a94c03f2
XPost: alt.mindcontrol, alt.conspiracy
From: attree23x@gmail.com

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
ensuring the confidentiality of genetic data. In many jurisdictions
laws have been enacted to prohibit insurance companies from taking the
results of genetic tests into account in calculating premiums. There
is also much controversy about the possibility of law enforcement

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)