The ambition is clear: “Why should only the tall have access to tall genes? And why should only the smart have access to smart genes?… our goal is to give as many people as possible the opportunity to choose their genes for themselves (and their descendants) rather than simply accept inherited genetic inequality. Because genetics shouldn’t be a lottery.” This is the stated mission of Bootstrap Bio, a startup that openly aims to eventually provide prospective parents with the means to genetically enhance their offspring. While one could argue that children whose parents can afford such services would inherently possess an advantage, a more immediate concern is whether we could, in reality, genetically enhance our children if the desire were present.
To gauge the potential possibilities, the starting point is a list of “protective and enhancing” gene variants compiled by Harvard University biologist George Church. When asked about the list’s purpose, Church explained that he began compiling it in response to questions arising during lectures. These inquiries ranged from whether all rare gene variants are inherently harmful to the nature of potential genetic enhancements. The list has particularly resonated with transhumanists, who envision employing genetic engineering to create superior human beings.
Examining the Proposed “Enhancements”
The list itself presents a disparate collection of entries. It currently comprises over 100 items, though only about half pertain to specific gene mutations or variants identified in humans and linked to discernible effects. The remaining entries relate to animal studies or clinical trials. Church selectively highlighted mutations that could theoretically yield a significant “positive effect,” encompassing protection against specific diseases and a reduction in male aggression.
However, upon examination, some traits on the list appear decidedly undesirable. For instance, it mentions that unspecified changes in a particular gene could augment a person’s “manipulation ability” by bestowing six fingers on each hand. The question arises: would this truly be an improvement? Would anyone genuinely desire six fingers, even if it conferred such an ability? The practicalities, such as purchasing gloves, immediately come to mind.
Another listed entry describes two gene deletions resulting in insensitivity to pain. This is not an enhancement; children unable to feel pain are known to sustain severe injuries. The majority of other traits on the list fall into a category that seems more of a convenience than a necessity for genetic intervention. Consider “low odor production”—in the era of deodorants, its essentiality is questionable. While the ability to hold one’s breath for longer or cope better at high altitudes might be appealing, it’s uncertain how much future descendants would value such traits.
Only a select few variants on the list are associated with traits of broad appeal, such as increased longevity or higher intelligence—qualities that affluent prospective parents might seek. Yet, we remain a significant distance from being able to confidently assert that engineering these variants into children would indeed make them smarter or extend their lives. Our current knowledge is simply insufficient.
Engineered to Sleep Less: Considering the Costs
For a start, it is possible that some of these correlations are inaccurate, and certain gene variants may not produce the effects we currently attribute to them. Alternatively, their desired effect might only manifest in conjunction with specific other genetic variants. Furthermore, trade-offs are often involved.
One variant linked to elevated intelligence, according to Church’s list, may concurrently increase the risk of blindness later in life. Similarly, resistance to norovirus could potentially elevate the risk of Crohn’s disease. It seems more prudent to accept a slight decrease in cognitive function and the occasional bout of norovirus than the alternative. Individual preferences may vary, and the choices made on behalf of future children could lead to either gratitude or regret.
While the absence of noted downsides for most variants on the list is stated, this does not guarantee their non-existence. Take, for example, variants associated with reduced sleep requirements. Given the crucial role of sleep in maintaining brain health, it appears highly probable that such variants involve certain trade-offs.
A point often overlooked is that our comprehension of genetic variants like these is still in its nascent stages. In many instances, definitively confirming whether a specific genetic change would be beneficial may prove unattainable. The determination of a genetic variant’s positive and negative effects necessitates the examination of tens of thousands, if not more, individuals who possess it.
Towards a Fairer Genetic Lottery
This indicates that to maximize the probability of any individual truly benefiting from genetic engineering, one would need to implement dozens or even hundreds of changes simultaneously. This is particularly relevant for the traits highlighted by Bootstrap Bio, as both height and intelligence are influenced by hundreds of variants, each contributing a minor effect. The current challenge is that we have not yet developed the capability to safely introduce even a few alterations into human embryos, let alone hundreds at once. This was previously discussed in the context of preventing inherited diseases.
This discourse is not motivated by opposition to genetically enhancing our children. On the contrary, support exists for this prospect, as it presents an alternative to leaving children’s destinies to the caprices of their genetic inheritance. However, there is considerable doubt regarding the advisability of attempting heritable genome editing in the near future. To reach a point where such an endeavor could be seriously contemplated, the focus should not be on startups like Bootstrap Bio. Instead, a significant expansion of large-scale, long-term studies, such as the UK Biobank, which tracks numerous individuals over several decades, is required. Such research would provide a clearer understanding of the advantages and disadvantages associated with genetic variants like those on Church’s list.
Regarding the notion that companies selling genetic enhancements will foster a fairer world, this proposition lacks substantiation. Approximately one-fifth of children born globally today experience stunted growth and impaired cognitive abilities due to inadequate nutrition. An even larger proportion lack access to quality education. Those genuinely concerned with mitigating the element of chance in a child’s life prospects might consider focusing on helping these millions of children achieve their inherent genetic potential, rather than attempting to augment the genes of a select few.
Our genomes contain imperfections that once seemed uncorrectable. However, with CRISPR, an exceptionally powerful tool for treating genetic diseases—and potentially for self-improvement—has emerged.