From: drarwingnuttephd@gmail.com   
      
   On Friday, October 18, 2013 6:58:12 PM UTC-5, Oliver Crangle wrote:   
   > Who Are We Really?   
   >    
   > Manipulating the human microbiome has ethical implications.   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > By Kieran O'Doherty | March 1, 2012   
   >    
   > 20 CommentsPrint   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   >  Link thisStumbleTweet this   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > 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.   
   >    
   >    
   >    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)