Could Colorblindness Cure Be Morally Wrong?

[tiagosilva29]

destinyland writes:

1 in 12 men suffers from colorblindness, though '[t]he good news here is that these folks are simply missing a patch of DNA ... which is just the kind of challenge this Millennium is made for. Enter science.' But NPR's Moira Gunn (from Biotech Nation) now asks a provocative question. Is it wrong to cure colorblindness? She reports on an experiment that used a virus to introduce corrective DNA into colorblind monkeys. ('It took 20 weeks, but eventually the monkeys started distinguishing between red and green.') Then she asks, could it be viewed differently? 'Are we trying to 'normalize' humans to a threshold of experience?'

Slashdot

[zhangm Supervisor]

This is the question that mankind will face as science gives us newer treatments.

What if we can genetically engineer an embryo to fix Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, or susceptibility to Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, or any number of genetically inherited disorders? Is it morally justifiable to destroy one potential life (however short) and replace it with a "better" one free of defect?

I decided a few months ago that yes, I could live with that. Watching someone die of MS is a miserable experience, perhaps second only to the miserable experience of dying from it yourself. We already make life-altering decisions without any moral qualm; we might decide to drive the car to work one day rather than ride the bus, or buy the last jar of peanut butter from the grocery store rather than something else. Most of our actions, however trivial, have consequences that affect the course of our lives and the course of the lives of people that we know, and don't know, so the "we can't justify treatment because we can't possibly know the consequences" argument is worthless to me.

Like it or not, we already "play god" every single day.

[jakem1]

I'm not sure it's right (or as interesting) to compare colour blindness with a disease and I suspect you miss Moira Gunn's point a bit when you start talking about curing diseases.

It seems to me that this is more about whether it's right or wrong to remove little traits that don't lead to medical problems but might make life more interesting/lead to different insights that wouldn't be possible in a world where (for instance) everyone sees colours in the same way. It's an interesting question although I can't say that I've ever felt that my colour blindness has ever had a positive or negative impact on my life. At most, it's a good topic for small talk :) I wouldn't miss my colour blindness if it was gone but I can't see the point of treating it either.

As to the wider issue of using gene therapy to manipulate unwanted traits, I'm of the opinion that this is an undesirable thing. I think that the diversity of life is a positive, even when it produces unwanted results, and I'd prefer that it be driven by biology rather than human self interest.

[McCordRm]

I have to wonder... before this came along, was she arguing about the morality of fighting the Flu?

Our "natural" state is the one we're born into. The second we ingest anything man-made - whether

it's low-fat, processed milk or an asprin - we have begun changing what "should have been".

[carmatic]

I wouldn't miss my colour blindness if it was gone but I can't see the point of treating it either.

ah hah!

[argonite]

the world is it is encourages a minimum level of experience, for example traffic lights are in colour, and most cues we have are visual

[SkyyPunk Veteran]

I have to wonder... before this came along, was she arguing about the morality of fighting the Flu?

Our "natural" state is the one we're born into. The second we ingest anything man-made - whether

it's low-fat, processed milk or an asprin - we have begun changing what "should have been".

My thought too.. however when do you cut off from simply removing potential for diseases to making them smarter, better, faster, stronger? And then when we can, is it even a bad thing if we do?

And the idea of using a virus to manipulate DNA...sounds like the beginning of a horror movie :p

[McCordRm]

Yea, well... at some point we're going to look back and wonder at how the hell we were

ever able to survive as long as we did with these feeble bodies of today. We'll enhance

ourselves with all forms of cyber-replacement parts and laugh at the ignorant few that

refuse to conform and still walk around on "fleshy" legs or suffer a heart attack because

they're still using a biological heart.

Then, of course, the New Age hacker will come along and figure out how to overclock

his Heart Module and break new records, or download sensative data into his Headware

Jack since Privacy Laws prevent law enforcement from checking there.

It breaks down pretty simply: EITHER it is ok, it is natural progression, OR it is not.

If you're ok with taking an asprin to prevent the natural state of a headache, then

you will be ok with replacing your breakable legs with cyber ones. If you are ok

with getting a flu shot to fight off the natural occuring bug, then you are ok with

replacing your liver so that alcohol can't effect you and replacing your heart so

that it will never stop on you.

[Alan-]

?

And the idea of using a virus to manipulate DNA...sounds like the beginning of a horror movie?:p

It actually is a very good way to do such a thing. Such treatments may be available via using a genetically altered virus such as destroying cancer cells, or at least what makes them not be seen by the immune system. However there always is that threat of a virus mutation, but from what I understand and have attended lectures on assures it is at least relatively safe.

