In response to John Sundman's article "How I Decoded the Human Genome" I would like to say the following:

First, I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Sundman's writing style. I look forward to reading more from him in the future.

Second, in response to the initial question of whether or not mastering our DNA gives us the right to decide if his children should never have been born, I believe that the ethical and legal groundwork has already been laid down with respect to the justice system's interpretation of choice in abortion. While genetic manipulation of a developing fetus will have its own unique issues, a logical extension of abortion law would dictate that the mother be the one given the power to make that decision.

Third, with respect to evolution, to ponder if mankind will ever be able to control the "force" of evolution is to misunderstand what evolution is. Evolution is not a force to be controlled, but merely life's never-ending response to living in the physical world. We cannot control mankind's evolution, or any other creature's, because evolution is bigger than the human race, at least as big as this planet, maybe as big (or bigger) than the universe itself. Whatever creatures we create will merely be offshoots of the evolutionary tree, and while we may wind up as just another offshoot ourselves, future history will certainly look back on this period (if it bothers to look at all) as just another blip on the long, merciless road of time.

What concerns me more than the hubristic idea of evolutionary control is the placing of our genetic code under corporate control. Corporations are not human, nor do they have human motivations, and placing something as uniquely human as our genetics in corporate hands will certainly have inhuman consequences. Genetic manipulation is the most powerful and dangerous force ever contemplated by man; even atomic energy pales in comparison. And for the same reason we don't allow corporations to own atomic weapons, we shouldn't allow corporations to own our genetic code.

In conclusion, though, I greatly admire Mr. Sundman's devotion to his children, and am happy they can make a life for themselves. We may be able to factor the genetic code, but we will never be able to quantify the human spirit.

-- Charles Snead

I just finished reading John Sundman's article(s) concerning DNA.

Mr. Sundman presents a rather polarized "all or nothing" argument concerning human genetic engineering. I would argue that there is, in fact, a third choice, and that choice is ... choice.

One of his main concerns appears to be that this technology will be used to banish the genetically deformed and genetically handicapped from the world.

This fear is unfounded: genetic counseling, prenatal testing, and a technology called "abortion" has been available for quite some time, yet (for example) people still choose to give birth to children with Down syndrome.

After all, that's their choice.

(Whether or not an individual with Down's would choose to be born with or without Down syndrome, however, is another question.)

-- Steve Muise

Try as I might I can't understand Mr. Sundman's distinction between the suffering caused by a pathogen -- toxoplasmosis -- and the suffering caused by a genetically influenced disease -- bipolar disorder. The distinction seems to endow DNA with some sort of supernatural judgment of "How Things Are Meant To Be." In truth our genome is just one of many incredibly complex biochemical systems that combine to sustain and reproduce life. DNA and the genome are not communications from the Platonic realm. They are just as susceptible to chance and bad luck as the biochemical systems in his son that were damaged by toxoplasmosis.

Suppose we learned tomorrow that bipolar disorder was not genetically linked after all, and that it was caused by exposure to an industrial toxin in utero. Would a campaign to eliminate or counteract the toxin be disrespectful of his daughter's humanity?

-- Charles E. Grant

John Sundman's article certainly made me think, and raised a lot of questions. Too many, maybe. I found his article in need of editing -- it was long and rambling and made a lot of points without seeming to tie them all together. In the end, he goes in a monologue that sounds more like an editorial, raising even more questions that he hadn't even covered in the article.

I admit this is a complicated topic, and there are many, many unanswered questions. There is no way to stop DNA research, just as there is no way to stop cloning or nanotechnology. No matter how scared, skeptical or "crackpot" the rest of us are, there will always be enough people hungering for new knowledge in the name of progress.

