What do you think?
Rate this book
Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity
After 3.8 billion years humankind is about to start evolving by new rules...
From leading geopolitical expert and technology futurist Jamie Metzl comes a groundbreaking exploration of the many ways genetic-engineering is shaking the core foundations of our lives -- sex, war, love, and death.
At the dawn of the genetics revolution, our DNA is becoming as readable, writable, and hackable as our information technology. But as humanity starts retooling our own genetic code, the choices we make today will be the difference between realizing breathtaking advances in human well-being and descending into a dangerous and potentially deadly genetic arms race.
Enter the laboratories where scientists are turning science fiction into reality. Look towards a future where our deepest beliefs, morals, religions, and politics are challenged like never before and the very essence of what it means to be human is at play. When we can engineer our future children, massively extend our lifespans, build life from scratch, and recreate the plant and animal world, should we?
Passionate, provocative, and highly illuminating, Hacking Darwin is the must read book about the future of our species for fans of Homo Deus and The Gene.
From leading geopolitical expert and technology futurist Jamie Metzl comes a groundbreaking exploration of the many ways genetic-engineering is shaking the core foundations of our lives -- sex, war, love, and death.
At the dawn of the genetics revolution, our DNA is becoming as readable, writable, and hackable as our information technology. But as humanity starts retooling our own genetic code, the choices we make today will be the difference between realizing breathtaking advances in human well-being and descending into a dangerous and potentially deadly genetic arms race.
Enter the laboratories where scientists are turning science fiction into reality. Look towards a future where our deepest beliefs, morals, religions, and politics are challenged like never before and the very essence of what it means to be human is at play. When we can engineer our future children, massively extend our lifespans, build life from scratch, and recreate the plant and animal world, should we?
Passionate, provocative, and highly illuminating, Hacking Darwin is the must read book about the future of our species for fans of Homo Deus and The Gene.
Audible Audio
First published April 23, 2019
1,023 people are currently reading
21.3k people want to read
About the author
Jamie Metzl
11books146followersJamie Frederic Metzl is an American technology futurist, geopolitical expert, and writer, a former partner in the global investment company Cranemere LLC, and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He was formerly the Asia Society's Executive Vice President.
()
()
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 434 reviews
May 12, 2019
Another book rec plucked from .
Pros: There are a handful of interesting, thoughtful ideas about the near- and far-future consequences of genetic engineering, and the associated societal issues. It is a very good introduction to the state of genetic engineering (in animals, plants & people) today, where the technology is heading, and some of the outstanding ethical, policy, and geopolitical questions associated with it.
As an example, my favourite question the author asked in the book framed the ethics of genetic screening (for negative traits like disease, or positive traits like ability or intelligence) as follows: will people who are ethically opposed to generic screening tomorrow be equated with the anti-vaccine movement of today? What valid reasons can you give for turning down a technological solution to benefit the health of your offspring?
Cons: It's a short book (~270 pages), so my common complaint about the material being broad but not deep applies to this one too. Similar to Harari's (my review) - touches on lots of interesting ideas, but the devil is in the details.
It's also a book about the future, which means that 10-15 years from now the forward-looking predictions might be completely rubbish. I recently read a 13-year-old book about oil predictions over "the next 10-15 years" (ie, now), and seeing how much it got wrong was a good cautionary lesson about books that make a lot of predictions. I don't think Hacking Darwin book will be so wrong (its predictions are less specific), but what do I know?
I'm going to give it 2 stars - ŷ mouseover for "it was OK". For me it was OK. Pretty darn OK, with engaging writing and some interesting questions asked. After reading this book, there's no doubt in my mind that genetic engineering will become more and more of an important issue in the years to come. Maybe I will come and rev this up to 3 stars in the next few weeks if the ideas stick in my head. But overall, I just wasn't that info it.
Pros: There are a handful of interesting, thoughtful ideas about the near- and far-future consequences of genetic engineering, and the associated societal issues. It is a very good introduction to the state of genetic engineering (in animals, plants & people) today, where the technology is heading, and some of the outstanding ethical, policy, and geopolitical questions associated with it.
As an example, my favourite question the author asked in the book framed the ethics of genetic screening (for negative traits like disease, or positive traits like ability or intelligence) as follows: will people who are ethically opposed to generic screening tomorrow be equated with the anti-vaccine movement of today? What valid reasons can you give for turning down a technological solution to benefit the health of your offspring?
Cons: It's a short book (~270 pages), so my common complaint about the material being broad but not deep applies to this one too. Similar to Harari's (my review) - touches on lots of interesting ideas, but the devil is in the details.
It's also a book about the future, which means that 10-15 years from now the forward-looking predictions might be completely rubbish. I recently read a 13-year-old book about oil predictions over "the next 10-15 years" (ie, now), and seeing how much it got wrong was a good cautionary lesson about books that make a lot of predictions. I don't think Hacking Darwin book will be so wrong (its predictions are less specific), but what do I know?
I'm going to give it 2 stars - ŷ mouseover for "it was OK". For me it was OK. Pretty darn OK, with engaging writing and some interesting questions asked. After reading this book, there's no doubt in my mind that genetic engineering will become more and more of an important issue in the years to come. Maybe I will come and rev this up to 3 stars in the next few weeks if the ideas stick in my head. But overall, I just wasn't that info it.
August 14, 2019
The book does provide a decent synopsis of the history of genetic engineering, what is going on now and what to expect in the future. But he consistenly goes off on un-related tangents to bash religous people, politically conservative people and of course Donald Trump (Who doesn't bash on Trump these days?)
It is frustrating that when I wanted to learn about genetic engineering, I got bombarded with opinions of the authors in the form of left wing and atheistic propaganda. Leave your bias and personal opnions at home when you write a book like this, Jamie.
It is frustrating that when I wanted to learn about genetic engineering, I got bombarded with opinions of the authors in the form of left wing and atheistic propaganda. Leave your bias and personal opnions at home when you write a book like this, Jamie.
July 21, 2023
Hacking Darwin is less about the methods of genetic modification than it is about the possibilities and philosophical quandaries of the thing. As a futurist, Jamie Metzl poses some perplexing ethical questions that will need to be addressed as we come to terms with what lies ahead.
BENEFITS vs RISKS
What parent wouldn’t want to save their child from a painful and debilitating condition? As the father of a special needs son, I can tell you without hesitation that I would have chosen a better, easier, happier life for him had the opportunity and technology been available in 1985. Even his mother, who never agreed with me on anything ever, agrees with me on this.
While there is a LOT of promise in the science of gene manipulation for both plants and animals, it is important to note that we are still novices in the field. It is one thing, for instance, to engineer a crop that addresses vitamin A deficiencies for at-risk populations (see Golden Rice) it is quite another thing to engineer a human embryo for blonde hair and shiny eyes that glow in the dark (see Village of the Damned).
It goes without saying that every new technology needs to be vetted. I’m convinced because I’ve seen Jurassic Park at least twelve times. Scientists should not be so preoccupied with the “could� that they don’t stop to think about the “should.�
KEVIN’S OBLIGATORY PET PEEVE
Before we proceed, let’s toss aside the ridiculous argument that genetic engineering is tampering with the “Will of God.� This progress-hampering religious monkey has been on the back of every scientific advancement since before the Catholic Inquisition burned Giordano Bruno at the stake. There has been biblical backlash to blood transfusions, in vitro fertilizations, stem cell therapies, skin grafts, organ transplants, etc. etc. etc.. I got ninety-nine problems (with generic engineering) but this b*tch ain’t one.
A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION
Metzl asks his readers to suppose for a moment that China was producing genetically enhanced soldiers or genetically enhanced astronauts giving them a scientific and militarily threatening advantage in the geopolitical scheme of things. Does anyone think that America and Russia wouldn’t follow suit? It was, after all, a similar scenario that sparked the nuclear arms race. I would venture a guess that our nerdy Dexters, be they Chinese or American or Russian, are already hard at work in their respective laboratories theorizing radiation resistant cosmonauts and logic resistant nationalists.
CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM
While I’m all for Metzl’s idea of implementing DNA technologies to determine who's dog is responsible for the poop on my lawn, I’m fearful of a future where a multitude of sociopaths might be churned out under the guise of handsome aesthetics. What we don’t yet know about genetics will someday fill volumes of textbooks and we would do well to keep in mind that the line between utopia and dystopia is thinner than we might think.
BENEFITS vs RISKS
What parent wouldn’t want to save their child from a painful and debilitating condition? As the father of a special needs son, I can tell you without hesitation that I would have chosen a better, easier, happier life for him had the opportunity and technology been available in 1985. Even his mother, who never agreed with me on anything ever, agrees with me on this.
While there is a LOT of promise in the science of gene manipulation for both plants and animals, it is important to note that we are still novices in the field. It is one thing, for instance, to engineer a crop that addresses vitamin A deficiencies for at-risk populations (see Golden Rice) it is quite another thing to engineer a human embryo for blonde hair and shiny eyes that glow in the dark (see Village of the Damned).
It goes without saying that every new technology needs to be vetted. I’m convinced because I’ve seen Jurassic Park at least twelve times. Scientists should not be so preoccupied with the “could� that they don’t stop to think about the “should.�
KEVIN’S OBLIGATORY PET PEEVE
Before we proceed, let’s toss aside the ridiculous argument that genetic engineering is tampering with the “Will of God.� This progress-hampering religious monkey has been on the back of every scientific advancement since before the Catholic Inquisition burned Giordano Bruno at the stake. There has been biblical backlash to blood transfusions, in vitro fertilizations, stem cell therapies, skin grafts, organ transplants, etc. etc. etc.. I got ninety-nine problems (with generic engineering) but this b*tch ain’t one.
A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION
Metzl asks his readers to suppose for a moment that China was producing genetically enhanced soldiers or genetically enhanced astronauts giving them a scientific and militarily threatening advantage in the geopolitical scheme of things. Does anyone think that America and Russia wouldn’t follow suit? It was, after all, a similar scenario that sparked the nuclear arms race. I would venture a guess that our nerdy Dexters, be they Chinese or American or Russian, are already hard at work in their respective laboratories theorizing radiation resistant cosmonauts and logic resistant nationalists.
CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM
While I’m all for Metzl’s idea of implementing DNA technologies to determine who's dog is responsible for the poop on my lawn, I’m fearful of a future where a multitude of sociopaths might be churned out under the guise of handsome aesthetics. What we don’t yet know about genetics will someday fill volumes of textbooks and we would do well to keep in mind that the line between utopia and dystopia is thinner than we might think.
June 16, 2020
The book is a good way to introduce yourself to the many aspects of genetic manipulation in humans. The author is occasionally able to strike a good joke to break the science, but it's a science book, so don't be too optimistic.
My problems with the title is that in some chapters it felt a little chaotic: there was no real drive or flow to the text and all seemed to be under the theme of the chapter, but nothing more.
My problems with the title is that in some chapters it felt a little chaotic: there was no real drive or flow to the text and all seemed to be under the theme of the chapter, but nothing more.
September 17, 2021
A very good primer that covers genetically engineering ourselves & the issues that raises. I really liked the way the author framed some of the questions through stories. That really made the issues understandable, even personal.
For instance, a woman in an IVF clinic choosing which embryo to bring to term. This simple setting allows for the exploration of a variety of issues past, present, & future in a rational, but very human way. If she discards one because it has a recognizable 'defect' (Tay-Sachs or Huntington's) is the choice eugenics in action? Some Jews study their genealogy & recommend against marriages which might result in Tay-Sachs now. Is that eugenics? What is a recognizable defect? Is Down Syndrome, autism, or bipolar disorder?
Does discarding the majority of the embryos count as abortion? Why don't Pro-lifers picket IVF clinics where more embryos die than in any abortion clinic? This is not 'bashing' Pro-lifers as some reviewers maintain, but simply asking a question we all need to ask of ourselves; where do we draw the lines & why? Is it rational? A lot of hard questions are raised & few are answered. They're just food for thought. My guess is probably not. There are too many complex gray areas with too much emotional baggage attached.
The idea that reproduction can become weaponized isn't new or shocking, but I've rarely seen it framed better - I think. Unfortunately, I forgot to write this review & went on to read which also explores the subject so the two mixed in my head since both had such a similar take on the subject.
Highly recommended. It's not a great book, but it frames the general questions & fills in the basic science pretty well for regular folks. There were times I thought more depth was called for, though.
Excellent narration. I read this with the Science & Inquiry group here:
/topic/show/...
For instance, a woman in an IVF clinic choosing which embryo to bring to term. This simple setting allows for the exploration of a variety of issues past, present, & future in a rational, but very human way. If she discards one because it has a recognizable 'defect' (Tay-Sachs or Huntington's) is the choice eugenics in action? Some Jews study their genealogy & recommend against marriages which might result in Tay-Sachs now. Is that eugenics? What is a recognizable defect? Is Down Syndrome, autism, or bipolar disorder?
Does discarding the majority of the embryos count as abortion? Why don't Pro-lifers picket IVF clinics where more embryos die than in any abortion clinic? This is not 'bashing' Pro-lifers as some reviewers maintain, but simply asking a question we all need to ask of ourselves; where do we draw the lines & why? Is it rational? A lot of hard questions are raised & few are answered. They're just food for thought. My guess is probably not. There are too many complex gray areas with too much emotional baggage attached.
The idea that reproduction can become weaponized isn't new or shocking, but I've rarely seen it framed better - I think. Unfortunately, I forgot to write this review & went on to read which also explores the subject so the two mixed in my head since both had such a similar take on the subject.
Highly recommended. It's not a great book, but it frames the general questions & fills in the basic science pretty well for regular folks. There were times I thought more depth was called for, though.
Excellent narration. I read this with the Science & Inquiry group here:
/topic/show/...
April 14, 2019
[I received a copy of this book through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]
This book is not heavy on the actual science details—if you’re looking for those, you’ll be better to get another book, but if you don’t know that much about genetics, then there won’t be anything in there impossible to follow. It focuses instead on the various advances in genetics in terms of “what do they do�, “what do they entail�, “what could the results be�, and “how should be approach those?� (You can tell that the author has also written novels, because there’s a definitive storytelling thread throughout some of the chapters, especially when he deals with IVF and the potential of modifying embryos to make their future selves healthier. This makes the reading all the more accessible and enjoyable.)
You can also tell that Jamie Metzl is probably more on the side of advocating gene-related manipulations than on the side of those who want them banned, but in a cautious way: it’s not all enthusiasm and sparks and giggles, and for every “good point� he lists, he also takes care to consider the negative sides (or potentially negative sides, since there are still many approaches that haven’t been tested, so we just have no idea how people would react when given the choice). And it is true that while the transhumanist in me is excited at so many prospects, the cynic is me is also convinced that, like we so many other things, humanity in general will bork its way through this and pervert it. But let’s keep hope, shall we?
“Hacking Darwin� considers the therapeutic potential of genetic intervention. Through current techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9, we are already able to cut material that leading to genetic diseases, although this hasn’t been approved so far on human embryos destined to be implanted, because the results are good, but more on a �60% good� scale than on a �95% good� one. Which leads to understandable caution about all this, and with reason. There is something frightening and sublime (in the philosophical and literary meanings of the word) to all these developing technologies, because when we contemplate them, we are put face to face with how we are, all in all, code; and code can be hacked, and modified, and this could be for the best or for the worst.
The best: if we had a chance of preventing babies with genes condemning them to Alzheimer’s or to Huntington’s disease, for instance, shouldn’t we take it and thus prevent future suffering? If we can make crops that yield more nutrients (Golden Rice comes to mind, and is actually even mentioned), shouldn’t we do it, so that people dying of malnutrition illnesses can get a chance at life? And if we could give our future children better health and strength in general, better chances in their future lifes through specific abilities, wouldn’t we want to do that? But the worst, too: who’s to tell that this won’t spiral downward (eugenics and the earluy 20th century come to mind), lead to less diversity (not a good thing), to people all wanting the same kind of child—or, perhaps more alarmingly, to a growing chasm between those who can afford to enhance tyheir future babies, and those who can, thus leading to a class of “superhumans� trampling “subhumans�?