Now if we get into "Well we can cure x, y, and z, then why not start choosing hair color and intelligence?"

Genetics is very interesting but also deals with many morals, I plan to go into genetics and will probably faced with this question of ethics. One possible outcome is shown in the movie GATTACA.

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

im crossed, yes i feel it is a good use of technology to cure diseases on the DNA level.

but isnt that the same step as creating the perfect human that is in movies

and above that, would result in a " your not genetically altered you cant do that " in other movies

and what the Nazi's did with the Pure Race crap

[shockz]

I'm colorblind, and I've often wondered that if a cure/treatment ever came around, if I would take it or not.

This is how I've seen the world since I was born, and I often worry I wouldn't like, or be able to get used to the changes after the treatment. I've wondered if colors would be more intense/fulfilling, or just completely screwed up to what I'm used to seeing.

As far as it being morally correct, thats a non issue to me. I know my eyes are crap, and "normalizing" them to be correct isn't insulting to me.

[tiagosilva29]

I'm colorblind, and I've often wondered if a cure/treatment ever came around, if I would take it or not.

What's your colourblindness?

[shockz]

What's your colourblindness?

I get the colors "mixed up"

Supposedly my red is your green (and vice versa), my purple is your blue (and vice versa), and brown looks green to me.

Those "see the number" tests never work for me. :pinch:

The scientific names of my types are protanopia and deuteranopia

[Solid Knight]

I have a type of colorblindness but its only effect is that I can't pass certain colorblindness tests.

Regarding the moral issue; what's morally wrong about fixing the human machine?

Regarding the perfect human: it's not possible. Mutations would still occur and you need a certain level of diversity otherwise a single disease could wipe out the entire population.

[neo1911]

I get the colors "mixed up"

Supposedly my red is your green (and vice versa), my purple is your blue (and vice versa), and brown looks green to me.

Ohh man :(

[McCordRm]

Regarding the moral issue; what's morally wrong about fixing the human machine?

Simple.

The "Working As Intended" arguement.

[Solid Knight]

Simple.

The "Working As Intended" arguement.

? Your DNA is not sentient so there is no intention.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

This argument is fairly moot, since people have been arguing this since the dawn of time.

That person was cured of Influenza, that's against God's wishes

That person was cured of colour-blindness, that's against natures design

Same ****, different crazies.

[zhangm Supervisor]

I'm not sure it's right (or as interesting) to compare colour blindness with a disease and I suspect you miss Moira Gunn's point a bit when you start talking about curing diseases.

Are you trying to say that colorblindness doesn't have a genetic basis (in which case you'd be wrong), or that colorblindness is a special kind of genetic dysfunction that makes it distinct from those others that I mentioned.

Actually, I belive animal models for correcting colorblindness suggest that we can treat adults, so even better; just ask the person whether they want to have their vision fixed.

As to the wider issue of using gene therapy to manipulate unwanted traits, I'm of the opinion that this is an undesirable thing. I think that the diversity of life is a positive, even when it produces unwanted results, and I'd prefer that it be driven by biology rather than human self interest.

Fear not, we can still have genetic diversity without having to have people destined to die from a known and treatable disorder before they turn 30.

[Solid Knight]

Humans weren't intended to use crutches, straighten bones, clean wounds, et cetera when we got injured. We learned to do these things as our bodies are really bad at fixing themselves. Nobody goes around claiming that I should have crooked bones because God intended me to break my leg and for it to heal crookedly. Why is fixing a problem in somebody's genetic code different?

[McCordRm]

Humans weren't intended to use crutches, straighten bones, clean wounds, et cetera when we got injured.

Like I said... working as intended.

[Solid Knight]

Like I said... working as intended.

We were also "intended" to learn and use our knowledge to our benefit.

[Digitalx]

work as intended eat sex sleep kill. lol pretty much sums thats up. I think it's perfectly fine, using a virus to do the procedure sounds more dodgy then anything.

[BoredBozirini]

Simple.

The "Working As Intended" arguement.

And who defines what is "working as intended"?

[Growled Member]

And the idea of using a virus to manipulate DNA...sounds like the beginning of a horror movie :p

I have no problem curing colorblindness if someone wants to be cured. It's when we force them to be cured against their wills that I would have the problem. Still, using a virus to mess with our DNA is a bit scary. Like you, I've seen enough horror films to imagine all sorts of things going wrong.