All Clarivate websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

More information on our cookie policy.

BioWorld. Link to homepage.

Clarivate
  • BioWorld
  • BioWorld MedTech
  • BioWorld Asia
  • BioWorld Science
  • Data Snapshots
    • BioWorld
    • BioWorld MedTech
  • Special reports
    • Aging
    • Artificial intelligence
    • Coronavirus
    • IVDs on the rise
    • Top Biopharma Trends of 2021
    • Top Med-tech Trends of 2021
    • Premium reports
      • BioWorld Financings Reports
      • Disease Incidence & Prevalence Summaries

BioWorld. Link to homepage.

  • Sign In
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Subscribe
BioWorld - Wednesday, August 10, 2022
Home » Blogs » BioWorld Perspectives » Utopia, dystopia: Separating truth from fiction in bioethics discussions

BioWorld Perspectives
BioWorld Perspectives RSS FeedRSS

BioWorld

Utopia, dystopia: Separating truth from fiction in bioethics discussions

June 2, 2015
By Jennifer Boggs
No Comments

bioethics blog picLet’s face it: Imagining the means of humanity’s ultimate destruction makes for great entertainment.

There are no shortages of novels, movies and television shows featuring threats of global annihilation – zombie viruses, meteors hurtling through space, nuclear warfare – or opening up post-apocalyptic landscapes laid waste following a collision of unchecked scientific and technologic advances with the those worst of human traits – greed, irresponsibility, megalomania. And as an unabashedly enthusiastic science fiction fan, I love that stuff.

So, naturally, when anyone starts talking game-changing technologies such as DNA cloning or CRISPR, my brain almost immediately goes rifling through its compendium of science fiction references in search of pop culture context. Mention human cloning, and I’m thinking of The Boys from Brazil and (my new favorite show) Orphan Black. What about genome editing? Well, that reminds me of Gattaca and its aseptic world in which the aristocracy is defined by genetic superiority rather than financial wealth.

I know I’m not alone these associations. A number of film and book references made their way among speakers at the recent BEINGS 2015 bioethics meeting in Atlanta – a first-of-its kind gathering of a wide range of guests from scientists to spiritual leaders aimed at drafting guidelines for cell-based medical approaches, particularly those that could affect the inherited human germline. As panelists began outlining the scope of those potential guidelines, the references began flying – books such as Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake, for instance, a dystopian work in which an engineered virus all but wipes out humanity, to films such as Elysium, which might more accurately be classified as a utopian work – though, at the end of the day, both genres tend to spell equal disaster for humanity.

The truth is that we all use such pop culture references as a communication shorthand for describing often-complex ideas. ( I, for one, tend to be particularly prolific in casual conversation – bordering on Gilmore Girl-like at times.)

But when talking about technology – CRISPR, for instance – that promises such huge implications matched only by its potential for curing some of our most devastating diseases, we really need to start separating fact from fiction.

And that’s where efforts by the BEINGS 2015 group, as well as a recently launched U.S.-focused initiative from the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine could prove crucial, providing much-needed factual information, not only to policymakers, who are struggling to catch up with the rapidly moving gene-editing field, but to the public, who will have to get on board if companies using the technology hope, at the very least, to hit their recruitment goals for clinical trials.

Unfavorable public opinion also has a way of moving upward to those government officials who have the power to pull the plug on research deemed too controversial. Biopharma has only to look back to the last decade, which saw an administration’s worth of federal funding withheld from embryonic stem cell research based on reasons having little to do with science.

The same could happen to gene-editing technology. As NYU bioethicist Arthur Caplan noted at last month’s BEINGS meeting, “there are people convinced that some scientist out there is going to apply CRISPR for eugenics purposes.”

As admittedly nuts as that sounds, we all know that fears of creating a race of people with enhanced genetic traits – a concept made all the pricklier by notions of cultural, racial and ethnic biases – could easily be exacerbated in the press. All we need are a couple of irresponsible celebrities who take advantage of their large public followings to endorse discredited research. That’s how we ended up with a measles outbreak in 2015, a news story that might have seemed like science fiction itself only a decade ago.

And I’m not saying we should give up our science fiction pursuits. I certainly have no plans to surrender my geek membership card. And reading and watching what-if fiction can still impart philosophical lessons, such as it being a good idea to proceed cautiously with new discoveries and technologies.

Actually, that’s probably a decent approach to most areas of life, not least of which when it comes to genetic manipulation.

Let’s just make sure we proceed with the facts.

You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Report Abusive Comment

Popular Stories

  • Free access to BioWorld coronavirus articles

    BioWorld
    The articles in this collection are from BioWorld’s ongoing coverage of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. They are available for free with registration. Note...
  • Today's news in brief

    BioWorld
    BioWorld briefs for Aug. 9, 2022.
  • Today's news in brief

    BioWorld MedTech
    BioWorld MedTech briefs for Aug. 9, 2022.
  • Amvuttra

    Alnylam’s Amvuttra rare disease drug among positive recommendations from Europe’s CHMP

    BioWorld
    Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Amvuttra (vutrisiran), a treatment for the rare disease hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis, was among medicines...
  • Pig organ cells

    Whole body cellular function recovery in pigs after death

    Science
    A new system for restoring cell function and tissues in mammals after death could expand the availability of organs for transplantation. The research also opens...
black cortellis ad

BioWorld Premium

Enjoy extended coverage for the most complete market view with BioWorld, BioWorld MedTech, and BioWorld Asia in a single, easy to access subscription.

Subscribe
  • BioWorld
    • Today's news
    • Analysis and data insight
    • Clinical
    • Data Snapshots
    • Deals and M&A
    • Financings
    • Newco news
    • Opinion
    • Regulatory
    • Science
  • BioWorld MedTech
    • Today's news
    • Clinical
    • Data Snapshots
    • Deals and M&A
    • Financings
    • Newco news
    • Opinion
    • Regulatory
    • Science
  • BioWorld Asia
    • Today's news
    • Analysis and data insight
    • Australia
    • China
    • Clinical
    • Deals and M&A
    • Financings
    • Newco news
    • Regulatory
    • Science
  • BioWorld Science
    • Archives
    • Today's news
    • Search BioWorld Science
    • About
  • More
    • About
    • Archives
    • Article reprints and permissions
    • Contact us
    • Cookie policy
    • Copyright notice
    • Data methodology
    • Podcasts
    • Privacy policy
    • Share your news with BioWorld
    • Staff
    • Terms of use
Follow Us

Copyright ©2022. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing