Silver: Doubling not necessarily troubling


Steven Schultz

 

Lee Silver


 

Princeton NJ -- Lee Silver, professor of molecular biology and public affairs, is an authority on the subject of behavioral genetics. He also has become a leader in addressing the societal impacts of biotechnology, particularly in the area of reproductive medicine.

In 1997, shortly after Scottish scientists announced the cloning of Dolly the sheep, Silver published the book "Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in the Brave New World," which has since been translated into 14 languages.

In the book, Silver shows how advanced techniques of molecular biology combined with reproductive technologies such as cloning could have a staggering effect on the way people reproduce.

As he notes in the text of his University Web site, "Prospective parents will soon be able to choose which of their genes to give to their children, and whether to add in genes they don't even carry, in order to provide them with increased chances for health, longevity, happiness and success."

He suggests that over many generations, the differences between genetically enhanced people and "naturals" may grow so great that the species could divide and the two groups would no longer be able to mate.

He explores these and other bioethical issues in his undergraduate class "Human Genetics, Reproduction and Public Policy" in the Woodrow Wilson School.

In recent weeks, questions related to cloning have returned to public discussion. Congress held hearings in March on potential anti-cloning legislation. Recent reports have shown that cloned animals suffer a number of birth defects, some of which do not manifest themselves until later in life.


 

"If people understood what the actual technology could accomplish -- and more importantly, what it couldn't accomplish -- most of the hysteria associated with the various notions of a 'clone' would die away."


 

In light of these developments, the Princeton Weekly Bulletin asked Silver to answer some questions about cloning.

 
In the four years since Dolly and "Remaking Eden," what have been some of the most tantalizing or discouraging scientific developments related to reprogenetics?

The most tantalizing development has been the decipherment of the human genome, both ahead of schedule and under-cost. We now have a nearly-complete catalog of the 30,000 or so genes present in every human cell. This catalog provides an incredibly powerful tool for working out the genetic influences on all the diseases that people get. In turn, this information will lead to the development of new therapies and drugs that will continue to extend both lifespan and quality of life. Biotechnology has become more powerful and sophisticated (much more quickly than I expected) with the integration of tools from the computational sciences and engineering. The genomes of many other organisms of value to humankind are also under analysis to develop new products and therapies.

The most discouraging development is not a scientific one, but a social one. Unfortunately, as the promise of biotechnology has grown ever greater, many people around the world have become more and more fearful of the technology, in large part because they don't understand it. Of course, all new biotech protocols must be properly vetted in terms of safety to human health and the environment. But the wholesale rejection of biotechnology is shortsighted and self-defeating.

 
What are the biggest hurdles in the way of human cloning and human genetic engineering? How long will it be -- five years or 50 -- before they are cleared away?

My feeling is (and always has been) that cloning is highly over-rated. If people understood what the actual technology could accomplish -- and more importantly, what it couldn't accomplish -- most of the hysteria associated with the various notions of a "clone" would die away. Recent data from animal experiments indicate a high rate of birth defects associated with the process, and a continued low rate of efficiency. Thus, for these reasons alone, I believe it is unethical for clinics to offer this procedure to their clients at the present time. With enough time and effort, I suspect that the technical problems could be overcome (although I could certainly be wrong about this). Nevertheless, there are some clinics that are going ahead anyway, and thus, I expect that we will see "monoparental children" born in the next decade.

 
What diseases would be the simplest, most obvious candidates for genetic engineering? Assuming such early attempts go well, what further "enhancements" are likely to come next?

There are many small changes that could be imagined right now, like providing resistance to infection by HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), or decreased susceptibility to some forms of cancer, obesity, heart disease and Alzheimer's disease (to name a few such diseases). However, I don't think that genetic engineering of embryos will be practiced until a certain threshold is reached where the advantages provided by the technology are large enough (and safe enough) to overcome the disadvantages of using a radical new technology in the process of reproduction. The threshold could be crossed when genetic engineering provides safe and strong protection against all of the common diseases that people get as they age, as well as a generalized increase in lifespan. In the beginning, I think that all "enhancements" of embryos would be based on people giving their own children the genes that some lucky other children get naturally.

 
In "Remaking Eden," you argue that the widespread use of human cloning and genetic engineering is inevitable. Nonetheless, are there any federal laws or other safeguards you would advocate right now to minimize abuse and inequity?

The main abuse of the technology that I could imagine is to use it before validating its safety. Normal parents want to help their children, not hurt them. At the outset, they will simply be able to provide their children with health advantages found naturally elsewhere in the human population. The more serious problem is one of inequity. In a country that has rejected universal healthcare (and where many poor women do not receive any kind of prenatal care), it seems unlikely that genetic engineering of health enhancements will be state-funded. Thus, the situation already in existence today -- where wealth correlates with good health -- could be amplified. The only way to stop genetic inequity is to ban the use of the technology throughout the world or to mandate its financing by some worldwide agency. Both of these political solutions seem extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future.

 
When you consider the future of your own children growing up in an age of reprogenetics, what is your biggest source of worry and optimism?

The optimism is that my daughter will be able to have children who do not suffer from asthma like she and her father do, and that my grandchildren will be protected from the ravages of many other diseases. The fear is that existing disparities between rich and poor will be exacerbated and genetically ingrained. However, my colleagues in the economics department assure me that my fears are unfounded, and that free markets and free trade will bring people together rather than pull them apart.
 


top


May 21, 2001
Vol. 90, No. 28
previous   archives   next

Contents

New president
Professor named 19th president
Time is right for Tilghman
Reaction enthusiastic for new leader
Family comes first for new president
Shirley Tilghman bio

Life sciences
Search is on for genomics institute head
Silver: Doubling not necessarily troubling
Landweber tracks changes in genetic code
Virus leaves trail in brain for researchers

Students and alumni
Thesis sparks thriving teacher corps
Recent grad's first novel attracts attention
Student teaching builds bridges
New program preps local students for success

Other news
Merck funds professorship to honor alumnus
Hair colors literary, artistic representations
Class size makes a difference

People
Remaining discretionary funds to increase staff salaries
Doig announces retirement
Barron is new women's hoops coach
Spotlight
Briefs
Thirteen faculty members transfer to emeritus status

Sections
By the numbers: Reunions
Nassau Notes
Calendar of events


The Bulletin is published weekly during the academic year, except during University breaks and exam weeks, by the Office of Communications, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. Permission is given to adapt, reprint or excerpt material from the Bulletin for use in other media.


Deadline. In general, the copy deadline for each issue is the Friday 10 days in advance of the Monday cover date. The deadline for the Bulletin that covers June 4&endash;17 is Friday, May 25. A complete publication schedule is available at deadlines or by calling (609) 258-3601.


Subscriptions. The Bulletin is distributed free to faculty, staff and students. Others may subscribe to the Bulletin for $24 for the academic year (half price for current Princeton parents and people over 65). Send a check to Office of Communications, Stanhope Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544.


Editor: Ruth Stevens
Calendar editor: Carolyn Geller
Contributing writers: Jennifer Greenstein, Pam Hersh, Marilyn Marks, Steven Schultz, Regina Tan
Photographer: Denise Applewhite
Design: Mahlon Lovett, Laurel Masten Cantor
Web edition: Mahlon Lovett