The book considers these aspects, and other ones as well, including the major religion’s take on it (you’d be surprised at some of them) and approaches and pitfalls that humanity as a whole must consider here. It doesn’t hold all the answers, far from it. But it gives you a lot of food for thought. And even though it is perhaps too optimistic (again, seeing the world as it is today, I just don’t trust us in general to avoid creating worst societies based on even more inequalities, this time from before the womb), it does remain a very interesting start for more discussions about genetic engineering.
4.5 stars
This book is not heavy on the actual science details—if you’re looking for those, you’ll be better to get another book, but if you don’t know that much about genetics, then there won’t be anything in there impossible to follow. It focuses instead on the various advances in genetics in terms of “what do they do�, “what do they entail�, “what could the results be�, and “how should be approach those?� (You can tell that the author has also written novels, because there’s a definitive storytelling thread throughout some of the chapters, especially when he deals with IVF and the potential of modifying embryos to make their future selves healthier. This makes the reading all the more accessible and enjoyable.)
You can also tell that Jamie Metzl is probably more on the side of advocating gene-related manipulations than on the side of those who want them banned, but in a cautious way: it’s not all enthusiasm and sparks and giggles, and for every “good point� he lists, he also takes care to consider the negative sides (or potentially negative sides, since there are still many approaches that haven’t been tested, so we just have no idea how people would react when given the choice). And it is true that while the transhumanist in me is excited at so many prospects, the cynic is me is also convinced that, like we so many other things, humanity in general will bork its way through this and pervert it. But let’s keep hope, shall we?
“Hacking Darwin� considers the therapeutic potential of genetic intervention. Through current techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9, we are already able to cut material that leading to genetic diseases, although this hasn’t been approved so far on human embryos destined to be implanted, because the results are good, but more on a �60% good� scale than on a �95% good� one. Which leads to understandable caution about all this, and with reason. There is something frightening and sublime (in the philosophical and literary meanings of the word) to all these developing technologies, because when we contemplate them, we are put face to face with how we are, all in all, code; and code can be hacked, and modified, and this could be for the best or for the worst.
The best: if we had a chance of preventing babies with genes condemning them to Alzheimer’s or to Huntington’s disease, for instance, shouldn’t we take it and thus prevent future suffering? If we can make crops that yield more nutrients (Golden Rice comes to mind, and is actually even mentioned), shouldn’t we do it, so that people dying of malnutrition illnesses can get a chance at life? And if we could give our future children better health and strength in general, better chances in their future lifes through specific abilities, wouldn’t we want to do that? But the worst, too: who’s to tell that this won’t spiral downward (eugenics and the earluy 20th century come to mind), lead to less diversity (not a good thing), to people all wanting the same kind of child—or, perhaps more alarmingly, to a growing chasm between those who can afford to enhance tyheir future babies, and those who can, thus leading to a class of “superhumans� trampling “subhumans�?
The book considers these aspects, and other ones as well, including the major religion’s take on it (you’d be surprised at some of them) and approaches and pitfalls that humanity as a whole must consider here. It doesn’t hold all the answers, far from it. But it gives you a lot of food for thought. And even though it is perhaps too optimistic (again, seeing the world as it is today, I just don’t trust us in general to avoid creating worst societies based on even more inequalities, this time from before the womb), it does remain a very interesting start for more discussions about genetic engineering.
4.5 stars
August 13, 2019
Fantastic read! I devoured it over the course of a few days of summer holidays. It ain't light summer reading, but I found it intensely easy, and relatively easy to understand for someone who knows little about genetic engineering.
My takeaway: The future of baby making is harrowing!
My takeaway: The future of baby making is harrowing!
December 29, 2020
I felt like I had to finish this book to be able to give it a proper review, but I really did not enjoy it. I appreciate the effort to summarize complex scientific concepts in a comprehensive manner, but so many elements of the book detracted from the science. The author tries to portray a desire for equality in his push for these new biotechnologies, but makes REPEATED comments throughout the book that are ignorant, biased, and quite frankly racist/ableist. It was extremely frustrating to read.
The explanations of the science itself I think were generally okay, though some conclusions were blatantly incorrect or presumptive - the author made many concrete statements when these scientific “facts� are still up for debate within the community. I understand it’s difficult to summarize scientific articles, but you cannot make sweeping generalizations either. I also think the author overplayed how fast science is advancing - yes relative to past advancements, science is quickly evolving, but due diligence in science takes much longer than portrayed in this book. However, I appreciated the collection of sources on a wide variety of topics since biotechnology is such a large industry.
I think the discussion on bioethics was poorly done, the points really only were discussed in a way to frame his argument - ethics really need to be discussed in an objective manner, especially in a book that focuses on scientific technology that touches upon so many social injustice issues. Some of the social/ethics issues mentioned were also not properly discussed - only given a short paragraph or two - it felt as if they were mentioned solely to check off some list of relevant topics.
Overall, I just think the book was poorly written, the argument was repetitive (and not in a convincing manner - it relied solely on how the author views individuals as “productive� to society) and it was really disappointing to read as a scientist excited about these technologies as well.
The explanations of the science itself I think were generally okay, though some conclusions were blatantly incorrect or presumptive - the author made many concrete statements when these scientific “facts� are still up for debate within the community. I understand it’s difficult to summarize scientific articles, but you cannot make sweeping generalizations either. I also think the author overplayed how fast science is advancing - yes relative to past advancements, science is quickly evolving, but due diligence in science takes much longer than portrayed in this book. However, I appreciated the collection of sources on a wide variety of topics since biotechnology is such a large industry.
I think the discussion on bioethics was poorly done, the points really only were discussed in a way to frame his argument - ethics really need to be discussed in an objective manner, especially in a book that focuses on scientific technology that touches upon so many social injustice issues. Some of the social/ethics issues mentioned were also not properly discussed - only given a short paragraph or two - it felt as if they were mentioned solely to check off some list of relevant topics.
Overall, I just think the book was poorly written, the argument was repetitive (and not in a convincing manner - it relied solely on how the author views individuals as “productive� to society) and it was really disappointing to read as a scientist excited about these technologies as well.
January 2, 2021
গতবছরে� নভেম্ব� মাসে প্রথ� শুনেছিলা� বইটি� কথা। শোনা� কারণ� ছি� অবশ্য। ২০২০ সালে� রসায়নের নোবে� পুরষ্কারটি নিয়� তখ� সমগ্� সারা বিশ্� জুড়েই প্রভূত আলোচনা সমালোচনা� ঝড়। সেবারে� পুরষ্কারটি সামান্� কিছুটা হলেও রসায়ন থেকে shift কর� 'প্রাণরসায়�' আর 'জীবপ্রযুক্তি'-� দিকে ঝুঁক� গিয়েছে। ‘ক্রিসপা� ক্যা�-৯� প্রযুক্ত� দিয়� প্রাণী� জিনোমক� খু� সহজে� কাটছাঁ� কর� যাবে, চাইল� প্রত্যাশিত পরিবর্তন� কর� যাবে জিনোমে�
আধুনিক বিজ্ঞানে� যতগুলো গুরুত্বপূর্ণ আবিষ্কার তা� অন্যতম ব্রিটি� বিজ্ঞানী চার্লস ডারউইনের বিবর্তনবাদের তত্ত্ব� ১৮৫৯ সালে প্রকাশিত 'অন দ্� অরিজিন অফ স্পিশি�' গ্রন্থ�, ডারউইন বিবর্তনবাদকে সংজ্ঞায়িত করতে গিয়� বলেছেন, এট� এম� একটি প্রক্রিয়া যাতে কোনো প্রাণী ক্রমাগ� অভিযোজনে� ফল� আপ� পরিবেশের জন্য� বিশেষায়িত হত� হত� এক সময় নতুন একটি প্রাণীতে রূপান্তরিত হয়।
জিওপলিটিক্� বিশেষজ্ঞ , সা�-ফি ঔপন্যাসি� Jamie Metzl তাঁর বই 'Hacking Darwin - Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity'-তে ডারউইনের উপরোক্� তত্ত্বকে চ্যালেঞ্� জানিয়েছেন� লেখকের নিজে� কথায� : "My book argues that humаnіtу is оn thе cusp оf a future bеуоnd natural ѕеlесtіоn wіth thе hеlр оf аѕѕіѕtеd rерrоduсtіvе tесhnоlоgіеѕ thаt wіll enable us to hасk оur genetic makeup. By mарріng the hіѕtоrу оf gеnеtісѕ, tесhnоlоgу and thе іmрlісаtіоnѕ оf genetic еngіnееrіng, іt advocates for an іnfоrmеd adoption оf thе gеnеtіс rеvоlutіоn аnd suggests hоw to approach its political аnd еthісаl сhаllеngеѕ."
