Federation attitude toward genetic engineering

Being a geneticist myself (plant geneticist, to be precise), I decide to raise the question about the Federation attitude toward genetical engineering, especially genetic modifications of sentient beings.

Traditionally, this is explained in Trekkieverse in pretty simple therms: "there were Eugenic Wars, and humans were so horrified, that they forbade almost any human modifications and presuade the whole Federation to do the same". Frankly, this is... outdated. Yes, this seemed perfectly plausible in 1960-1980s, was partially plausible in early 2000s, but with modern progress in biotechnology, this all started to look pretty much outdated. Especially considering the usual Federation quirk on self-improvement and personal potential development.

Usually to explain that, the authors tend to wave their hands and claim something like "the Federation aimed only toward natural development, and genetic engineering is unnatural"... Well, this could work in 1980s (when most of peoples have only very vague ideas, what is that biotechnology), but now it is more or less universally known, that biotechnology is perfectly "natural" (come on, the average virus preformed DNA modifications long before humankind evolved! ). Moreover, from modern positions it is almost impossible to imagine that humankind could settle other worlds without at least SOME modifications. After all, we, humans, evolved in and adapted to very specific environment - and while the variety of Earth natural conditions might seems to be pretty broad, this is nothing comparable to what humans could meet on alien worlds.

So, it seems that said element of Star Trek canon need to be... retconned a bit. Especially considering how many new planets Starfleet personnel tended to visit in casual dress - without sealed suits, oxygen tanks, filtration masks, ect., ect., ect. Unless we want to start any adventure from "doctor McCoy treated Kirk and Spock from multiple allergies, severe indigestions, death of gastric microflora after five minutes on the surface on the new M-class planet", of course - I suggest that we need to assume that the average Federation human is augmented enough to withstand at least basic environment differences.

 

The ban was a story necessity for a particular episode of DS9. If it was supposed to be Federation-wide, then it contradicted what we saw in TNG with a colony engaging in research and experiments in genetic engineering.

Kor

 

Indeed, the idea of genetic engineering being a horrible abomination per se has never been a Star Trek concept. "Dr Bashir, I Presume" specifically dealt with the fact that genetic engineering had resulted in the Augments of the 1990s, leaving a centuries-long trauma about people wantonly improving themselves. But the UFP government clearly readily engages in genetic engineering (and not merely for the same reason cops study narcotics), and many of the therapies utilized or suggested by Starfleet doctors are genetic in nature (although supposedly of types not carrying to the next generation as such).

It's just a specific take on an alternate reality, is all. The Trek folks chose to fear and abhor improved humans. We here on Earth chose to fear and abhor the killing of the invalid for the sake of future greatness. Those choices were not dictated by scientific arguments, and indeed science should have little say on such issues - right and wrong are majority decisions, not expert judgement calls.

As for alien worlds, Trek doesn't seem to have any. Which is understandable: there was humanoid intellect there four billion years ago, and they would have taken care not to leave any alienness floating around when they could create perfect Class M uniformity in its place.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Basically that's exactly the problem that I addressed; the ban on genetical improvement basically is outdated concept. It was more or less logical from the 1960-1980s point of view, but from modern... not so much. And "centurie-long trauma" seems to be... too much. Especially considering that:

* Since that there were World War Three, which was MUCH more brutal than eugenic wars.
* Humanity encoutered a lot of other sentient species, which should at least partially downplay the xenofobia.

 

It's the 2300s POV that should concern us - and humans are good at centuries-long traumas, about race, animosity, national identity, pogroms, whatever. Heck, until the Nazis came along to serve as the ideal All Purpose Evil, we still remembered the Huns (of all things) enough to equate them with Kaiser Wilhelm's troops...

The bigger question is why all the hundreds of species concerned should be inclined to go along with the human preoccupation about Augments. Should we perhaps think that the anti-genetics sentiment is dictated on mankind from outside, and the 1990s just serve as an excuse for our succumbing to the peer pressure?

Timo Saloniemi

 

Possible, but IMHO, this bring an overcomplication, which is hardly preferable. We already have near-unviersal distrust toward the self-aware machines (which is MUCH more prominent than negative attitude toward augmentation); to include another dubious bigotry...

Yes, but even the fear and resentment of Nazi - unfortunately - quite quickly recessed to the point when it became "point of view question".

 

I think there has to be a case that the Eugenics Wars was such a horrible chapter in Human history that Earth leaders chose to ban Human augmentation altogether rather than allow something like that from happening again. Even though there are undoubtedly benefits to augmentation, they must've come to the consensus that the potential danger outweighed them. In that case, a closer study of the Eugenics Wars and just how many died during them may be in order.

(Although it's not canon, the fairly recent Khan comic book series by IDW Publishing depicted the Eugenics Wars as being pretty bad, starting off with multiple nuclear detonations and then tyrannical rule by only a small number of Augments. A large number of Augments probably would made it even worse).

IMO, there's no question that the ban is a Human conceit, based on something that happened centuries ago that Humans still fear into the 24th-Century. But then, that takes us back to the question of just how bad were the Eugenics Wars?

