By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld
01/28/05 5:00 AM PT
Late last year, South Korean scientists used stems cells to treat a woman who had been paralyzed for 20 years as a result of a back injury. To the amazement of many, she is now able to move about using a walker. Christopher Reeve would have delighted.
Increase Customer Sales with VerticalResponse Email Marketing! Quickly and easily send email newsletters, coupons & sales announcements to your customers – no technical expertise needed. Sign up for your Free Trial today and send 100 emails on us!
William Safire bid farewell to his column at the New York Times this week, but not because he's retiring. Instead, this Pulitzer Prize-winning, former presidential speech writer is moving on to lead an organization concerned with what some call transhumanism.
Transhumanism is the advocacy of using life-enhancing technology to improve the human condition. It is a forward-looking philosophy, and savvy proponents spend a good deal of time thinking about the ethics involved in areas such as stem-cell research, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and neuropharmaceuticals, to name a few.
Fringe Issues No More
The organization Safire will lead is called Dana, after Charles Dana, a New York State legislator, industrialist and philanthropist. Dana's core areas seem to be brain studies and immunology, but Safire recently wrote that he will also tackle such issues as, "Should we level human height with growth hormones?" and "Is cloning ever morally sound?"
These used to be the issues of fringe sci-fi nerds, but things have changed. Biotechnology and related fields have advanced at an astounding pace. We now live in a world where what was once thought to be impossible is becoming reality.
Late last year, for instance, South Korean scientists used stems cells to treat a woman who had been paralyzed for 20 years as a result of a back injury. To the amazement of many, she is now able to move about using a walker. Christopher Reeve would have delighted in such progress.
Other high-profile people are embracing the idea that if we work hard and smart enough at these impossible-seeming problems, we can find the solution. Safire is one. Another is Michael Milken. After successfully fighting a bout of prostrate cancer, Milken applied his efforts to accelerating scientific discovery.
Speed Up, Slow Down
First, he worked on streamlining grant application processes so that scientists could focus on science. Paperwork and politics are both big problems facing researchers, especially if government is involved, so it was a stroke of genius to suggest that agencies such as the Prostate Cancer Foundation cut the wait time for grant money and hold researchers accountable.
Faster Cures, a think tank Milken started, is literally trying to speed up the research process by focusing on weaknesses in public policy and other areas that might be slowing down progress. Its board includes Nobel laureates Gary Becker (economics) and David Baltimore (virology). But not everyone is interested in speeding up science.
On both the left and right, there are factions that argue against scientific breakthroughs, especially if they augment or enhance humans. For instance, some on the left argue that it wouldn't be natural to use drugs to enhance someone's intelligence or happiness. And if it's not natural, it's bad.
Others on the right argue that cloning and technologies that take us beyond the traditional human composition will compromise the moral importance of human life. Leon Kass, who was chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, is a powerful spokesman for the conservative point of view.
Better Lives
America, and indeed the world, is entering a new age where significant advances in bio and nanotechnology might allow humans to live better and longer lives. But they might also change who humans are. Imagine if it becomes possible, as in the film Johnny Mnemonic, to integrate silicon into the brain so that memory is greatly enhanced. The question of whether that person is still human, and whether that matters, will be of utmost import from both a legal and cultural point of view.
The time to discuss these questions is now, so it is good to see the issues moving from fringe to mainstream. As Mr. Safire rightly points out, life expectancy for Americans has risen from 47 to 77 over the last century. Moore's law, that computer power doubles every two years, can be now combined with biotech. In the near future, we are all likely to be living much longer lives.
Sonia Arrison, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is director of Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute.
"The time to discuss these questions is now", be sure what is worth discussing and ...
Next Article in Tech Buzz
Chickens, Eggs and Analyst Opinion January 27, 2005
The surprising thing about this isn't the effect it's having in setting HP up for dismemberment but the apparent total lack of reaction in the professional analyst community. This kind of self-serving behavior in the HP executive suite signals impending catastrophe, yet HP's stock barely wavered with the announcement.
Related Stories
The Bogus Protests of Biotechnology December 24, 2004
Dr. Henry Miller of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and former FDA official, has written that hybridization, in which genes are moved from one species or one genus to another, might sound dramatic, but "the results are as mundane as a tomato that is more resistant to disease or has a thicker skin that won't be damaged during mechanical picking."
Done with Death? December 10, 2004
In response to neo-Malthusians who would put limits on how long people can live to prevent overpopulation, Dr. Max Moore points out that the global population is currently flatlining and that as technology advances we will have more tools to help solve problems associated with population growth.
Stocks Rally on Quick Decision in Election November 03, 2004
Oil stocks saw solid advances on Wall Street today, as did defense and drug stocks on the belief those industries would benefit from Bush's re-election, while biotechnology stocks tied to stem cell research were hit as a sector, given the president's opposition to federally funded research in that area.
Intel Lays Out Future Product Roadmap October 25, 2004
Intel said it was already starting to explore options such as carbon nanotubes and nanowires. Such materials will be needed to take chips below the 10 nanometer size, which is expected to occur early in the next decade. Intel now makes many of its chips in a 90-nanometer process. It believes current materials will enable a reduction to 10 nanometers by 2011.
More by Sonia Arrison
How to Solve the Net Neutrality Issue October 28, 2009
Regulation by the U.S. government is not the way to keep the Internet neutral. A better approach would be self-regulation. Now is the time for ISPs to support an independent, private body to monitor neutrality issues and forestall the possibility of the FCC "managing competition" on the Internet.
FCC's Genachowski Not Neutral on New Net Rules September 30, 2009
The proponents of Net neutrality say it's necessary for a free and open Internet, but history doesn't support that argument. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, for example, was supposed to bolster competition. Instead, by compelling companies to share their infrastructures, it reduced incentives for improvement. In the long run, it failed.
What Has President Obama Done for Silicon Valley? August 28, 2009
President Obama's appointments of Silicon Valley outsiders were only the first indications that his administration would be less than friendly to the high-tech industry, despite campaign promises. Since then, it has shown an inclination toward tight regulatory practices and away from transparency.