[ExI] Limits of human modification

[Chris Hibbert]

> I think that the most appropriate test for permissibility of human
> germline modifications should be a composite of predicted net impact
> on social utility assessed by a subjective measure and an objective
> measure.
>
> The objective measure would be a suitable econometric instrument,
> such as per capita GDP. Any modification that increases GDP in the
> long term or is GDP-neutral should be allowed, unless it fails the
> subjective part of the test. Of course, the same modification could
> differentially impact GDP in various situations, so the
> permissibility of a modification would be subject to review. A
> first-generation IQ boost could become a net drag on the economy
> where third-generation boost is needed for an entry job, so it might
> become unacceptable. Sponsors of a modification could pre-pay for a
> GDP-negative modification, for example contributing to a fund which
> would reimburse for losses attributable to the modification.
>
> The subjective measure would be a test of well-being. Modifications
> that reduce predicted well-being below baseline of the unmodified
> genotype should be disallowed.

Hmm. These seems like reasonable things to think about before you 
unleash something on your progeny and the world, but they seem extremely 
difficult to measure in an objective way by a global police force (or 
even a benign scientific overseer). Even trying to distinguish the 
econometric as objective and the well-being as subjective seems fraught 
with problems. It's somewhat true that we have instruments for measuring 
these kinds of outcomes across societies, but I don't think anyone has 
done anything approaching a respectable job of analyzing them 
prospectively for proposals that haven't been implemented yet.

So, as I said, it seems reasonable, so ask someone who has developed 
germline techniques, and is considering applying them to himself or to 
paying customers or volunteers, to consider the plausible consequences 
out to the third or fourth generation at least. And perhaps this is a 
reasonable approach to recommend that institutional review boards take, 
as long as they have the ability to consider such questions in a civil 
manner. But hoping that this will be done in a way that politicians or 
the public can agree on the outcome seems unlikely to be fruitful.

Chris
-- 
The government's efforts to expand "access" to care while limiting
costs are like blowing up a balloon while simultaneously squeezing
it.  The balloon continues to inflate, but in misshapen form.
     ---David Goldhill

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
http://mydruthers.com