 

It need not be anything absolute or objective. We developed a bigoted fear of chemical weapons in WWI, a fear so overwhelming that not even Hitler or Stalin dared field combat gases in the next one. And it's a politically useful fear, allowing the mighty to reign pious over the less mighty who would be tempted by the mass destruction potential but factually are lightyears behind the mighties in the ability to deliver.

If the very argument is that genetic engineering is useful, then it more or less naturally follows that it should be regulated, monopolized and in response finally demonized. But this need not be in direct proportion to the power of the technique; we prefer to tackle problems that can be tackled, as opposed to the difficult stuff, and banning chemical weapons or Augments is a tad easier than banning assault rifles or photon torpedoes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

The ban could just apply to Humans, and not the Federation in general. As a member of the Federation the Federation repects the Human ban, but doesn't hold that other species have to observe it.

The various member could have all kinds of laws, obligations and traditions that apply only to one species, but no others.

 

One aspect of Berman era Trek that comes up repeatedly is the inherent aristocracy of advantage. The Price, for example. This is an extension of that.

I can see the problem if genetic enhancement became commonplace. It could get to Gattaca like extremes, genetic enhancement is available but prohibitively expensive so the born rich add genetic advantages to the social and economic advantages they already have and social class becomes genetic class.

 

Hm, possible solution: maybe only PERSONAL augmentation was forbidden, but large-scale, universal public augmentation - wasn't? Kind of large-scale genetic refit: the mass augmentation is approved only by government after throught tests and public voting and then mass implemented in next generations with the help of retro-viruses.

 

It's only a problem if you believe that Khan and the other supermen weren't around in the 1990's because of obvious timeline differences in real life. But, if Kahn and Co. did happen, and ENT does confirm it did at some point, then their aversion makes perfect sense. It is the same exact logic behind the ban and disapproval of chemical weapons stemming from their use in WWI, and the recent cruise missile attack performed in retaliation for their use. The difference is that unlike Star Trek's future history we only have a century of this aversion, instead of three, and unlike in Star Trek it did not halt all research into chemistry. Quite the contrary.

One to two centuries onward, depending on if the Augments come from the 20th or 21st century, we see a hard ban on genetic engineering for any reason, but only among humans. That does not quite fit with the use and development of chemical weapons, because realistic paranoia and retaliation principles drive, or drove, nations to develop more effective chemicals weapons after WWI. But, those weapons have been used sparingly since WWI.

By the fictional 24th we see some wild experimentation, such as giving humans telekinetic powers and offensive immune systems. In VOY we see casual use of genetic engineering for medical correction, but in DS9 we see it is severely frowned upon to needlessly augment someone especially for the sake of advantage. By comparison, in ENT even the use of genetic engineering for disease correction is not allowed, and the research is not allowed either. The mellowing out by the TNG era strikes me as realistic, even if our current world and modern opinion makes it seem a little silly that they don't go a bit further into the realm of non-natural advantages.

Then again, the Western ethical discussion on genetic engineering circles right around that very topic, on whether giving a child genetic advantage is fair or unfair. Where as in the Eastern discussion there is little to no question, anything which gives an advantage to one's child is automatically good. It is interesting that this split mirrors the fictional rise of the eugenic supermen, and that the decidedly Western show has the inheritors of the Earth, and suppressors of artificial genetic advantage, all be very Western.

I will also point out here the knee jerk reaction to genetically modified crops, despite no evidence of danger, just speculation, and pointing to Monsanto, and evidence of advantage for crop growers and consumers of such crops. Similar reactions to practical genetic modification are a distinct possibility, especially when we consider even in vitro fertilization passed through a period of controversy. That controversy in hind sight is ridiculous but it existed.

 

True, but the risk of producing despots by normal breeding is much, much lower than that produced by genetic engineering.

Yes, of course Bashir is not a despot. But he is a special case. With him, they got lucky.

 

I think it's illegal under (United) Earth law, and Starfleet and/or the Federation are obligated by treaty to enforce Earth law for Earth citizens. Richard and Julian Bashir are natives of Earth. As, for that matter, are all the members of the Jack Pack, apparently. Bashir did specify human beings in his belief (which was wrong, in the end, as they let him slide).

Denobulans and, perhaps, Arcturians, would not be bound by Earth law in their continued use of genetic engineering after becoming Federation members.

 

These things you mention have very little to do with having cognitive or physical super-human abilities. The constant quest to become a better person also pertains to ethical and philosophical principles.
The whole problem with genetic engineering in the Trek sense, is that it produced powerful beings in a snap, without time for a natural progression of ethical precepts. The end result was disastrous.

 

Example would be Jack, of the Jack pack.

We never saw him rise to the level of despot, but I believe he was psychopathic.

 

The alternative, of course, would have the "inheritors of the Earth" be the genetically engineered elite class. That doesn't sound like a world I'd want to live in. A world where genetic engineering is required in order to have any standing or rights in society. A world in which those with enhancements rule over those who don't, and ruthlessly put the "normals" in their place. (Have you ever seen Gattaca? )

To rephrase: Such a world would be one where... "resistance is futile".