Dialogue: Doom and gloom stands in the way of progress

Many recoil at the idea of genetic engineering. But why, asks SHELLEY BRIDGEMAN*, must we always assume the worst about scientific developments?

Oh, the evils of modern technology. Right-thinking folk everywhere shudder at the very thought of the repercussions of recent scientific developments.

According to the nay-sayers, it is a given that the cloning of human beings is a bad thing. The popular view is that humans would lose the essence of their humanity and that a sub-class of people would be created simply to provide spare parts and organs for the rest of us.

And don't forget that, according to conventional wisdom, human cloning could mean that an army of little Hitlers - generated from some DNA remnant - will soon be wreaking havoc on the world.

But never fear. There's talk of legislation to outlaw cloning, thus preventing such horrific scenarios from eventuating.

Unfortunately, the law-makers seem to have overlooked the fact that the sort of people who typically mastermind plots to rule the universe are unlikely to let minor details like a few laws stop them.

And have you ever noticed that apparently only the bad guys will be cloned? No one ever postulates that Mother Teresa could be cloned and that there would then be a plethora of selfless do-gooders working with the poor and the hungry.

Speaking of hungry people, proponents of genetically modified crops profess that this technology has the capacity to end starvation. It is clearly a biased, and as yet unproven, view, but surely it's too early to dismiss the claim out of hand.

Genetic engineering is an emotive subject. Few of us know much about the details, so it is easy to assume that it is dangerous.

As soon as we hear of herbicide-resistant crops, we conjure up images of some indestructible super-weed that evolves to choke the entire Earth in its tentacles.

We are equally suspicious when we learn of potatoes being modified with toad-like genes so they become resistant to rot. We fear that an overdose of french fries could result in us hopping everywhere and developing croaky voices.

It is true that the issues of cloning and genetically engineered food will take a while to resolve and, who knows, they could well end up being the thalidomide of our times. But must we always assume the worst outcomes of any scientific progress?

Genetic testing is another hot topic. The man on the street is up in arms about the prospect of being tested for a predisposition to various diseases.

The fear, of course, is that insurance companies will require these tests to be carried out before providing life or medical insurance - and will then either refuse to insure people who test positive, or demand impossibly high premiums of them.

That would obviously place high-risk people in an unenviable situation. Dramatic phrases such as genetic discrimination are being bandied about, and the British Government plans to ban these so-called genetic profiling tests from being used to deny people essential insurance.

But, surely we need to temper the predictable gut-reaction to this and explore the issue just a little further.

Let's suppose that people who are 100 per cent healthy - who have no genetic-predisposition to anything except a long life - are also genetically profiled.

These hale and hearty people will then soon realise that they no longer need medical insurance because they are unlikely to ever claim on it. And they will also steer clear of mortgage insurance since - as long as they are not knocked over by a bus - the chances are that they will be around long enough to pay off the mortgage.

If the only people queuing to buy insurance are the high-risk and unprofitable customers, the insurance companies will simply cease to exist. They operate only on the basis of having enough healthy people paying premiums to subsidise the claims of the unhealthy.

So, if an insurance company started requiring genetic testing of its customers, it would have effectively signed its own death warrant, because the only people it would be prepared to insure would be the people who will have little need for insurance.

In the long run, the insurance industry probably has more to fear from these tests than the average person. But somehow the Joe and Josephine Bloggses of the world blithely refuse to consider this.

Buying into all the scare-mongering just seems to come naturally to many of us. And anyway, those horrific predictions just make for juicier tittle-tattle, don't they?

* Shelley Bridgeman is an Auckland writer.