প্রসঙ্গত , ২০১২ সালে� আগ� পর্যন্� জি� প্রযুক্ত� এতটা প্রব� সম্ভাবনাময়ত� লা� করেনি। ওই বছরই আবিষ্কৃত হয� জি� সম্পাদনা� নতুন প্রযুক্তি—‘ক্রিসপা� ক্যা�-৯’। তা� ফলেই প্রায় পরিবর্তন ঘট� যায় জি� প্রকৌশলে� বিপ্লব� বল� চলে। মানু� জানত� পারে যে ‘ক্রিসপা� ক্যা�-৯� প্রযুক্ত� ব্যবহা� কর� জিনে� নির্দিষ্� অং� অত্যন্� নিখুঁতভাবে কেটে ফেলা যায়� শুধু তা�-� নয� ; এক� সঙ্গ� বসিয়ে দেওয়া যায় নতুন কোড। এর ফল� ত্রুটিপূর্� জি� বাতি� কর� একজন মানুষক� এইডস অথবা ক্যানসারের মত� ভয়ংকর রোগে� হা� থেকে বাঁচান� যেতে পারে� অথবা বৃদ্ধি কর� যেতে পারে মানুষে� আয়ু� শুধু কি মানু�? উদ্ভিদ � প্রাণিজগতে� নানা� ক্ষেত্রে� জি� সম্পাদনা� মাধ্যম� বৈপ্লবিক পরিবর্তন আনার ক্ষমতা আছ� এই ‘ক্রিসপা� ক্যা�-৯� প্রযুক্তির�
Metzl রচিত 'Hacking Darwin' বইটি মো� এগারোট� অনুচ্ছেদ� বিভক্ত :
�) Where Darwin Meets Mendel
�) Climbing the Complexity Ladder
�) Decoding Identity
�) The End of Sex
�) Divine Sparks and Pixie Dust
�) Rebuilding the Living World
�) Stealing Immortality from the Gods
�) The Ethics of Engineering Ourselves
�) We Contain Multitudes
১০) The Arms Race of the Human Race
১১) The Future of Humanity
মূ� তি� ভাগে বিভক্ত বইটি: --
�) বইয়ের ভূমিকা , যা� শিরোনা� 'Entering the Genetic Age' থেকে তৃতীয় অনুচ্ছেদকে জেনেটিক্� তথ� মাইক্রোবায়োলোজি� একটি সুপা� ফাস্� ক্র্যা� কোর্� বল� যেতে পারে� জি� প্রযুক্তির nitty-gritty সম্পর্কে সম্পূর্ণ অজ্ঞ পাঠক� তৃতীয় অনুচ্ছেদ সম্পূর্ণ করার সাথে সাথে� � বিষয়ে সম্য� জ্ঞানে� অধিকারী হয়ে উঠবেন।
�) বইয়ের দ্বিতীয় ভাগে, (চতুর্থ থেকে সপ্ত� অনুচ্ছেদ) লেখক আলোচনা করেছেন বর্তমা� কালে জি� প্রযুক্তির সীমা আসলে কতটুকু, তা নিয়ে। যেমন ধর� যা�, বিশ্বে� প্রথ� জি� সম্পাদিত মানবশিশু� জন্ম হয� মহাচীনে� ওই যম� শিশু� জি� সম্পাদনা কর� হয়। এর ফল� এইডস রোগে আক্রান্ত বাবা� এই সন্তানের� এক বিরল ক্ষমতা� অধিকারী হয়ে জন্মগ্রহ� করে। বিজ্ঞানীদে� দাবি অনুযায়ী ওই দু� শিশু� দেহে কখনো� এইডস সংক্রমিত হত� পারব� না� আর এই ঘোষণাতেই সারা বিশ্বে সৃষ্টি হয� আলোড়ন , ওঠ� বিতর্কের ঝড়। বেশি� ভা� বিজ্ঞানী � গবেষকই গে� গে� রব তোলেন। ওঠ� নীতি-নৈতিকতার প্রশ্ন� কারণ মানবদেহে জি� সম্পাদনা� প্রযুক্ত� ব্যবহারে� ক্ষেত্রে এখনো একমত হত� পারেনি সবাই� নে� কোনো সর্বজনী� নিয়মকানুনও।
অর্থাৎ কি কর� যাবে আর কি যাবে না� সে� সীমারেখা� টানা হয়নি। আমরা কি এম� এক ভবিষ্যতে� সামন� দাঁড়িয়� যেখানে অনাগ� একটি মানুষে� মাঝে কী কী বৈশিষ্ট্� থাকব� তা ঠি� কর� দেওয়া যাবে? এত� ধনী দরিদ্রের বৈষম্য কোথায় গিয়� দাঁড়াবে এই নিয়� অনেক আলাপ আলোচনা চলছে� যদিও চীনা গবেষকর� বলছে� এই জি� পরিমার্জনে� মাধ্যম� তারা 'CCR5' নামে একটি জিনক� সরিয়ে দিয়েছেন, ফল� শিশুটি এইডস, কলের�, গুটিবসন্তে� ঝুঁক� থেকে মুক্� থাকবে। আবার অনেক গবেষ� বলছে� এই জিনে� অনেক অজান� কা� থাকত� পারে, এই জি� সরিয়ে দিলে হয়ত� পরিণতি ভয়াবহ� হত� পারে�
�) বইটি� শেষাংশ (অষ্ট� থেকে একাদ� অনুচ্ছেদ) বইটি� আস� high point ! জি� প্রযুক্তির সম্ভাবনা� এম� সক� আঙ্গিকের কথ� আলোচনা করেছেন লেখক যা পড়ত� গিয়� মনস্বী পাঠক আত্মহারা হয়ে যাবেন। মূ� যে বিষয়ট� উঠ� এসেছ� সেটি হল� এই যে, জি� প্রযুক্তির সাহায্যে আমরা কি আইনস্টাই� কিংব� নিউটনে� মত� মেধাবী হত� পারি? কিংব� দুর্ঘটনায় হারিয়� ফেলা চো� অথবা কোনও অঙ্গ নিজেরা� প্রতিস্থাপ� করতে পারি? আমরা কি রোগবালাই মুক্� মানব জীবন উপহা� পেতে পারি ? আমরা কি চিরসবু� বা এভারগ্রি� হয়ে উঠতে পারি?
লেখকের নিজে� কথায� :
'Imagine wаlkіng іntо a fеrtіlіtу сlіnіс іn thе уеаr 2035. Thanks tо the lаtеѕt, state оf the аrt gеnе tесhnоlоgу уоu can reduce thе сhаnсеѕ thаt your child wіll develop Alzheimer's disease, сеrtаіn types оf саnсеr and hеаrt disease later іn lіfе. You саn еvеn сhооѕе trаіtѕ which wіll influence your оffѕрrіng'ѕ height, IQ and реrѕоnаlіtу type. Thіѕ ѕсеnаrіо mіght ѕоund lіkе science fісtіоn, but іt could soon bе rеаlіtу. Thanks tо rесеnt lеарѕ іn tесhnоlоgу аnd a better undеrѕtаndіng оf thе humаn gеnоmе, wе will bе able tоplay an increasingly асtіvе role in dеѕіgnіng оur future оffѕрrіng. Welcome tо thе genetic rеvоlutіоn.'
ভবিষ্য� পৃথিবী যে আর্টিফিশিয়া� ইন্টেলিজেন্স বা এআ� নিয়ন্ত্রি� হত� চলছে তাতে কারও কো� সন্দেহ নেই। তব� জেনেটি� ইঞ্জিনিয়ারিংক� কাজে লাগিয়� সঙ্ক� মানব অর্থাৎ শক্ত�, বুদ্ধি, রো� প্রতিরোধক্ষম কর� যে সম্ভ� তাতে কারও দ্বিধা নেই। � কথ� অকাট্য যে, যেভাবে পৃথিবীতে রো� বালা� শক্তিশালী হয়ে উঠছে তা� বিরুদ্ধে ক্রিসপার ক্যা�-� পরশপাথরে� মতোই অমোঘ� আমরা যদ� ক্যান্সা� মত� মরণব্যাধিক� নিয়ন্ত্রণ করতে পারি, দৃষ্টিহীনদের দৃষ্টি, হৃদপিণ্ড অকেজোদের হৃদপিণ্ড ফিরিয়� দিতে পারি তাহল� সেটা হব� আমাদের জন্য আর্শীবাদ।
এই প্রসঙ্গে মন� পড়ে ২০২০ সালে রসায়ন� নোবেলজয়ী জেনিফা� ডাউডনা-� লেখা বই ‘A Crack in Creation: The New Power to Control Evolution�-এর কথা। এই বইয়� লেখিকা তাঁর আবিষ্কারের যাত্রা� পাশাপাশি মানুষক� এই প্রযুক্তির ব্যাপারে সতর্কবাণী� দিয়েছেন� কিন্তু গবেষকর� কি মানবেন এই সতর্কবাণী? আই� কর� কি থামানো যাবে এই প্রযুক্তির যাত্রা? ভ্রূণে� জিনক� যদ� পরিমার্জ� কর� ব্যাপক আকার� শুরু হয়ে যায় তব� এই আবিষ্কার কি মানু���ে� ভবিষ্য� বদলে দিতে সক্ষ�?
অপরদিক� ভাবত� গেলে, যদ� মানুষে� ভ্রুণক� গবেষণাগারে ডিএন� বাছা� কর� সুপারহিউম্যানে� মত� শক্তিধারী কর� তোলা হয�, তাহল� তা ধর্ম � ঐশ্বরি� বিশ্বাসে আঘাত হানব� কি? হয়ত� তা হত� পারে মানব ইতিহাসের সবচেয়� বড� ভুল। ধর্মের প্রত� মানুষে� বিশ্বাসবোধ আমাদের চলার পাথেয় হলেও বিজ্ঞানে� অনৈতিক প্রয়ো� ধর্মীয় সংঘা� তীব্রত� কর� তুলত� পারে কি? জেনেটি� ইঞ্জিনিয়ারি� নিউক্লিয়া� শক্তির চেয়� ভয়ানক কিছু হত� পারে কি?
পড়ে দেখু� Jamie Metzl রচিত 'Hacking Darwin - Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity'-
নিঃসন্দেহে এই বই ২০২০ সালে আমার পড়া স���্বশ্রেষ্� স্পেকুলেটি� নন-ফিকশন।
আধুনিক বিজ্ঞানে� যতগুলো গুরুত্বপূর্ণ আবিষ্কার তা� অন্যতম ব্রিটি� বিজ্ঞানী চার্লস ডারউইনের বিবর্তনবাদের তত্ত্ব� ১৮৫৯ সালে প্রকাশিত 'অন দ্� অরিজিন অফ স্পিশি�' গ্রন্থ�, ডারউইন বিবর্তনবাদকে সংজ্ঞায়িত করতে গিয়� বলেছেন, এট� এম� একটি প্রক্রিয়া যাতে কোনো প্রাণী ক্রমাগ� অভিযোজনে� ফল� আপ� পরিবেশের জন্য� বিশেষায়িত হত� হত� এক সময় নতুন একটি প্রাণীতে রূপান্তরিত হয়।
জিওপলিটিক্� বিশেষজ্ঞ , সা�-ফি ঔপন্যাসি� Jamie Metzl তাঁর বই 'Hacking Darwin - Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity'-তে ডারউইনের উপরোক্� তত্ত্বকে চ্যালেঞ্� জানিয়েছেন� লেখকের নিজে� কথায� : "My book argues that humаnіtу is оn thе cusp оf a future bеуоnd natural ѕеlесtіоn wіth thе hеlр оf аѕѕіѕtеd rерrоduсtіvе tесhnоlоgіеѕ thаt wіll enable us to hасk оur genetic makeup. By mарріng the hіѕtоrу оf gеnеtісѕ, tесhnоlоgу and thе іmрlісаtіоnѕ оf genetic еngіnееrіng, іt advocates for an іnfоrmеd adoption оf thе gеnеtіс rеvоlutіоn аnd suggests hоw to approach its political аnd еthісаl сhаllеngеѕ."
প্রসঙ্গত , ২০১২ সালে� আগ� পর্যন্� জি� প্রযুক্ত� এতটা প্রব� সম্ভাবনাময়ত� লা� করেনি। ওই বছরই আবিষ্কৃত হয� জি� সম্পাদনা� নতুন প্রযুক্তি—‘ক্রিসপা� ক্যা�-৯’। তা� ফলেই প্রায় পরিবর্তন ঘট� যায় জি� প্রকৌশলে� বিপ্লব� বল� চলে। মানু� জানত� পারে যে ‘ক্রিসপা� ক্যা�-৯� প্রযুক্ত� ব্যবহা� কর� জিনে� নির্দিষ্� অং� অত্যন্� নিখুঁতভাবে কেটে ফেলা যায়� শুধু তা�-� নয� ; এক� সঙ্গ� বসিয়ে দেওয়া যায় নতুন কোড। এর ফল� ত্রুটিপূর্� জি� বাতি� কর� একজন মানুষক� এইডস অথবা ক্যানসারের মত� ভয়ংকর রোগে� হা� থেকে বাঁচান� যেতে পারে� অথবা বৃদ্ধি কর� যেতে পারে মানুষে� আয়ু� শুধু কি মানু�? উদ্ভিদ � প্রাণিজগতে� নানা� ক্ষেত্রে� জি� সম্পাদনা� মাধ্যম� বৈপ্লবিক পরিবর্তন আনার ক্ষমতা আছ� এই ‘ক্রিসপা� ক্যা�-৯� প্রযুক্তির�
Metzl রচিত 'Hacking Darwin' বইটি মো� এগারোট� অনুচ্ছেদ� বিভক্ত :
�) Where Darwin Meets Mendel
�) Climbing the Complexity Ladder
�) Decoding Identity
�) The End of Sex
�) Divine Sparks and Pixie Dust
�) Rebuilding the Living World
�) Stealing Immortality from the Gods
�) The Ethics of Engineering Ourselves
�) We Contain Multitudes
১০) The Arms Race of the Human Race
১১) The Future of Humanity
মূ� তি� ভাগে বিভক্ত বইটি: --
�) বইয়ের ভূমিকা , যা� শিরোনা� 'Entering the Genetic Age' থেকে তৃতীয় অনুচ্ছেদকে জেনেটিক্� তথ� মাইক্রোবায়োলোজি� একটি সুপা� ফাস্� ক্র্যা� কোর্� বল� যেতে পারে� জি� প্রযুক্তির nitty-gritty সম্পর্কে সম্পূর্ণ অজ্ঞ পাঠক� তৃতীয় অনুচ্ছেদ সম্পূর্ণ করার সাথে সাথে� � বিষয়ে সম্য� জ্ঞানে� অধিকারী হয়ে উঠবেন।
�) বইয়ের দ্বিতীয় ভাগে, (চতুর্থ থেকে সপ্ত� অনুচ্ছেদ) লেখক আলোচনা করেছেন বর্তমা� কালে জি� প্রযুক্তির সীমা আসলে কতটুকু, তা নিয়ে। যেমন ধর� যা�, বিশ্বে� প্রথ� জি� সম্পাদিত মানবশিশু� জন্ম হয� মহাচীনে� ওই যম� শিশু� জি� সম্পাদনা কর� হয়। এর ফল� এইডস রোগে আক্রান্ত বাবা� এই সন্তানের� এক বিরল ক্ষমতা� অধিকারী হয়ে জন্মগ্রহ� করে। বিজ্ঞানীদে� দাবি অনুযায়ী ওই দু� শিশু� দেহে কখনো� এইডস সংক্রমিত হত� পারব� না� আর এই ঘোষণাতেই সারা বিশ্বে সৃষ্টি হয� আলোড়ন , ওঠ� বিতর্কের ঝড়। বেশি� ভা� বিজ্ঞানী � গবেষকই গে� গে� রব তোলেন। ওঠ� নীতি-নৈতিকতার প্রশ্ন� কারণ মানবদেহে জি� সম্পাদনা� প্রযুক্ত� ব্যবহারে� ক্ষেত্রে এখনো একমত হত� পারেনি সবাই� নে� কোনো সর্বজনী� নিয়মকানুনও।
অর্থাৎ কি কর� যাবে আর কি যাবে না� সে� সীমারেখা� টানা হয়নি। আমরা কি এম� এক ভবিষ্যতে� সামন� দাঁড়িয়� যেখানে অনাগ� একটি মানুষে� মাঝে কী কী বৈশিষ্ট্� থাকব� তা ঠি� কর� দেওয়া যাবে? এত� ধনী দরিদ্রের বৈষম্য কোথায় গিয়� দাঁড়াবে এই নিয়� অনেক আলাপ আলোচনা চলছে� যদিও চীনা গবেষকর� বলছে� এই জি� পরিমার্জনে� মাধ্যম� তারা 'CCR5' নামে একটি জিনক� সরিয়ে দিয়েছেন, ফল� শিশুটি এইডস, কলের�, গুটিবসন্তে� ঝুঁক� থেকে মুক্� থাকবে। আবার অনেক গবেষ� বলছে� এই জিনে� অনেক অজান� কা� থাকত� পারে, এই জি� সরিয়ে দিলে হয়ত� পরিণতি ভয়াবহ� হত� পারে�
�) বইটি� শেষাংশ (অষ্ট� থেকে একাদ� অনুচ্ছেদ) বইটি� আস� high point ! জি� প্রযুক্তির সম্ভাবনা� এম� সক� আঙ্গিকের কথ� আলোচনা করেছেন লেখক যা পড়ত� গিয়� মনস্বী পাঠক আত্মহারা হয়ে যাবেন। মূ� যে বিষয়ট� উঠ� এসেছ� সেটি হল� এই যে, জি� প্রযুক্তির সাহায্যে আমরা কি আইনস্টাই� কিংব� নিউটনে� মত� মেধাবী হত� পারি? কিংব� দুর্ঘটনায় হারিয়� ফেলা চো� অথবা কোনও অঙ্গ নিজেরা� প্রতিস্থাপ� করতে পারি? আমরা কি রোগবালাই মুক্� মানব জীবন উপহা� পেতে পারি ? আমরা কি চিরসবু� বা এভারগ্রি� হয়ে উঠতে পারি?
লেখকের নিজে� কথায� :
'Imagine wаlkіng іntо a fеrtіlіtу сlіnіс іn thе уеаr 2035. Thanks tо the lаtеѕt, state оf the аrt gеnе tесhnоlоgу уоu can reduce thе сhаnсеѕ thаt your child wіll develop Alzheimer's disease, сеrtаіn types оf саnсеr and hеаrt disease later іn lіfе. You саn еvеn сhооѕе trаіtѕ which wіll influence your оffѕрrіng'ѕ height, IQ and реrѕоnаlіtу type. Thіѕ ѕсеnаrіо mіght ѕоund lіkе science fісtіоn, but іt could soon bе rеаlіtу. Thanks tо rесеnt lеарѕ іn tесhnоlоgу аnd a better undеrѕtаndіng оf thе humаn gеnоmе, wе will bе able tоplay an increasingly асtіvе role in dеѕіgnіng оur future оffѕрrіng. Welcome tо thе genetic rеvоlutіоn.'
ভবিষ্য� পৃথিবী যে আর্টিফিশিয়া� ইন্টেলিজেন্স বা এআ� নিয়ন্ত্রি� হত� চলছে তাতে কারও কো� সন্দেহ নেই। তব� জেনেটি� ইঞ্জিনিয়ারিংক� কাজে লাগিয়� সঙ্ক� মানব অর্থাৎ শক্ত�, বুদ্ধি, রো� প্রতিরোধক্ষম কর� যে সম্ভ� তাতে কারও দ্বিধা নেই। � কথ� অকাট্য যে, যেভাবে পৃথিবীতে রো� বালা� শক্তিশালী হয়ে উঠছে তা� বিরুদ্ধে ক্রিসপার ক্যা�-� পরশপাথরে� মতোই অমোঘ� আমরা যদ� ক্যান্সা� মত� মরণব্যাধিক� নিয়ন্ত্রণ করতে পারি, দৃষ্টিহীনদের দৃষ্টি, হৃদপিণ্ড অকেজোদের হৃদপিণ্ড ফিরিয়� দিতে পারি তাহল� সেটা হব� আমাদের জন্য আর্শীবাদ।
এই প্রসঙ্গে মন� পড়ে ২০২০ সালে রসায়ন� নোবেলজয়ী জেনিফা� ডাউডনা-� লেখা বই ‘A Crack in Creation: The New Power to Control Evolution�-এর কথা। এই বইয়� লেখিকা তাঁর আবিষ্কারের যাত্রা� পাশাপাশি মানুষক� এই প্রযুক্তির ব্যাপারে সতর্কবাণী� দিয়েছেন� কিন্তু গবেষকর� কি মানবেন এই সতর্কবাণী? আই� কর� কি থামানো যাবে এই প্রযুক্তির যাত্রা? ভ্রূণে� জিনক� যদ� পরিমার্জ� কর� ব্যাপক আকার� শুরু হয়ে যায় তব� এই আবিষ্কার কি মানু���ে� ভবিষ্য� বদলে দিতে সক্ষ�?
অপরদিক� ভাবত� গেলে, যদ� মানুষে� ভ্রুণক� গবেষণাগারে ডিএন� বাছা� কর� সুপারহিউম্যানে� মত� শক্তিধারী কর� তোলা হয�, তাহল� তা ধর্ম � ঐশ্বরি� বিশ্বাসে আঘাত হানব� কি? হয়ত� তা হত� পারে মানব ইতিহাসের সবচেয়� বড� ভুল। ধর্মের প্রত� মানুষে� বিশ্বাসবোধ আমাদের চলার পাথেয় হলেও বিজ্ঞানে� অনৈতিক প্রয়ো� ধর্মীয় সংঘা� তীব্রত� কর� তুলত� পারে কি? জেনেটি� ইঞ্জিনিয়ারি� নিউক্লিয়া� শক্তির চেয়� ভয়ানক কিছু হত� পারে কি?
পড়ে দেখু� Jamie Metzl রচিত 'Hacking Darwin - Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity'-
নিঃসন্দেহে এই বই ২০২০ সালে আমার পড়া স���্বশ্রেষ্� স্পেকুলেটি� নন-ফিকশন।
February 15, 2022
If you’re interested in the field of genetic engineering then this book isn’t a bad place to start. It offers a sort of crash course on the history of the science, along with a check in to the modern progress and limitations, and a look to the near future possibilities.
I think it’s important to read the title to understand what this book contains. It’s roughly split between actual scientific fact - the current knowledge of genetic engineering - and theories of how it could impact the future. Theories is probably a strong word, it’s really just glorified guess work, and at times even felt like reading science fiction.
I’ve read several reviews on this book and many people seem to love it or hate it. I don’t have the scientific acumen to criticize Metzl’s approach or rigor in presenting the ‘facts� I also don’t search for reasons to be offended, so the political or race issues or whatever it is that some readers ruffled their own feathers over I completely missed.
So in short, I didn’t hate it.
I also understand absolutely everything Metzl writes about in this book, and much of what’s presented I knew already from the shallow research I had conducted previously. I’m not an overly intelligent person especially as it relates to science so that gives me the feeling that this book is likely dumbed down a bit, or lacks the complexity and depth that someone well versed in the subject matter would likely need to be engaged.
So in short, I didn’t love it.
Overall I think it’s a decent primer on the topic, especially if you go in knowing next to nothing. However, if you’re well versed on the science I don’t think there will be much to stimulate you here. Genetic engineering is undoubtedly a fascinating subject, and I do agree with Metzl that everyone should educate themselves on it because it could likely play an important role in humanity’s future.
