GENETIC ENGINEERING

Introduction
Imagine a time (not too distant in the future) when we will be able to choose the genetics of our children if we so chose.  That ability could hold the potential for a great deal of benefits and risks.  So, if we could control how the technology was used, how should it?

Background
On the one hand, we have sequenced the human genome and studies are ongoing (slower than anticipated) to understand what it means, and what diseases are associated with what genes.  It's complicated, but at a minimum, we should be able to identify individuals whose genetic make-up predisposes them to desirable outcomes.  If we were to give those genetics to future children, we could not only spare them the clearly genetically-determined diseases but could probably also confer to them genetic protection for a wide range of diseases usually considered to be lifestyle-related.

On the other hand, progress is steadily being made in the area of genetic engineering.  With:
  - in vitro fertilization, 
  - gene insertions, 
  - nuclear transfers, 
  - cloning, 
  - turning adult cells into embryonic cells, 
  - even artificial life from sequenced genomes, and
  - whatever the future brings
we will have the capability of being able to create humans with the genetics of our choosing...if we chose to do this.

Risks
But genetic engineering elicits some concerns.  One concern is whether we understand the technology well enough in order to implement it safely for humans.  Whereas there are good reasons for concern, it is likely that, with time, techniques will be perfected in animal models until we can be fairly confident that we know that we can do it safely.  Besides, in certain situations, the know consequences of not acting in the case of someone who will inevitably transmit a genetic disease will be greater than any risk of genetic engineering.  So, initial human tests will be conducted for ethical reasons.

We are more than a decade past the cloning of Dolly the sheep.  At the time it elicited a fair amount of shock and frequently produced the comment that our technology was getting ahead of our ethics.  This isn't true.  Since then, we've had plenty of time to discuss and figure out what we should do with such technology.  But there is no consensus largely because we don't have any universal mechanism to establish a binding consensus.  So, we are waiting until the earliest unethical researcher clones a human baby, and then the shock of our technology being behind our ethics may finally provide the impetus to estalish universal norms for genetic engineering.

Another risk is the intentional misuse of the technology.  Whether or not it would acutally happen, one can imagine some rogue country growing millions of gorilla-strength, humans who have no fear, are entirelly aggressive, yet obeys implicitly the commands of their superiors -- the "ultimate" weapon.  But, for fear of this hypothetical, extreme risk, will all countries forever prevent any genetic engineering for however worthy the medical case?  Highly unlikely.

So, what is and what is not appropriate when it comes to genetic engineering?

Regulations
First, in the long-term, the regulation of genetic engineering will need to be universal and verifiable.  Ideas of soverignty will make achieving this nearly impossible initially.  Liberal countries will bristle at the idea of control in an area with significant moral-religious dimensions.  The stem cell debate shows that liberals will likely go so far as to secure extra funding to speed the development of genetic engineering even if alternatives make such activities unnecessary.

Secondly, such universal regulations are made less effective without good inspections.  Attempts to regulate nuclear technology via the IAEA demonstrations that, again, sovereignty issues will make it difficult for good control and the nature of genetic engineering means that such research can be conducted using limited resources and in a largely undetectable manner.  The very difficulty of adequate inspections could, in fact, make it easier to argue against any inspections at all.

Rather, the way to ensure that international regulations are accept and adequately enforced is to employ sufficiently large economic consequences against countries that don't sign up to the treaty and/or who sign up but who don't allow for sufficiently intrusive inspections with severe consequences for violations.

Given that the dangers of genetic engineering isn't as obvious as the dangers of a hidden nuclear program, the most likely scenario is that there will be essentially no universal restrictions placed on genetic engineering until there are several outrageous abuses creating a sufficient outcry where even liberal-minded countries agree that something must be done.  But even then, there  won't be an outright ban, but just restrictions on the most extreme use of the technology.