b2cfa24f   
   a94c03f2   
   XPost: alt.mindcontrol, alt.conspiracy   
   From: john.h.gohde@gmail.com   
      
   On Apr 28, 11:09 am, 23x  wrote:   
   > Thought Experiment - Who Are We Really? Manipulating the human   
   > microbiome has ethical implications.   
   >   
   > BACTERIAL FINGERPRINT: There is the possibility that microbial DNA may   
   > contain even more information about a person than does their human   
   > DNA.Lucy Reading-Ikkanda   
   > We are human beings. Normally, one might take this to mean that, at   
   > least on a biological level, we are defined by our own genome. But   
   > living in and on the human body is an ecosystem of microorganisms that   
   > outnumber our own cells by at least a factor of ten. It is estimated   
   > that there are 100 times as many microbial genes as human genes   
   > associated with our bodies. Taken together, these microbial   
   > communities are known as the human microbiome. Recent technological   
   > and scientific advances, mainly in the field of metagenomics, are   
   > rapidly enriching our knowledge of the genomes and functions of many   
   > of these microbial communities.   
   >   
   > The ultimate aim of much of this research is to discover how   
   > perturbations of the microbiome might be related to various diseases,   
   > including inflammatory bowel disease, asthma, and obesity. Other   
   > research is currently investigating the potential role of microbes in   
   > anxiety, depression, and autism. These findings have the potential to   
   > change the landscape of medicine. And they also have important   
   > philosophical and ethical implications.   
   >   
   > A key premise of some microbiome researchers is that the human genome   
   > coevolved with the genomes of countless microbial species. If this is   
   > the case, it raises deep questions about our understanding of what it   
   > really means to be human. Typically, we draw a distinction between   
   > environmental and genetic factors in understanding human traits and   
   > the development of disease. What precisely is meant by “environmental”   
   > varies dramatically across disciplines. Irrespective of how   
   > environmental factors are conceptualized in a given study, a common   
   > focus is their interaction with stable genetic factors. Traditionally,   
   > the microbial communities in and around us would be counted towards   
   > the environmental, rather than the genetic side of this equation.   
   > Given recent findings from human microbiome research, however, this   
   > classification may need to be reconsidered. If the microbiome, on a   
   > species level, coevolved with the human genome and, on an individual   
   > level, is a unique and enduring component of biological identity, then   
   > the microbiome may need to be thought of more as “a part of us” than   
   > as a part of the environment.   
   >   
   > Ethics of DNA manipulation   
   >   
   > The human microbiome may need to be thought of more as “a part of us”   
   > than as a part of the environment.   
   >   
   > There are practical ethical implications associated with these   
   > somewhat philosophical considerations. Over the past few decades a   
   > strong ethical position has emerged regarding manipulation of the   
   > human genome. In most jurisdictions it is deemed unethical (and   
   > illegal) to alter a human genome in such a way that these changes   
   > might be passed on to offspring. There are several arguments   
   > supporting this position, an important one being to safeguard the   
   > right of the child to an “open future.” Because the consequences of   
   > even ostensibly benign genetic manipulations cannot be predicted with   
   > certainty, it is currently deemed unethical to make choices on behalf   
   > of a child as it might lead to permanent changes to its biological   
   > identity. This reasoning underlies the prohibition in many countries   
   > against manipulation of germ-line DNA. An important question thus   
   > arises about how permanent certain changes to the human microbiome   
   > might be, especially to the microbiomes of infants and children, and   
   > whether such changes could be transmitted to offspring.   
   >   
   > Planning for the future   
   >   
   > We alter the mix of our microbial genomes all the time, through   
   > changes in our diet and surroundings and, significantly, every time we   
   > take antibiotics. It is currently not known how permanent these and   
   > other changes to the microbiome are. Certainly some changes are very   
   > transient, with the microbiome eventually returning to a fairly stable   
   > state. However, it is unclear just how stable the microbiome really is   
   > across a person’s lifespan. There seems to be an emerging scientific   
   > consensus that there is a critical period in infancy and early   
   > childhood during which the microbiome initially develops and gains a   
   > certain degree of stability. Neonates emerge from a sterile uterine   
   > environment and are immediately colonized by microbes from the baby’s   
   > environment, beginning with the birth canal or, in the case of   
   > cesarean section, the mother’s skin, which hosts a significantly   
   > different bacterial community. It is thus possible that, starting with   
   > the mode of birth, early childhood exposure or lack of exposure to   
   > certain microbial communities may have important implications for   
   > health and illness later in life. For example, researchers in British   
   > Columbia are currently investigating the possible role of early   
   > childhood use of antibiotics in later development of asthma.   
   >   
   > More important in the context of ethical considerations is the   
   > possibility that if the adult microbiome is indeed relatively stable,   
   > then such early childhood manipulations of the microbiome may be used   
   > to engineer permanent changes that will be with the child throughout   
   > life. There is thus the potential that an infant’s microbiome may be   
   > “programmable” for optimal health and other traits. For example, might   
   > we program a baby’s microbiome to decrease chances of becoming obese?   
   > Or might we program it such that the person will always have a dislike   
   > of alcohol? While such manipulation is likely to be motivated by many   
   > good intentions, it does raise the familiar specter of “designer”   
   > babies, and the ethical problem of making choices for infants and   
   > children that may permanently affect their biological identity.   
   >   
   > The issue of how stable an individual’s microbiome is over time also   
   > raises other ethical questions. For example, because human DNA is a   
   > unique identifier of individuals, there are many safeguards for   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)