Interview: Julie Legakis

Julie Legakis is a seasoned biology professor here at Madonna University. She holds a Ph.D. in biotechnology and has worked in laboratories at Wayne State and University of Michigan, studying genetics among other topics. With her extensive knowledge on the subject, one cannot deny that she knows a lot about the specifics on genetic engineering, which has thus allowed her to formulate her own ideas about it. Julie claims that she is against "manipulating the genome"(J. Legakis, personal communication, February 16, 2015). However, she is supportive of using it for other improvements in humans, besides the extension of life.
Julie began our interview by explaining the basics of genetic engineering, and how it could involve anything from changing the human genome to exchanging old, malfunctioning organs for new designed organs. She believes that genetic engineering in humans is very conquerable, and referred back to a lab we had previously done in BIO 1040 with strawberries and polyploidy, which means having multiple sets of chromosomes. Julie absolutely thinks that it is possible to genetically alter humans, but is wary about using it to extend human lives. She thinks that it should only be used for disease control, not eternal life. She claims that issues of overpopulation and too many mouths to feed without enough resources would be detrimental to our society.

Interview: Cyntha Ralston

Cynthia Ralston is a gerontology major and lab assistant in the computer labs here at Madonna. As a sixty-one year old grandmother who has experienced a lot of hardships in her lifetime, she has a lot of wisdom and strong opinions on extending human life.
As a whole, she believes that genetic engineering should not be used in humans; she does not see the benefit, and believes that it would create more problems than benefits (C. Ralston, personal communication, February 14, 2015). She worries about psychosocial issues, like who gets to decide what, and says that it would remove any sense of God or a higher being as well as a problem of man controlling man, thus creating a faux superiority.
With her extensive knowledge of gerontology, Cynthia thinks that the elderly would make good use of their extended time, but only if they were the ones to make that decision, and she thinks very few would.
One of the most important points Cynthia made during her interview was that it makes no difference if people can live to be one-hundred-fifty, if they have no food or quality of life. She believes that alternative options -like better prosthetics, hearing aids, and disease control- would be a much better choice, simply because it gives people the ability to make their own decision.
Personally, Cynthia claimed that, given the choice, she would not want genetic engineering used on her. Yes, she knows she could make further contributions to the world with more life, but she believes that her lifetime is pre-destined, and does not want to change that.

FAQ: Biotechnology to Extend Human Life

What alternatives to genetic engineering are possible?

There are a lot of ways that we can still work to improve human lives without actually modifying genetics. In an article about biomedical engineering, Weibell (2014) suggested that with research, we could work to improve things like prosthetics, hearing aids, and artificial organs rather than modifying human genes. By researching other options, we could still work to improve human lives without the many debates about justice, moral code, and safety.

Weibell, F. J. (2014). Biomedical engineering. Access Science. Retrieved from http://www.accessscience.com/content/biomedical-engineering/083600#083600s006

To who would genetic engineering be available to, if made useable?

This question has raised a lot of concern thus far. No one has been able to come to a reasonable and agreeable solution; rather, there has been a lot of debate about the unnecessary inequality this could create in society. According to an article against biotechnology in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Pijnenburg and Leget (2006) claim that it would be nearly impossible to be fair to everyone without any regard to money or status (p. 585-587). Therefore, the availability of genetic engineering -should it become a possibility in the future- is still an ongoing debate.

Pijnenburg, M. A. & Leget, C. (2006). Who wants to live forever? Three arguments against extending the human lifespan. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 585-587. doi: 10.1136/sme.2006.017822 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652797/

What are the safety concerns/side effects of genetic engineering in humans?

There are many questions being raised about the safety of genetically engineered humans. One of the biggest examples of this is from an online article about bioethics. It brought to light the possibility of a new germ cell being formed in a genetically engineered humans that could pose a major threat to humans without altered genes. This germ cell would be foreign to non-genetically engineered humans, and thus could potentially  cause a lot of havoc to society in the future.

Macer, D. (2000). Bioethics. AccessScience. Retrieved from http://www.accessscience.com/content/bioethics/YB000141

What other conflicts could this make in our society?

A lot of conflicts could stem from genetically engineering human beings. According to Dr. Simmons (2008) it “may create a genetic aristocracy and lead to new forms of inequality” (p. 173). The idea that some people could afford the genetic engineering while others could not, as well as the fact that not everyone would want genetic engineering, could easily create rifts in our society.

