Autism Eugenics attempt at MIT

Post Reply New Topic

Every situation is different. The history and current attitudes strongly suggest that autism gene research will be misused.

Apples and oranges. I'm fine with virtually any scientific research out there, I've stated that multiple times now. Hell you want to research fusion for bombs and not energy, I'm fine with that-- have a blast . But genetics, no I'm sorry, that is Pandora's Box. You have to be completely self-centered and out of your mind to think you know as much as 4 billion years of evolution. The thing about physical sciences is that any kind of destructive force humans create, well the worst we'll do is eliminate ourselves-- the rest of life will survive even if retreats back to single-celled organisms. Genetics on the other hand, the foundation of organic life itself, if you mess that up there's no coming back. It really does boil down to this: you're not god, you really have no clue of the impact 50 years down the line if this research continues. You can name me one positive benefit: 1% of autistics may be helped, yet the downside if you're wrong will have a much larger impact than 1% of a 2% minority.

I understand genetic perfection is a bright shiny box just sitting on the counter begging to be opened, but that's the real test: are you smart enough to walk past it or are you going to let your worst instincts take over and open it.

Again these are just the inherent dangers of generic genetic research (+1 alliteration). Now let's talk about this specific case: this isn't just genetics, this is manipulating genetics of a minority population to eliminate genes the majority sees as having "low value". Just as the Spartans that drowned Helot children, just as the English troops that would breed Scottish women during the 1st Scottish War of Independence, just as the Nazi's that wanted to eliminate the Jews: at the end of the day they despised things different than them and had them eliminated or bred out. Whenever a majority population is granted the opportunity to commit eugenics on a minority population they tend to take the opportunity. I'm not about to support giving them a new technique for their grotesque agenda, especially not when I'm part of a minority-- no need for rhetoric or science, I'll just trust common sense on that one.

Being quarantined for a contagious disease in order to protect other lives in the here and now is very very different from preventing access to an intervention because such an intervention could - maybe - possibly - perhaps - have devastating effects on an entire species and its future generations ! This is another classic apples to oranges comparison and strawman argument. And even you admit that you are merely speculating here about potential negative ramifications, and you can afford to because you do not live with severe autism or suffer from its consequences.

Me ? Not only do my son and I live and breathe severe autism 24/7, but I would do ANYTHING - ANYTHING - to help reduce the severity of his autism. I am not claiming to be a moral, ethical individual where my child is concerned, if being those lovely things will not benefit my kid. KWIM ? Morals and ethics and worries about future generations are for those who can afford those luxuries. Me, not only can I not afford these, but I would also blatantly refuse to adopt any of those virtues, if my refusal to do so would benefit the only human being I actually care about. Not the species, not even my little herd. Just my son. He's the only thing I care about, and if something would help him while harming every other individual in the species, then my species can go extinct for all I care. You would not sacrifice humanity for your child - and that's mighty benevolent of you - but I would sacrifice humanity for my child.

Regarding your query as to what if my son's kids have even more severe autism than he does ? Well, if they do, we now have the solution, don't we ? Go in and make changes to this protein or turn on that gene and presto ! Autism's gone. Problem solved. We all live happily ever after. EVEN if there was no such cure for my grandchildren, that's OK. My son comes ahead of any grandchildren I might have through him and I will worry about how to help these unborn offspring of my offspring if / when they actually emerge on the Planet.

You see, Aristophanes, the good do not inherit the Earth. Those that will kill to give their kids the best chances in life will. Morality isn't my strong suit where my children are concerned - and even if this research were to actually result in the kind of wicked consequences you speculate here, too bad, so sad. It is what it is, and as long as it benefits my boy, who cares if the rest of the herd goes to hell ?

Yes, infact neither does Feng's work. He's talking about "simply turning on a gene like a light switch". That's not technically eugenics as there is no destruction of genes...

You have to be a fantasist to believe that evolution "knows" anything.

There is no plan there. No slow acquisition of knowledge. There is a mechanism that leads to iterative change, some of which works, some of which doesn't. The idea that there is some level of knowledge inherent in the extraordinarily complex system of interacting molecules that creates the biosphere and evolves has no basis in reality, as far as I know. So this statement, which is evidently emotionally satisfying to you in some way, has no meaning. It's as if you had said "you can't interfere with biology until you are as wise a nature" or "You can't develop medicines until you are as thoughtful as death." There are category errors, seemingly not evident to you, that make such statements literally meaningless.


Why is there "no coming back?" Again, your ideas seem based in fantasy. There is no reason why a change to a codon in a somatic cell should have any effect on any organism other than the individual who has had the somatic cell edit. There is no reason not to "change it back" using exactly the same technique you use to change it. The edit will not be passed to any other individual unless the edit is made to their germ line cells.

The code in our DNA is not static. Random and inherently chaotic forces continuously alter or genes throughout our lives. Encounters with viruses, natural mutagens and various forms of electromagnetism constantly cut and splice the DNA in our cells. This is the mechanism by which random mutation occurs, the change that drives evolution.

There is no wise force controlling the behavior of viruses, or deciding which nucleotide gets taken out by a passing highly energetic particle. DNA replication is supported with complicated error correction systems precisely because the process is so imperfect and error prone. Everything changes and there is no reason to look at purposeful change introduced by people as somehow belonging to some different order of change than the massive change constantly introduced by the chaotic and uncaring forces of nature.

It is more likely that there will be no direct benefit from this research beyond an increase in the collective neurobiological knowledge of our civilization. But you have no reason at all to conclude that there will be some kind of downside that impacts a single person, let alone many. That's a completely bogus assertion. If you can explain how you think this negative impact is supposed to occur, if you have a shred of logic or the least bit of evidence to support this claim, then I will happily admit that you have some kind of point--but as it stands you are just generating empty rubbish with these claims.

Genetic perfection? What rot is this? This idea has nothing to do with the understanding of genetics that has emerged from the work of people like Dr. Feng. The only people who harbor such nonsense ideas are racists who understand nothing about science and luddites who understand nothing about science.

Neither repetition nor alliteration make it any more true. You haven't said anything true or meaningful about genetic research, let alone revealed any inherent dangers in it.


No, it is not.
Dr.Feng's research is not about eliminating any gene, but activating a gene already in that person. I'm pretty sure, from what you have written already, that you don't really know what a gene is and have no basis to form any sort of conclusion about what it means to activate or deactivate one. But really what you are saying here is flat out wrong at the most basic level, before you ever get to your nasty fantasies and lies about the motivation of people doing this research.

That's right 4 billion years of a mathematical process working itself out: that is knowledge in and of itself. That in a nutshell is human arrogance. You think the higgs-bosom didn't exist just because humans didn't think of it? No that knowledge was already self-contained in the universe, humans were merely able to comprehend it. It's the same with the natural processes of life, the answer is self-contained in the algorithm itself. That algorithm has run for 4 billion years creating the entire organic world we know today-- it works, it's not perfect, but it does work. In fact it works so well that the algorithm doesn't need alteration because it has self-correcting sub-routines built in: evolution and extinction. Just because a thing isn't "living" doesn't mean it can't contain knowledge or work on that self-contained knowledge. Besides, consciousness itself is merely a series of complex algorithms-- but those thoughts can't have knowledge, they're just algorithms after all.


I've worked with genetics on a Mendelian level for 20 years now, I know how they work-- hell I've actually made new genetics and refined old, several times over in fact. That's how I know the inherent danger, actual experience. And really, you're proving my point on this one: nature has it's method (thank you for describing it here) and it works, enough said. As for chaotic and unfeeling, yes, the natural world is unfeeling and chaotic: that's what creates evolution itself. If you eliminate every bad force out there, basically domesticate everything, you stop the process of evolution itself: you stop the very process that made you.


They also tend to be the ones in power that get to wield control over technology. Let's put it this way: the research you're talking about, let's say it's 1939 Germany. Does that same research still give you the same warm feelings inside about "progress"? Science isn't a bubble. The lab is a bubble, but science itself isn't. Anything that comes out of the lab, the researchers themselves lose control over to the "powers that be". If you know the "powers that be" have had a habit of using similar research to kill off minorities such as yourself you'd be a lot less inclined to support it.


