements on social equity, yet many also believe specific enhancements that are safe and effective should be available but not covered by insurance. These apparently contradictory views might reflect inherent tensions between the values of equity and liberty, which could make crafting coherent social policies on medical enhancements challenging.     

Under the skin: On the impartial treatment of genetic and environmental hypotheses of racial differences

Environmental and genetic explanations have been given for Black-White racial differences in intelligence and other traits. In science, viable, alternative hypotheses are ideally given equal Bayesian prior weights; but this has not been true in the study of racial differences. This article advocates testing environmental and genetic hypotheses of racial differences as competing hypotheses. Two methods are described: (a) fitting means within structural equation models and (b) predicting means of interracial children. These methods have limitations that call for improved research designs of racial differences. One improvement capitalizes on biotechnology. Genetic admixture estimates--the percentage of genes of European origin that a Black individual possesses (independent of genes related to skin coloration)--can represent genetic influences. The study of interracial children can be improved by increasing sample size and by choosing family members who are most informative for a research question. Eventually, individual-admixture estimates will be replaced by molecular genetic tests of alleles of those genes that influence traits.     

人类行为遗传学的伦理问题

行为遗传学是试图定位与行为特性有关的特殊基因或基因组及了解基因与环境之间复杂关系的一种研究.行为遗传学是研究正常范围内的非病理变化,与人类疾病遗传学存在差异.行为遗传学研究面临许多伦理学问题,诸如,智力的遗传性,基因能否决定一切,生物社会学与人类文化评估,生命伦理学与行为遗传学的关系等,因此,对行为遗传学研究结果的阐述必须十分谨慎.     

Ethical Concerns About Human Genetic Enhancement in the Malay Science Fiction Novels

Advancements in science and technology have not only brought hope to humankind to produce disease-free offspring, but also offer possibilities to genetically enhance the next generation’s traits and capacities. Human genetic enhancement, however, raises complex ethical questions, such as to what extent should it be allowed? It has been a great challenge for humankind to develop robust ethical guidelines for human genetic enhancement that address both public concerns and needs. We believe that research about public concerns is necessary prior to developing such guidelines, yet the issues have not been thoroughly investigated in many countries, including Malaysia. Since the novel often functions as a medium for the public to express their concerns, this paper explores ethical concerns about human genetic enhancement expressed in four Malay science fiction novels namely Klon, Leksikon Ledang, Transgenesis Bisikan Rimba and Transgenik Sifar. Religion has a strong influence on the worldview of the Malays therefore some concerns such as playing God are obviously religious. Association of the negative image of scientists as well as the private research companies with the research on human genetic enhancement reflects the authors’ concerns about the main motivations for conducting such research and the extent to which such research will benefit society.     

Review for Cognitive Systems Research of the book The Brain and AI,by authors Karl Schlagenhauf and Fanji Gu

The human brain is often considered the most complex system known. It has a fantastic capacity to learn and remember, to recognize patterns in space and time, solve problems of all kinds, innovate tools and machines, create beautiful art and science. Is it reasonable to believe that we, in a foreseeable future, will be able to understand all the wonders of our own brain, enough to be able to mimic it and build artificial brains and minds that correspond to or even surpass the capacity of the human origin? Can we seriously believe that we (soon, or ever) will be able to build robots that know of and can reflect upon their own existence?This review of the book, The Brain and AI, deals with such issues, but in a very special way. It is written as a fascinating dialogue between the two authors, Chinese scientist Fanji Gu and German engineer Karl Schlagenhauf, where they discuss the development of neuroscience and artificial intelligence (AI) with a critical examination of given “truths” in these fields. The Brain and AI is indeed worth reading for many reasons, regardless if you are a student or researcher in any of the many fields of science discussed here (e.g. physics, computer science, neuroscience, cognitive science psychology, social science), or if you are just interested in the current and future development of brain research and artificial intelligence. The book is both educating and entertaining and can be strongly recommended.     

Changes in women's mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle

Previous research has shown that women's mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle in a number of ways. The leading explanation for these changes--the good genes hypothesis--predicts that women should prefer presumed markers of genetic benefits ("good genes") most strongly when they are fertile and evaluating men as possible short-term mates. Research testing this hypothesis has almost exclusively examined preferences for purported markers of good genes. Little is known about how preferences for men who display traits valued in long-term, investing mates (e.g., warmth and faithfulness) change across the cycle. The authors had women at different points in their ovulatory cycle rate videotapes of men in terms of how attractive they found each man as a short-term and long-term mate. The authors then examined how women's preferences for traits typically valued in long-term and/or short-term mates varied according to women's fertility status. The results supported the good genes hypothesis. Implications of these findings for models of human mating are discussed.     

Justice in the genetically transformed society

This paper explores some of the challenges raised by human genetic interventions for debates about distributive justice, focusing on the challenges that face prioritarian theories of justice and their relation to the argument advanced by Ronald Lindsay elsewhere in this issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. Also examined are the implications of germ-line genetic enhancements for intergenerational justice, and an argument is given against Fritz Allhoff's conclusion, found in this issue as well, that such enhancements are morally permissible if and only if they augment primary goods.     