Simmons, D. (2008) Genetic inequality: Human genetic engineering. Nature Education 1(1):173 Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-inequality-human-genetic-engineering-768

Does society as a whole want people to live that long?

As a whole? No, but humanity, or at least the United States, is split very evenly on this topic. The entire public of the United States is split and according to The Washington Post, “...fifty-six percent of Americans say they would personally not want treatment that would allow them to live dramatically longer lives.” (2013).

Boorstein, M., & Bahrampour, T. (2013, August 6). Americans sharply divided about dramatically extending human lifespan, poll finds. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2013/08/06/65e76e08-fea9-11e2-bd97-676ec24f1f3f_story.html

How much money is being used for this research?

At this point, because this project is ongoing, there is no number that can be given about how much is being spent to research genetic engineering in humans. However, according to an article on Forbes by Byrne and Miller (2012)  over $2.5 billion is spent each year in the U.S. alone just on agricultural biotechnology. Human biotechnology is a much newer and much less understood branch of genetic engineering, so it makes sense that it costs even more money than agricultural biotechnology. So, even though there is no known amount being spent on human genetic engineering, we can assume that it is several billion in the U.S. alone based off of the amount spent on agricultural biotechnology.

Byrne, J. & Miller, H. I. (2012). The roots of the anti-genetic engineering movement? Follow the money!. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/10/22/the-roots-of-the-anti-genetic-engineering-movement-follow-the-money/

Are we ready as a society to have genetically engineered human life?

As was said earlier, the country is fairly evenly split between whether or not it wants extended life. Furthermore, the split widens when the public is split into ethnicities, particularly African Americans in comparison to caucasians, “Fifty-six percent of black Americans say radical life extension would be a good thing for society, compared with 36 percent of whites.” (Boorstein 2013). In short, it would be hard to say that we, as a society, are ready for something as big as eternal, or at least extended, life since we are unable to even agree on whether we want it.

Boorstein, M., & Bahrampour, T. (2013, August 6). Americans sharply divided about dramatically extending human lifespan, poll finds. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2013/08/06/65e76e08-fea9-11e2-bd97-676ec24f1f3f_story.html

How much longer would lives be extended?

With proper techniques and methodology, it would be more than possible to extend human life, and even youth, indefinitely. As of now, it is hard to say how long our lives would be extended. For one, there are few conclusive results in many of the studies involving extending life as they are still ongoing. The other reason why it is hard to say how long we could extend our lives, is that there are still more than a few ways to go about extending life. According to Dvorsky, VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam is working on ways to extract stem cells from super centenarians to extend life (Dvorsky 2014). On another hand, there are doctors at Harvard University that are working on extending life through increasing NAD+ in mice. There is no easy way to tell how long lives would be extended immediately, however, with the right materials we could extend it indefinitely.

Dvorsky, G. (2014, April 23). Supercenarian's blood provides clues to extending human life. Retrieved from http://io9.com/supercentenarians-blood-provides-clues-to-extending-hum-1566718220

Would this pose a threat to society, particularly overpopulation and resource allocation problems?

Extending human lives through genetic engineering could easily create overpopulation issues on our society. According to an article about the ethical debate on life extension, Yang (2012)  overpopulation would be a major problem, bringing with it multiple problems like decreasing water levels, increasing pollution and faster disease spread. All of these resource allocation and overpopulation issues would definitely be an issue, should genetic engineering in humans become reality.

Yang, B. (2012). Life extension: moral and ethical ramifications. The Triple Helix Online. Retrieved from: http://triplehelixblog.com/2012/08/life-extension-moral-and-ethical-ramifications/

How well have current experiments worked?

Current experiments are still in the fledgeling stages but show great promise. The most notable experiment we research would be Dr. Sinclar’s study on extending the lifespan of mice in which he found that that increasing NAD+ in older mice was able to revitalize various organs, particularly muscles, to resemble a time in which the mouse was in its prime (Sinclair 2013).

Gomes, A., Price, N., Ling, A., Moslehi, J., Montgomery, M., Rajman, L., White, J. ...