Actually you'd be very, very wrong. I've been breeding plants for 20 years, and attempting the same on a few strains of mycelium (fungus is ridiculously hard, it always wants to homogenize). Obviously the fungus has to be done in a lab environment, too easy for the agar to pick up a bacterial contam, but the plants are done in real world settings where the lab results tend to break down.
If you're looking for jargon as the only litmus test, since obvious logic isn't enough, here: homogenized, zygote, alleles, eukaryote, translocation, etc, what-eva.
If you want some regurgitated genetic principles for your litmus test: for plants, an F3 generation plant (Mendel schema) should be self-pollinated from an F2 generation plant to eliminate unwanted phenotypes from cropping up. Furthermore, if one continues down the line of refinement, past say F5 for plants (should be the same for most organisms, but I've only actually worked with plants so I can't claim with certainty on others even though the science says it should be so), then generally genetic drift sweeps in and subsequent generations are unstable. Fungus is damn near impossible to genetically alter because the cell walls (chitin, not cellulose) have openings large enough for an entire nuclei to pass through, thereby making it virtually impossible to separate genetically unique hyphae from one another: the strong hyphae will merely cannibalize the weak and use it's corpse as an incubator by splitting only it's nuclei and transferring it to the weaker cell-- no need for a full cell split, which is a form of energy savings for the organism. Each hyphae is actually it's own individual member of the fungus colony, but because of the aggressive nature of fungus' genetic transfer, the colony itself quickly becomes homogenized and thus it's easier to look at the colony as an individual rather than the parts-- much like jellyfish. Also it should be noted fungus has two forms of reproduction, one is mere asexual cell division (and conquer as mentioned) during the growth phase of the colony, the second is sexual reproduction when the resulting hyphae create spores. As far as I know it is unique in this aspect.

And goddamn, I think I'm off on a long tangent now...

Point being technical jargon is cheap, the underlying logic to the words is what matters. It's just like politics: the words the politician says are worthless, the actions they take are what matters. On an aside, I've been trying really hard to avoid technical terms in this discussion for 2 reasons: 1. people will read a wall of text before they'll read a single sentence with jargon (the ol' eye glossing over effect) and 2. this is a moral debate, not a scientific debate. I'm not arguing anything is impossible, I'm arguing it's not a very smart decision to continue on this path.

edit: quote nightmare clean up...

As I said, you get no argument from me on that one, but that's precisely why decisions that affect an entire population shouldn't be handed over to a person with a vested personal interest-- too often they'll sacrifice the good of the group for their own narrow goals. In no way am I questioning your love for your son, nor what lengths you'd go to protect him-- but not every end justifies the mean, and that's why there's people like me to be a counter balance.

Such sophistry! There is a huge difference between Mendelian and molecular genetics. And what irreparable harm have you done in your years of hybridizing plants (or whatever it is that you do)?

You claim that Dr. Feng is talking about removing a gene, when he is talking about repairing the Shank3 gene. What gene has been removed?

I do understand your concern that "the powers that be" are always inevitably bad and always carry out eugenic final solution campaigns against minorities in their control. That's why the US has an entirely white male population and the world was substantially depopulated of human beings during the height of the British Empire.

Or maybe it's just not really like that.

What I'm looking for is some indication that having read about what Feng is doing, you have a clue. Talk of "removing genes" indicates otherwise, whatever you may believe your credentials to be.

Here is that new Dr. Mengele, ready to thrust us into a new dark age made darker and perhaps more protracted by the lights of perverted science:


You can see his entire motivation is to eliminate the people he considers unworthy. Or rather, NOT.

This is a real person, trying to help people who suffer (and some people really do suffer, if you're not one of them, hooray for you, but then, this therapeutic approach isn't for you, so why get bent out of shape over it?)
Scapegoating such people and forcing them into the role of pantomime villains in a cheesy polemic against genetic knowledge is grotesque and insulting.