I carry a "defective" gene. I walk with a limp, my joints are often a source of pain, and I can look forward to requiring hip replacement surgery sometime in my 50s (I am now 32). As a child I often felt outcast and other children made fun of me for my limp. I am sure that I have been shaped by my experiences -- I am introverted (which means that I am sometimes shy, which I'd rather not be, but also contemplative/philosophical/intellectual, which I'm OK with). I am also stronger for it. If I have children, there is a 50 percent chance that they will have the same condition, but I would not abort them if tests proved that they had it.

I don't know if I would do the same if tests showed my child had Down syndrome, or would be otherwise mentally or physically handicapped. I know only that one can live quite happily with my condition. Perhaps others, who don't have my experience, would rather have a "healthy" child. Mr. Sundman knows from his experience that raising disabled children is not the end of the world. And although I too fear a world where nobody is "different," what happens when having a "different" child is a choice? There were times when I hated my parents for having given birth to me. Can I morally make the decision to "curse" a child with a handicap? How bad a handicap can I/my child tolerate? I think we can only answer these questions for ourselves. Life was perhaps easier when we had no choice but to accept the life fate or God or whatever gave us. In this brave new world, we no longer have that luxury.

-- Stephan von Pohl

Mr. Sundman does us a service by presenting the rational, careful side of the gene-modification debate. I would, however, ask him to restrain his tendency to lapse into gee-whiz folksiness, as if to establish his bona fides as a "real" person even though he's talkin' about all kinds of high-falutin' scienterrific stuff. It was obnoxious in Time magazine through c. 1965, it was downright embarrassing for Ezra Pound, and it shows little respect for his audience.

On a different note, I would suggest that it's incorrect to equate the presence of great lessons potentially available via the experience of suffering with the desirability of imposing those lessons on future people ... consider Shel Silverstein's boy named "Sue" -- -it sure did a lot for him, but he had the sense to know that it was something to be avoided in the future.

To say that preventing handicaps (to use the proper word) in the future is to prevent some people from existing is to equate people with their handicaps. The world is vast and wonderful enough to provide many a painful lesson to our futurity, regardless of how much we're able to prevent kids from going blind or risk their heads exploding. If ordinary unhappiness will have to suffice, so be it.

Finally, although I have sniped, thanks again for the article. I hope Sundman's family will be well, and that he can get the hell out of manual labor as soon as possible.

-- Michael Turyn

Although I have my misgivings about biotech, the "right to be born" argument is one that I don't find compelling at all. People make decisions about family planning all the time. At the stage at which many genetic problems would be able to be detected in the future, you have a collection of cells or perhaps in the far future only an egg and a sperm. Perhaps you will even be able to correct the problem in the womb. Who knows.

If you are going to argue that everyone has a right to be born, why stop at genetic engineering. Birth control, even based on timing of a woman's cycle, prevents children from being born.

-- Celia Clause

Perhaps next Salon can commission an article on abortion in which a mother interviews her children, who go on record saying that they are glad they weren't aborted. This article could also feature the famous turnaround of Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey because hey, if somebody changed their mind from one side to the other, we should all pay attention. Surely this is the basis on which emotionally charged issues should be decided.

-- Sally Williams

A caveman learned to make fire and another decried the fall of civilization at the hands of cooked meat. So it has been and so it will always be. Debate is a necessary element of a responsible society; fearmongering, however, is a return to a darker time where we feared the boogeyman. Education is the key to making good decisions about the future of our race, not hand-wringing and jumping at shadows.

The coming breakthroughs in genetics will change us. They will free us. The burdens of disease and infirmity will fall away. Death will hold no dominion over us. We will explore the very nature of existence, what it means to be alive, sentient, human. The future will come and it cannot be stopped or hidden from. We must approach it with courage and, yes, vigilance, but never shrink from it in fear. We are blessed to live in a time where we have the power to do so much good, to turn away from such an opportunity out of ignorance would be a crime against humanity, present and future. We have a duty as citizens of this world to seize our destiny and make it as we see fit, because it will be made. Whether it be in our interest rather than that of the rich, the powerful or the mad, is up to us.

-- Ramon Iovin

Recent Stories