Should we design our descendants?

Rapid breakthroughs in genetic research spurred by the Human Genome Project, advances in molecular biology, and new reproductive technologies are raising the prospect that we may eventually have the technical capacity to modify genes that are transmitted to future generations not only to treat or eliminate diseases but also to "enhance" normal human characteristics beyond what is necessary to sustain or restore good health. This paper explores the ethical and justice implications of such genetic modifications. It argues against developing these technologies primarily because it will not be possible to counter the deleterious justice impacts. It recommends the need for public education and public discussion, preferably with the religious community taking an active role, to shape decisions about future genetic research and applications, and for better regulation of genetic technologies with the potential for inheritable genetic alterations.     

ORMA: A strategy to reduce Psychology's replication problems

Because of their historical reliance upon null hypothesis statistical tests (NHST), the human sciences have developed a number of potentially problematic research literatures. While aware of the file drawer effect since the 1970s, scientists have been largely unsuccessful at addressing its pernicious effects. Because significant results have a greater likelihood of being published than do nonsignificant effects, many of our research literatures might currently be constructed upon a series of Type I errors and inflated effect sizes. A method (called Original Replication of Meta-Analyses or ORMA) has recently been developed for identifying problematic research literatures and offering a method to address the problems due to publication bias. Philosophers of science have long argued that a chief reason for science's preeminence as a source of knowledge rests in its ability to self-correct. Researchers in the human sciences are now able to empirically test their research literatures to ascertain which are in need of repair. The use of ORMA serves to lessen the problems that led to the recent calls for bans on significant/nonsignificant statistics in human science research. ORMA will also improve psychology's ability to successfully replicate its research findings.     

Infectious and immune factors in the pathogenesis of neurodevelopmental disorders: epidemiology, hypotheses, and animal models

Both genetic and environmental factors contribute to the pathogenesis of a wide variety of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, mental retardation, and schizophrenia. Some heritable disorders approach 100% penetrance; nonetheless, even in these disorders, subtle aspects of clinical disease expression may be influenced by the environment. In other disorders with genetic influences, exogenous factors, and the timepoint(s) during nervous system development at which they are introduced, modulate expression of disease. Elucidation of the mechanisms guiding this intricate interplay between host response genes, environmental agents, and the neurodevelopmental context within which these interactions occur, is necessary to understand the continuum of clinical outcomes. This chapter will review the evidence that infectious and immune factors may contribute to the pathogenesis of neurodevelopmental disorders, describe an animal model of neurodevelopmental disorders based upon viral infection, identify processes by which neural circuitry may be compromised, and outline areas for future research.     

Describing our “humanness”: Can genetic science alter what it means to be “human”?

Over the past several decades, geneticists have succeeded in identifying the genetic mutations associated with disease. New strategies for treatment, including gene transfer and gene therapy, are under development. Although genetic science has been welcomed for its potential to predict and treat disease, interventions may become ethically objectionable if they threaten to alter characteristics that are distinctively human. Before we can determine whether or not a genetic technique carries this risk, we must clarify what it means to be “human”. This paper inquires how “humanness” has been defined within various academic fields. The views of several legal theoreists, scientists, bioethicists, psychologists, philosophers and anthropologists whose works seem to best reflect how “humanness” is understood in their respective fields of study are considered. Our survey attempts to chart a path for a more detailed study on the meaning of “humanness” in the future. We assess four traits commonly identified in the literature as defining what it means to be human: cognition, biological or physiological composition, social interaction with other “human” beings, and spirituality. The nature of the relationship between these characteristics, in our view, is symbiotic: genetic intervention which alters one of them could have repercussions on one or more of the others. In conclusion, we offer guidance to those participating in genetic research and treatment regarding the parameters within which they may proceed without threatening the preservation of what is distinctively human.     

Yesterday’s Child: How Gene Editing for Enhancement Will Produce Obsolescence—and Why It Matters

Despite the advent of CRISPR, safe and effective gene editing for human enhancement remains well beyond our current technological capabilities. For the discussion about enhancing human beings to be worth having, then, we must assume that gene-editing technology will improve rapidly. However, rapid progress in the development and application of any technology comes at a price: obsolescence. If the genetic enhancements we can provide children get better and better each year, then the enhancements granted to children born in any given year will rapidly go out of date. Sooner or later, every modified child will find him- or herself to be “yesterday’s child.” The impacts of such obsolescence on our individual, social, and philosophical self-understanding constitute an underexplored set of considerations relevant to the ethics of genome editing.     

Cryonics: Science or Religion

Cryonics involves the low-temperature freezing of human corpses in the hope that they will one day be reanimated. Its advocates see it as a medical treatment but as in any medical procedure, this presupposes some scientific evidence. This paper examines the scientific basis of this technology and argues that cryonics is based upon assertions which have never been (and potentially can never be empirically demonstrated) scientifically. After providing a general overview of cryogenic preservation, I discuss how advocates of this technology have conceptualized death and more specifically their notion of information-theoretic death. I conclude that cryonics is based upon a naive faith rather than upon science. It does what David Chidester (2005) calls ‘religious work,’ even if it is not explicitly religious. It offers transcendence over death.