The argument that even well intentioned research is bad because it could be misused by powerful villains is true of everything else that people do.

Bad men can use passenger aircraft to commit mass murder by flying them into office towers, so we must ban civil aviation. Bad men can use computers to monitor everyone's conversations, so we should stop using computers or any form of digital communication. Bad men can use math and engineering to build death camps, so we must end the study of either. Wise men have pointed out that language is the most powerful weapon and there is nothing more dangerous than an idea, so let's have a moratorium on both.

This reductio ad absurdum follows the logic of your argument exactly. It is unworthy.

This intervention of "turning on a gene" or "removing a protein" or whatever it is that it does to "reverse autism", IMPROVES the quality of lives of those who are otherwise little more than infants, regardless of their chronological age. Furthermore, this change / repair of a singe gene in the individual is not anything that can be inherited by that individual's offspring. So, I actually don't even know where the argument that this will have devastating consequences for "future generations" because these generations will "inherit" the "altered genes" is coming from. It's not like the involves introducing mutations / alterations to eggs or sperms, which are the only mutations / alterations that can inherited by offspring / future generations.

Or maybe I am just too stooopid to get it. Either way, I don't care because if this improves the quality of someone's life - as opposed to preventing that someone from even existing - then this aien't no Eugenics. Except in your wildest imaginations.

And yet, if it's so absurd why do you keep coming back to argue? If you know what the concept means, you'd also know that only a fool engages in a fool's argument-- and we both know you're not a fool.

Assuming Feng's motivation are good history is replete with good peoples innovations used for bad ends. It must be remembered that American eugenics was as much about disabled as it was race. It became very popular in large part because it was seen as the humanitarian thing to do both for the families and the disabled people themselves who it was believed would be spared a miserable wretched existence. Cost was another justification. The original eugenicists here wanted to use poison gas but realized that would descredit their cause. So such positive fun euphemisms such as better baby contests and fitter family contests were used.

After The Nazi's the whole idea was in disrepute. Now 70 plus years had gone by, American eugenics history has largly been forgotten about. In this Black lives matter era if anybody tried to justify gene editing because bieng black in America greatly increases the chances of your life bieng miserable the reaseach facility would burnt to the ground and the researchers arrested. Similar thing for LBGT and other groups. But if you do it for Autism many rush to your defense.

When I see the pretty much the same humanitarian and cost justifications damm right I am going to be scared.

Because it irks me to see the pro-ignorance, scare mongering position put forward here and it disturbs me to think that some people who visit these pages and don't really know much about the background might be mislead by it.

I have learned that it isn't always futile to challenge bad arguments and when you least expect it, you can do some good by putting forward a good case, so instead of just shrugging and letting it go unchallenged I am arguing my position on this.

AsPartOfMe, I agree with your criticism of eugenics, though I don't think it's true that the American eugenics movement is forgotten. I took University of Minnesota professor Matt McGue's Coursera class in Human Behavioral Genetics and we read heavily about eugenics both in the US and abroad. It isn't possible to study the subject without getting heavily into medical ethics and the eugenicist enthusiasms of many of the early pioneers in this area (e.g., Galton). But it just doesn't apply to this case. No group of people is being removed from the population here.

I think that more knowledge in this area, not less, is the best defense for neurodiversity against the simplistic essentialism that leads to racism and out-group demonization in popular culture. I find it horrifying to see work that may help us to really understand more about the neurology of all our diverse ways of being under attack in this way.

This is the part that worries me.

In an ideal world, I would prefer tolerance and accommodation to finding a cure.

I realize that, unfortunately, finding a cure is easier to achieve. Tolerance and accommodation requires learning new patterns of thought and reaction. Finding a cure just involves getting the right information. Neither of them are simple, but one involves the free will and attitudes of billions of people and the other, well, doesn't.

Knowing that, if they find a way to make me into a round peg, I'm going to take the fix. I think most people ultimately would (and that's why, even if it's technically voluntary, it isn't really a choice). That goes down rough. It hurts.

Oh well.

