Gene manipulation and the purge of autism

Post Reply New Topic

This is something that I thought of when talks of removing undesirable genes came up in a class. Aspergers is believed to be genetic, and most NTs view it as undesirable. So if gene alteration before birth becomes common place, autism would be removed before the child is even born effectively preventing another aspie from ever being born.

Am I the only deeply disturbed with the thought that they will prevent others like me from ever being born again. They would probably view it as helping, but to me it kinda feels like genocide



Actually its the most litteral genocide, as the root of that word means to wipe out a particular gene/trait

I wouldn't worry about it. There is no single "autism gene" scientists can pinpoint. As Temple Grandin said ,"The human brain is so complicated that an absolutely perfectly wired human brain wouldn't ever be possible."

(Although that probably won't stop a few misinformed NTs from spending the next 50 years or so driving themselves crazy because they can't find one.)

Aeroz – this is hardly a new problem. It has come up in many contexts.

For example, there are now ways to ‘correct’, or at least ameliorate, some forms of deafness. Within the deaf community this has caused anxiety; “Deaf culture is under attack”, etc.

I believe it was Kay Redfield Jamison (in Touched With Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament, though perhaps it was in some article she wrote) who worried about the lost artistic accomplishments (poetry, music, etc) if MD were ever ‘cured’. (If I remember correctly, she did not oppose a cure – the pain is enormous for some MD sufferers – just worried about the negative side effects.) In some ways like those of us ‘on the spectrum’, these people bring unique talents, and intensity, to life that might be lost.

There is the ongoing debate about the “gay gene”. Should it be discovered that homosexuality has genetic origins, should it be “cured”? If so, who would style our hair? (That was mean – I am sorry! Gay folks make far more significant contributions than that.)

We aspies should also get in the abstruse-medical-ethics-questions-may-effect-our-lives line!

Penny

P.S. I don’t see it as genocide if the cause of AS is “cured”, as opposed to AS babies being selectively aborted. They are not killing us, just transforming us into dull, mindless NTs who seem to see bowling as a religious experience. But I share your concern that a world w/o AS would be an impoverished world.

It's a little scary. But even if there was screening I'm betting people who were tolerant enough would have the kid anyway. I certainly would. Then again, I'm AS, and just about everyone in my immediate family is autistic to some degree.

But let's look at the other side of the argument: If a parent can alter the genetic layout of their unborn child, whose right is it to tell them that they cannot?

Also, keep in mind that while many will accept the concept of gene-alteration, many still will not. We will still have plenty of people that, for whatever reason, may it be religious, philosophical, or of personal ethics, that will insist on a natural process. I do not think, even in the dawn of this potential genetic technology, that there is any danger of eliminating autism spectrum disorders.

no one, should ever have the right to fundimentally alter someone. The unborn child has no choice, he or she will be born as the childs parents dictated. It amounts to "we didn't like the child we were gonna get so we changed it". I limited it to aspergers but same could be said for skin color, height, even gender. Imagine if this was after the child was born, would you object to parents taking their five year old girl and deciding they want a boy instead, so they give the child a sex change.

This is a good point. I don't think we're in any imminent danger, at least in this era.

I do not think it is possible.

Autism seems to be made up of the extremes of personality and cognitive styles that are present in the NT population already. That means that the same genetics that make a neurotypical might make an autistic, in the right combinations.

One gene affects how long you persist in doing a specific activity... another affects how sensitive you are to light... another helps your visual/spatial skills... (It isn't actually that direct, or that simple, but it works for the purpose of explanation)... Put them all together, you might end up with an autistic person; or, depending on the other genetics you got, you could end up with a neurotypical graphic artist.

And then there's the 5% environment factor--the wild card that pushes you over the line from near-Aspie into Aspie territory for so much as a glass of wine during pregnancy, a seizure in infancy, a bump on the head...

If the genetics that make up autism also make up part of what the NT population is--and I think this is true--then removing them is impossible without turning the NTs into something altogether different, too.

I am much more worried that they may develop a prenatal test; this could result in huge numbers of abortions for no reason other than a possibly autistic fetus. It would probably have a huge false-positive rate, too, meaning there'd be a lot of NTs caught in the dragnet...

I seriously disagree. What if such alteration prevents the child from becoming genetically predisposed to a disease? Genetic altering could help a lot of people, there's just a slippery slope that we should be aware of.



That comparison is nonsense. A traumatic surgery while the child is five years old is not the same as genetically altering an embryo.

I wonder if there would be any groups of "terrorists" (moar like freedom fighters amirite )who would do like what some the Animal Liberation Front are doing in California; firebombing peoples' houses and destroying/bombing labs, etc...

For the Implementation of a Neurodiverse World!

(or Preservation, or Continuation)

Undoubtedly not.

But why would you want any child to be born with Autism ?

In what way would it make him more happy or fulfilled to be Autistic ?

You appear to be confusing the elimination of Autistic genes with the elimination of living Autistics.

Are you unable to distinguish between the two ?

Though it's painful to be on the fringes and though there are so many disadvantages, at least in my experience, I still would rather be myself than be neuro-typical. I wouldn't give up my caring nature or my artistic talent but I would like to have better social skills so I could better be a part of the human race more often rather than shunned many times because I don't respond in ways that people typically expect. I tend to miss the beat. It's sort of a double-edge sword. It's painful in many ways to live with but giving it up would be like wishing to be a stereotype or a robot of sorts. There are many advantages really and my perspective is scewed because of the disadvantages in my particular experience. It's all a matter of perspective and perspective usually changes. Given the right circumstances, the advantages definately outweight the disadvantages and likewise it should never to sought to be rid of.

It isn't something that ever could be eliminated. In the case of a gene, I don't think there's any real evidence, as yet, that there is one. If there is, I'd like to hear about it.

because eliminate the gene and there aren't any more.

but I would like a child with aspergers. People have this misconception that there is no upside to it. People with it are predisposed to having a higher affinity for mathmatics, anyalitical thinking, artistic ability, ect. Not saying its in everyone (I personally cant draw to save my life) but these are very common among them.

ASD has evolved to benefit the tribe, not the individual.

By mediating social competency (confidence/deference) along a spectrum (NT's at the top, ASDers at the bottom), the ASD spectrum allows the tribe to fall into a self-enforcing hierarchy - IOW, it's hardwired.

What's so great about social hierarchy ?

It limits infighting (and costly injury) for finite resources (food, mates, etc).

Why has nature coded it thus ?

Because social species are dependent first on the tribe for survival.

Nature doesn't care about how it impacts individuals within the tribe.
It cares about the survival of the tribe - competing against neighbouring tribes.

In short, it creates an order of chiefs and indians - which is the only way a group can function efficiently on an ongoing basis.

So EVERYBODY is somewhere on the spectrum - it's simply that if you're at the NT end, you're much more functional.

Tribe members at the dysfunctional end of the spectrum, may or may not be more effective drivers of technological advance (tool usage, etc) than those at the NT end.

Logic would dictate that tribes in which members at the AS end of the spectrum make more useful contributors to tribal success, would be evolutionarily favoured over competing tribes.
But this would also be true of its NT members, IOW it applies to the tribe as a whole.

So whether AS characteristics confer any intrinsically useful traits to tribe survival (other than hierarchical ones) is a matter open to debate.

You're RIGHT! Changing an embryo would mean a greater risk, and potentially changing billions of more cells.