Story-6, Language-7, Ideas-9, Characters-, Enjoyment-7, Overalll-7.2
I think it’s important to read the title to understand what this book contains. It’s roughly split between actual scientific fact - the current knowledge of genetic engineering - and theories of how it could impact the future. Theories is probably a strong word, it’s really just glorified guess work, and at times even felt like reading science fiction.
I’ve read several reviews on this book and many people seem to love it or hate it. I don’t have the scientific acumen to criticize Metzl’s approach or rigor in presenting the ‘facts� I also don’t search for reasons to be offended, so the political or race issues or whatever it is that some readers ruffled their own feathers over I completely missed.
So in short, I didn’t hate it.
I also understand absolutely everything Metzl writes about in this book, and much of what’s presented I knew already from the shallow research I had conducted previously. I’m not an overly intelligent person especially as it relates to science so that gives me the feeling that this book is likely dumbed down a bit, or lacks the complexity and depth that someone well versed in the subject matter would likely need to be engaged.
So in short, I didn’t love it.
Overall I think it’s a decent primer on the topic, especially if you go in knowing next to nothing. However, if you’re well versed on the science I don’t think there will be much to stimulate you here. Genetic engineering is undoubtedly a fascinating subject, and I do agree with Metzl that everyone should educate themselves on it because it could likely play an important role in humanity’s future.
Story-6, Language-7, Ideas-9, Characters-, Enjoyment-7, Overalll-7.2
September 18, 2021
Hacking Darwin takes a look at the current status of genetic engineering, as well as the possible and probable future uses of these tools, ethics, and the future of humanity. Metzl has written an engaging, fascinating and thought-provoking book that focuses on the fast approaching and inevitable (and exiting) genetic revolution, with clear explanations of the tools involved and the consequences of their use. The writing is clear, explanations accurate and not too technical for the general interested reader.
This book covers a vast array of topics that fall under the genetic engineering umbrella. He starts off with the history of genetic research, IVF, genetic screening; and continues with the relationship between genetics, diseases, traits, the environment; AI tools to process complex genetic patters; the pros and cons of the genetic engineering tools; "designer babies"; stem-cell research; mitochondrial disease; multiple donar babies; gene-editing tools such as CRISPR; gene-therapy; safety issues and challenges to the current technology; chimeras; organ transplants; synthetic biology; aging; the ethics and responsibility of using genetic engineering tool; our relationship with nature; GMOs; the arms race of the human race; and finaly, the furture of humanity.
Metzl states that his intent is to inform the public about the genetic revolution so that we can "make the smartest collective decisions about our war forward... to understand what is happening and what's at stake." Genetic entineering is a tool. The genetic revolution has the potential to improve lives or do great harm. The future of humanity depends on how we use it.
This book covers a vast array of topics that fall under the genetic engineering umbrella. He starts off with the history of genetic research, IVF, genetic screening; and continues with the relationship between genetics, diseases, traits, the environment; AI tools to process complex genetic patters; the pros and cons of the genetic engineering tools; "designer babies"; stem-cell research; mitochondrial disease; multiple donar babies; gene-editing tools such as CRISPR; gene-therapy; safety issues and challenges to the current technology; chimeras; organ transplants; synthetic biology; aging; the ethics and responsibility of using genetic engineering tool; our relationship with nature; GMOs; the arms race of the human race; and finaly, the furture of humanity.
Metzl states that his intent is to inform the public about the genetic revolution so that we can "make the smartest collective decisions about our war forward... to understand what is happening and what's at stake." Genetic entineering is a tool. The genetic revolution has the potential to improve lives or do great harm. The future of humanity depends on how we use it.
November 27, 2020
This book was incredibly well researched. I had no idea how advanced genetic engineering technology has become and how much it can affect our daily lives. I highly recommend!
June 23, 2019
Being a father of two this book created a moral and ethical argument within myself on the topic of genetic engineering. If there was a way to pick to apply gene editing prior to my two kids being conceived, I probably would have done some gene editing to my kids. I am someone that reads a lot and can see the benefits of gene editing and the statistical probability of increasing the experience of my children's lives to be better if I didn't choose gene editing. This is a dilemma because it seems that the one who will survive and thrive in the future will be the kids that their parents choose gene editing, which is what Darwin called the "the survival of fittest."
The only reason I read this book was because of the podcast the author did on Joe Rogan. So a lot of the content was over my head because of my knowledge of gene editing was close to nill before reading this book. It is still close to nill because it is an area of science that is growing and changing quickly but after reading this book seems like it will impact humanity greatly in the near future if not already.
The only reason I read this book was because of the podcast the author did on Joe Rogan. So a lot of the content was over my head because of my knowledge of gene editing was close to nill before reading this book. It is still close to nill because it is an area of science that is growing and changing quickly but after reading this book seems like it will impact humanity greatly in the near future if not already.
April 2, 2020
Not gonna waste anymore time on the book by writing an actual review on it.
January 26, 2022
“From this point onward, much of our mutation will not be random. It will be self-designed.
From this point onward, our selection will not be natural. It will be self-directed.
From this point onward, our species will take active control of our evolutionary process by genetically altering our future offspring into something different from what we are today. We are, in other words, beginning a process of hacking Darwin.�
Ülihea raamat sellest, kuidas geneetika areng hakkab mõjutama erinevaid eluvaldkondi. Mõjutatud saab olema see, kuidas saame lapsi, kuidas ravime haigusi ning kuidas see muudab ühiskonda.
From this point onward, our selection will not be natural. It will be self-directed.
From this point onward, our species will take active control of our evolutionary process by genetically altering our future offspring into something different from what we are today. We are, in other words, beginning a process of hacking Darwin.�
Ülihea raamat sellest, kuidas geneetika areng hakkab mõjutama erinevaid eluvaldkondi. Mõjutatud saab olema see, kuidas saame lapsi, kuidas ravime haigusi ning kuidas see muudab ühiskonda.
September 7, 2021
[6 Sept 2021]
"How do we balance the magnificent wonder and brutal cruelty of our own biology?"
Metzl spends a large portion of this book describing the various way in which we have messed with evolution throughout our history, and goes into some detail about the new science of genetic engineering. He describes our current capabilities and the possibilities that are just beyond the horizon. This is all very interesting, but then he goes on to discuss the implications of these capabilities and whether and how we should attempt to put limits on this emerging technology. To my mind, those later discussions represent the true value of this book.
"We have a strong attraction to what we feel is natural, but our species is defined by our relentless efforts to tame nature."
Metzl is a writer, not a scientist, but he's written about this subject extensively and has apparently been involved at very high levels of the ethical discussions already taking place. He makes a good attempt at evenhandedly presenting different viewpoints, but his bias is pretty clear. He believes that the genie is out of the bottle and attempts to put it back in will be futile. He also believes that the net benefit of the technology will be good for humanity, but that it must be done with restraint that reflects a consensus of all nations and all interests. He understands that such a consensus will be difficult to obtain, but it is imperative.
I personally have mixed feelings about genetic engineering. Some of the possibilities for curing disease are very exciting. But there are other possibilities that could be very dangerous. I am reminded of one of my favorite science fiction series, the "Honorverse". In the history of that future civilization there was a period where genetic engineering got out of hand, with an attempt to create a "superhuman". Those who resulted from those efforts end up trying to take over the galaxy and they were not friendly or sympathetic to "ordinary" humans. It was such a disastrous episode that genetic engineering had to be nearly outlawed, and anyone suspected of being in any way genetically altered was looked at with suspicion. This seems a very likely scenario to me.
Plus we have a long history of good intentions gone amuck. But the potential for disaster when we're talking about the future of the human race seems to me something we must take very seriously. Errors may not be very easy to fix. However, as Metzl says, it may be too late to stop it entirely.
The writing in this book is fairly good, easy to follow and understand. My biggest complaint about the book is that he frequently seems to go on and on about a subject that he's already covered quite adequately. He gets very wordy. But maybe that's just his passion getting the better of him. And I salute his passion.
"How do we balance the magnificent wonder and brutal cruelty of our own biology?"