           Sinclair, D. (2013, October 25). Declining NAD+ induces a pseudohypoxic state disrupting nuclear-mitochondrial communication during aging. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867413015213

How can we be sure that it will work without putting human life at risk?

As with most cutting edge scientific advances, it is impossible to tell how well it will work, if it works at all. However, it is possible to get an idea of how safe it will be to introduce it to humans, testing on animals with similar DNA. Another possible way to test without putting humans at risk is to use the blood and DNA of people without actually using the people, for example, using the blood of supercentenarians to increase the quality and quantity of stem cells in a human, extending life (Dvorsky 2014).

Dvorsky, G. (2014, April 23). Supercenarian's blood provides clues to extending human life. Retrieved from http://io9.com/supercentenarians-blood-provides-clues-to-extending-hum-1566718220

What are currently being used as test subjects?

Small rodents, like mice or rats, are being used in many studies across the country. A notable study we referenced is David Sinclair’s study on mice. In his experiment he, “raised nuclear NAD+ in old mice [to] reverse pseudohypoxia and metabolic dysfunction” (Sinclair 2013).

Gomes, A., Price, N., Ling, A., Moslehi, J., Montgomery, M., Rajman, L., White, J. ...

           Sinclair, D. (2013, October 25). Declining NAD+ induces a pseudohypoxic state disrupting nuclear-mitochondrial communication during aging. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867413015213

Walia's word on stem cells

In this article, Walia talks about current and/or recent research going on in stem cells and what good they are for humanity and its prosperity. Walia speaks about one article in particular, a study done by Mitra Lavasani in 2012, in which they figured out how to make mice age faster and thus see the process of aging from another perspective. While indeed happy with the advancements from the technology, she seems to share the same view that a good portion of the populace shares, and that is that she does not want to extend her human life. Despite the fact that her views conflict with my own, her points will certainly be a big help in the building of my case regardless.


Walia, A. (2014, March 3). Stem cells could extend human life by over 200 years. Retrieved from http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/03/stem-cells-could-extend-human-life-by-over-200-years/

Dvorsky's Article

In this article Dvorsky outlines possible ways to extend human life the main one being stem cell research on supercentenarians. Supercentarians are people who have lived up to 110 years old with no physical or mental hampering. In this source Dvorsky talks about using the blood of supercentarians to replenish and perhaps to bolster the stem cells of those who tend to age more quickly, thus extending life and functionality. This source would be very helpful for our paper because it again gives the audience a bit of background as to what we're researching, but it also helps gives us more ideas on where and how to research.


Dvorsky, G. (2014, April 23). Supercentarian's blood provides clues to extending human life. Retrieved from http://io9.com/supercentenarians-blood-provides-clues-to-extending-hum-1566718220

Bioethics

This source gave an overview about multiple topics related to genetic engineering, including a section specifically on gene therapy. While the purpose of this article is to give an understanding of genetic engineering and where it is going, it also broached multiple issues society may face from genetic engineering in humans, the most prominent being the idea of new germ cells in genetically altered humans that could pose a threat to others without altered genes. If a disease forms from the people with manipulated genes, all of the people without would be at great risk. Despite the fact that this source is not focused solely on genetic engineering, it still offered a lot of input on the subject and raised further questions about the safety of genetic engineering in humans and could thus prove to be a valuable source for our research.

Macer, D. (2000). Bioethics. AccessScience. Retrieved from http://www.accessscience.com/content/bioethics/YB000141

New Medicine (Primary)

This source is an online article that discussed new research on genetics that may lead to an alternative to genetic engineering in humans while still providing a way to improve human lives. This article mentioned the idea of using personalized medicine to help people with specific genotypes. The idea is that the drugs could be used to restore amounts of proteins in deficient neurons, thus leading to improved health for many people because it could eventually lead to curing diseases and other serious  conditions. Using medicine to target specific parts of the human body is much less controversial than modifying human genetics, and with further research, could become a very viable alternative to genetic engineering in humans. With all of its detail on an alternative method to improving the quality of human lives, this article will surely prove to be a good source for our topic.


Genetic technique explored for preventing intellectual disabilities. (2015, January 22). Retrieved from http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/genetic-technique-explored-for-preventing-intellectual-disabilities/81250838/  

Washington Post

The Washington Post performed a poll fairly recently asking a series of questions as to whether or not the public wanted to participate in eternal life. It was found that about 50% of the population wanted it while the other half did not. Interestingly it would appear that the country is quite split on the topic. Another interesting point that this article brings up is the fact that minorities seem to want this extension of life more than other demographics. This will be a great source because it gives the audience a good idea of where everyone else stands.

Boorstein, M., Bahrampour, T., (2013, August 6). Americans sharply divided about dramatically extending human lifespan, poll finds. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2013/08/06/65e76e08-fea9-11e2-bd97-676ec24f1f3f_story.html

Genetic Inequality

This source is an online journal article that addressed the negative impact genetic engineering could leave on our society. Techniques like creating designer babies and bigger, stronger athletes were included, and it elaborated on the inequalities that these advantages would create in our society. For example, the fact that many people would not have designer babies -either because of money or choice- could easily create a social hierarchy based off of gene inequality. Dr. Simmons suggested that while genetic engineering could prove useful to extending human lives, it also poses many threats to the stability of our society because of the unfairness it would inevitably forge. I think this would be a good source for our research because of her professional logic about the risks to society.

Simmons, D. (2008) Genetic inequality: Human genetic engineering. Nature Education 1(1):173 Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-inequality-human-genetic-engineering-768

Alternative Options

This article discusses biomedical engineering and all the possibilities it opens up, including ways that it can help to improve the quality of human life. This source looks good because it discussed improving the quality of the human life, rather than the quantity. It mentioned how new research can lead to things like artificial organs, better prosthetics, and other new treatment techniques to improve patient care. What really stood out to me was the fact that this article did not completely obliterate the idea of using genetic engineering in humans, but instead considered other ways it could be used besides simply creating eternal youth. While this source did not directly address genetic engineering to extend lives, it did provide an alternative to improve human life without changing human genetics and thus could be a valuable source for our research.


Weibell, F. J. (2014). Biomedical engineering. Access Science. Retrieved from http://www.accessscience.com/content/biomedical-engineering/083600#083600s006

De Grey's Paper (Primary)

This article looks at the ethics of extending the human life. Audrey de Grey, the author of this article, is in favor of extending life and offers many points as to why humanity should be able to choose to live on for as long as they so desire. Furthermore de Grey argues that most of the technology, or at least some of the technology, we need to make this a possibility are already here and whatever isn't here is on its way. De Grey is quite devoted to his position, which may result in more than a little bias, so caution is recommended.


De Grey, A. (2005, February 16). Life extension, human rights, and the rational refinement of repugnance. Retrieved from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/659.full.pdf+html

Three Reasons Against Biotechnology (Primary)

This source is an article from the Journal of Medical Ethics. In this article, Pijnenburg and Leget (2006) discussed three reasons against the use of genetic engineering for eternal life. Their strongest argument was about justice, i.e. the constant battle between rich and poor, and how to be fair to everyone with no regard to money or status. In this article, they claimed that it would be impossible to come to a totally fair agreement, and thus would present a problem when implementing genetic engineering. Their other two arguments focused on the meaning of life. Overall, Pijnenburg and Leget (2006) concluded that by focusing on extending life, we would forget to consider the quality of that life. Moreover, they reasoned that if humans appreciate and celebrate the lives they are given, they would not be concerned with time (p. 585-587). This article presented a strong argument against extending life with genetic engineering and proved to be an excellent source of information.

Pijnenburg, M. A. & Leget, C. (2006). Who wants to live forever? Three arguments against extending the human lifespan. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 585-587. doi: 10.1136/sme.2006.017822

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652797/

Sinclair's Study (Primary)

This is a peer reviewed study for David Sinclair's experiment on mice, in which he was able to reverse the aging process. This, if researched further, can lead to eternal, or at the very least extended, youth. According to Gomes (2013), as mice and, by extension, people age there is a breakdown of genes which results in age (Declining NAD+). While it does not directly answer the question "should  biotechnology be used to extend human life" it will provide the readers or audience with both current events and some background on our topic.



Gomes, A., Price, N., Ling, A., Moslehi, J., Montgomery, M., Rajman, L., White, J. ...
Sinclair, D. (2013, October 25). Declining NAD+ induces a pseudohypoxic state disrupting nuclear-mitochondrial communication during aging. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867413015213