The part that's worrying to me is that these things are in the gene pool for a reason. When it's 1 out of 5000, you can make a case for tragic errors in genetic transmission. You can say what they say about things like Tay-Sachs-- that ONE copy of the gene confers some advantage (I think it was resistance to either TB or anemia, but I'm not going to look it up right now) but two copies creates a problem that needs to be remediated.

When it's 1 out of 54 (or whatever the CDC is saying now-- I think Autism Speaks' study in South Korea was probably pretty close to accurate, something like 1 in 38)?? Or as much as 1 out of 10 (the numbers I've heard for ADHD, which seem to be accurate based on looking at my kids' classmates)??

Things that don't have good reasons to exist don't survive in the gene pool well enough to be present in those numbers. If 3%, or 10%, of the population shows some trait, you HAVE to stop and wonder if it might not have been beneficial at some point in time...

...and therefore if it might not be again.

Bottleneck events happen. They happen all the time. I don't like the idea of monkeying with the genetic diversity that might get the species as a whole through one, and I don't like the idea of basically creating an artificial one by destroying, or editing out, certain traits that we, in our limited vision and limited wisdom, don't currently favor.

I am thinking of the general public at large not students of Human Behavoiral Genetics college course. It was not and I do not believe even today mentioned in basic elementry through high school history courses. Even back in the 1960's we were taught about slavery and the genocide of native Americans and of course Nazi Eugentics which is still often mentioned. That the Nazis basically learned how to do it from the Americans, that American elites gave financial support to early Nazi efforts, how widely popular Eugenics was amoung leading intellectiuals as well as the general public is not often talked about

Arguing that you can't predict the future is not ignorance, it's just factual whether one likes it or not. You say all evidence points towards a rosy conclusion, yet you're only looking at the science itself, outside of the moral implications of said research-- which is really all this thread is about. Things don't exist in a vacuum, they get out spread and change, and I'm sorry but humans aren't morally capable of using this research yet. I mean in this very thread you've heard people claim they'd do anything, including wiping out the entire pack if need be, for their own narrow interests-- and yet you somehow think humanity is truly capable of harnessing the power of genetics in only positive ways.

I agree with you. I think it's more than a bit mad that we have museums memorializing the holocaust in New York and at the Smithsonian, but don't have a museum devoted to the eugenics movement. The history should be known by all and exposed in the brightest light possible. That is the best way to ensure the sentiment "never again."

Cold Spring Harbor has this: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/

No one disputes this. A very shabby straw man does not advance your pro-ignorance argument.

I've said nothing of the kind. What I have said is that this specific research does not lead to the dark things you raise fears about. It doesn't have any moral implications related to outcomes that it doesn't lead to. I understand that you assign guilt by association to whole field of molecular genetics and collective guilt to all researchers in this area, but I think that's an irrational position.

Again, you ascribe to me a position I have not taken, just as you ascribe motives to the researchers they don't appear to have. People can certainly use knowledge of genetics for bad purposes. But this is true of everything people can do.

That some people may use some knowledge or technology for evil ends is not a good reason to suppress the knowledge or eliminate the technology. Cars kill us by the tens of thousands and are used to facilitate all manner of violent and terrible crime, but we don't ban them altogether because of that and we don't claim that study of traffic deaths or use of vehicles in crime will make us more vulnerable to those risks.

An event in deep space could sterilize the earth, but we would not feel or be safer if we were to ban astronomy or astrophysics. Yet your suggestion that this research is putting us at risk and should not be carried out seems equivalent to me to the idea that we should not study stellar evolution for fear that we may learn of previously unknown vulnerabilities to cosmic events.

If we note that human agency is the key difference between dangers from cosmic events and dangers from technologies, then more knowledge, not less is the way to make good decisions. I submit to you that arguments like these put forward in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-t ... ne-1.17111
http://www.nature.com/news/should-you-e ... es-1.19432

...are best conducted in the light of knowledge and reason, not ignorance and fear. We can see what the other kind of thinking leads to here:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... ed-2015-02

I don't understand why anyone, even people who are very, very frightened, would want to put forth arguments for ignorance. Ignorance won't keep you safe.