The gene drive dilemma: we can alter entire species, but should we?

That's basically what dogs are, for some people/groups. Are dogs used in this way unethical? (real question, not implied judgement)

Android robots will be a reality before your scenario has a chance at reality.

People will opt for the dependable, low maintenance ethics-free option.

My gift to industry is the genetically engineered worker, or Genejack. Specially designed for labor, the Genejack's muscles and nerves are ideal for his task, and the cerebral cortex has been atrophied so that he can desire nothing except to perform his duties. Tyranny, you say? How can you tyrannize someone who cannot feel pain?

Chairman Sheng-ji Yang "Essays on Mind and Matter"

You've basically described Brave New World.

It seems unethical if you do it by gene drive. But what if you add some natural randomness to the process and other desirable objectives. Imagine a dating service with a DNA database and you can match up people whose offspring could potentially be very subservient.

What if the full effect is expected after matching 5 generations of people?

What if the real goal is to create a fraction of people more attentive to minding about the environment and total blissful subservience is just a bi-product? For the good of the human race!

It's speculated in [1], that agriculture selected evolved humanity towards both long term planning and docility

[1]Cochran, Gregory, and Henry Harpending. The 10,000 year explosion: How civilization accelerated human evolution. Basic Books, 2009.

I don't think this scenario is realistic. It would almost certainly be easier and cheaper to use mechanical automation over human slaves.

Gene drive is not the same as selective breeding or GMO. Gene drive is not the same as CRISPR. It's not just giving an organism a particular favorable trait and waiting for nature to take its course by spreading that trait throughout the population.

Gene drive involves artificially increasing the likelihood of transmission of a gene to offspring. One such theoretical technique (according to my layperson's understanding) is basically to use CRISPR to encode CRISPR into an organism's DNA, in a way that is self-perpetuating. Then the genetic modification will spread through the entire population regardless of whether it improves fitness.

> designed and engineered

No real design or engineering was involved beyond having an idea of what we wanted and trying to select for that trait in breeding and offspring. We've just rolled the genetic dice repeatedly and selected the outcomes we preferred.

> we absolutely should continue doing what we're already doing.

This is very unlike what we have been doing, and it's hardly been an unqualified success - lots of traits we have selected for (eg what defines a particular dog breed) have come with real trade-offs (at least for the animals: arthritis and fits, respiratory conditions, uncontrolled drooling, eye infections, ...)

It sounds like James was making a joke and the author quoted him verbatim to give a sense of the kind of person he is.

Some people consider it rude to wear hats indoors. I personally haven't heard anyone younger than 60-70 complain about it though.

IIRC Only a something like 3/30 mosquito species bite humans. We could wipe those out without impacting the food chain.

They tried it this year, and surprise surprise, not all of the ones that were supposed to die actually died, (or didn't become sick enough to become sterile) resulting in some "artificial" DNA now wild in the breeding gene pool. It was supposed to be limited to sterile males or fathers that could only offspring sterile males.

Actual impact TBD. But population did decrease significantly for months.

Isn’t that where evolution picks up and runs with it?

Please don't make the mistake of assuming that pursuit of profit is the only reason for an institution to skimp on best practices. Or rather, please don't assume that non-profit institutions (and governments) can automatically be trusted to follow best practices because their motives are pure. They're no more immune to bureaucratic infighting, external pressure, and general human weakness than any company. (And remember, while NASA does incredible work, the actual hardware is mostly built by for-profit defense contractors... for better and for worse.)

That said, is anyone actually suggesting that for-profit companies should undertake gene drives on their own? Because my assumption was that any such decision would have to be made by governments, regardless of who actually does the work.

you seem to have gotten negative feedback, but I agree with your sentiment.

It is kind of silly to think we are "altering" species. We would be creating new species or breeds using existing ones as a template. Unless there is some agenda I am unaware of to go out and kill all existing members of a species after we create our own version of it?

If nothing else, isolate the artificial species into controlled habitats. I know a primary use-case often discussed is regarding mosquitoes where that wouldnt be the case.. but imagine editing the genetics of zoo animals so that they are much more easily acclimated to zoo life. Less negative effects of poor temperature control, a broader dietary selection, reduced reaction times for dangerous animals. And there is no risk of environmental impact since they are in isolated enirovments

>Bans on tools have only ever delayed progress and caused misery.

It really depends on the "tool"; arguably a great many atrocious weapons are tools, yet it's hard for me to see nuclear disarmament as anything but progress. Technology is not neutral, it is informed by concerns and developments outside of its own instrumental purposes. In the same way that recent (last century or so) tools/technology have brought massive improvements to the lives of everyone, the same way they bring massive improvement is the way that other tools (or even the same ones) bring massive regression.

As for this particular technology, I don't know enough about it to comment - only to say that in general a variety of different concerns should be involved in its design and evaluation - from scientists to ethicists.