Metzl spends a large portion of this book describing the various way in which we have messed with evolution throughout our history, and goes into some detail about the new science of genetic engineering. He describes our current capabilities and the possibilities that are just beyond the horizon. This is all very interesting, but then he goes on to discuss the implications of these capabilities and whether and how we should attempt to put limits on this emerging technology. To my mind, those later discussions represent the true value of this book.
"We have a strong attraction to what we feel is natural, but our species is defined by our relentless efforts to tame nature."
Metzl is a writer, not a scientist, but he's written about this subject extensively and has apparently been involved at very high levels of the ethical discussions already taking place. He makes a good attempt at evenhandedly presenting different viewpoints, but his bias is pretty clear. He believes that the genie is out of the bottle and attempts to put it back in will be futile. He also believes that the net benefit of the technology will be good for humanity, but that it must be done with restraint that reflects a consensus of all nations and all interests. He understands that such a consensus will be difficult to obtain, but it is imperative.
I personally have mixed feelings about genetic engineering. Some of the possibilities for curing disease are very exciting. But there are other possibilities that could be very dangerous. I am reminded of one of my favorite science fiction series, the "Honorverse". In the history of that future civilization there was a period where genetic engineering got out of hand, with an attempt to create a "superhuman". Those who resulted from those efforts end up trying to take over the galaxy and they were not friendly or sympathetic to "ordinary" humans. It was such a disastrous episode that genetic engineering had to be nearly outlawed, and anyone suspected of being in any way genetically altered was looked at with suspicion. This seems a very likely scenario to me.
Plus we have a long history of good intentions gone amuck. But the potential for disaster when we're talking about the future of the human race seems to me something we must take very seriously. Errors may not be very easy to fix. However, as Metzl says, it may be too late to stop it entirely.
The writing in this book is fairly good, easy to follow and understand. My biggest complaint about the book is that he frequently seems to go on and on about a subject that he's already covered quite adequately. He gets very wordy. But maybe that's just his passion getting the better of him. And I salute his passion.
January 19, 2020
Moore's Law states that we can expect the speed and capability of our computers to increase every couple of years, and we will pay less for them. This law is now driving to another revolution called 'human genetic', a new era of creating superhuman.
Now many oppose application of PGT (pre-implantation genetic testing) i.e. screening of human embryo for gene disorder, however, this will soon be future since it will create human without critical genetic diseases like Huntington’s disease, Down syndrome etc.
Author describes the future situation may be fantastic, however not free with danger. This 'genetic enhancement' , through gene splicing by CASPER-CAS9, of human may create a unbridgeable chasm between those who can afford genetic enhancement and those who can't. There may be cold war scenario in creating genetically enhance soldiers who can tolerate any extreme weather or returning of 'eugenic' movement which created Nazi era.
Reader can get a flavor of how the entire biology is getting revolutionized in way of advance of synthetic biology (combining machine and life) and development of Senolytic drugs (for expanding life and reducing aging process).
However, author opines this future can not be stopped, however, like NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) world leaders may settle on negotiable terms and conditions.
Author, Jamie Metzl, is a technology futurist and geo-political expert.
Now many oppose application of PGT (pre-implantation genetic testing) i.e. screening of human embryo for gene disorder, however, this will soon be future since it will create human without critical genetic diseases like Huntington’s disease, Down syndrome etc.
Author describes the future situation may be fantastic, however not free with danger. This 'genetic enhancement' , through gene splicing by CASPER-CAS9, of human may create a unbridgeable chasm between those who can afford genetic enhancement and those who can't. There may be cold war scenario in creating genetically enhance soldiers who can tolerate any extreme weather or returning of 'eugenic' movement which created Nazi era.
Reader can get a flavor of how the entire biology is getting revolutionized in way of advance of synthetic biology (combining machine and life) and development of Senolytic drugs (for expanding life and reducing aging process).
However, author opines this future can not be stopped, however, like NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) world leaders may settle on negotiable terms and conditions.
Author, Jamie Metzl, is a technology futurist and geo-political expert.
June 10, 2019
This is an important book that covers an important emerging issue. The main focus of this book is to bring awareness of the issues pertaining to the growing knowledge and implementation of human genetic manipulation and engineering, and to encourage dialog among all people who will be affected by it (which is potentially everyone).
I heard this author on the JRE podcast and was intrigued. While he covered most of the points in this book on the podcast, it should still be required reading.
One thing this book lacks is really any definable plan. Like climate change (which is frequently referenced and even used as parallel), it seems we are becoming aware, want to do something, but lack any realistic plan of actual implementation. For that realization, this book is rather depressing, as one gets the feeling that this may yet be another way of destroying ourselves that will be politically, morally and religiously divisive, and we will probably be arguing what to do about it while Rome burns.
I heard this author on the JRE podcast and was intrigued. While he covered most of the points in this book on the podcast, it should still be required reading.
One thing this book lacks is really any definable plan. Like climate change (which is frequently referenced and even used as parallel), it seems we are becoming aware, want to do something, but lack any realistic plan of actual implementation. For that realization, this book is rather depressing, as one gets the feeling that this may yet be another way of destroying ourselves that will be politically, morally and religiously divisive, and we will probably be arguing what to do about it while Rome burns.
September 21, 2020
High on the eugenics and pronatalism, low on class analysis. Jamie Metzl spends most of this book stating what he believes the future holds, but stated as if these things are facts.
If you want to read about the history of genetics as a science, a far better choice is "The Gene: An Intimate History" by Siddhartha Mukherjee.
If you want to read about the history of genetics as a science, a far better choice is "The Gene: An Intimate History" by Siddhartha Mukherjee.
August 24, 2021
I would like to express my opinion with my not very good English: This book is not a scientific book. This book is about things about ethics, a bit about politics, and a lot of strategic proposals for the future genetic engineering in USA. Although the author tries to put himself in a liberal side, he gives a lot of clues that he is a US nationalist. I am not a fan of china. But while giving some information of genetic engineering politics about China, it is not overlooked that the author always puts words that dispraise a little bit this country. At the same time, it is possible to see that the author, who is aware of the fact that China will make rapid progress in genetic engineering by using its own cultural structure which is different from the western culture, is jealous of this country. In addition, the author argues that the Chinese and South Korean governments violate children's rights by forcing children to be successful in their field, while he considers that it is a sublime effort for a US family to force their children to be successful .
If we ignore all these negatives aside, I give 3 because I learned a few facts, in addition some statistics that I streinghten . Another positive feature of that book is that it makes think, at least, about the ethical issues of genetic engineering.
If we ignore all these negatives aside, I give 3 because I learned a few facts, in addition some statistics that I streinghten . Another positive feature of that book is that it makes think, at least, about the ethical issues of genetic engineering.
December 13, 2020
Um livro que li bastante rapidamente. Comprei-o porque li, nem faz tanto tempo assim, o Gene, do Siddhartha Mukherjee, um dos melhores livros de divulgação científica que já li. Recomendo-o vivamente.
Esse Hackeando Darwin não está no mesmo nível. Mesmo assim, tem muita coisa bastante interessante. Não está indicado, mas divide-se em três blocos. O primeiro � e para mim o mais interessante � é o que é expõe o estado atual da ciência. O segundo trata dos aspectos morais e, o terceiro, praticamente só o último capítulo, é uma prospectiva do futuro.
O primeiro bloco traz informações interessantíssimas sobre o estado atual da ciência. Os avanços são ao mesmo tempo fascinantes e assustadores. Fascinantes porque nos trazem inovações científicas realmente impressionantes. Três aspectos me chamaram mais a atenção. O primeiro é a possibilidade de induzir qualquer célula a se transformar em uma célula-tronco. Isso cria a possibilidade de transformar essa célula em espermatozoides ou óvulos. Isso é relevante por muitas razões. O primeiro é que cada mulher tem um estoque limitado de óvulos. Algo como uns quatrocentos. Ou seja, o processo elimina esse limite e é possível criar uma quantidade inimaginável de óvulos. Assim, poderíamos imaginar um casal homossexual, por exemplo, que pudesse gerar filhos biológicos, isto é, dois homens sendo pai e mãe biológicos de uma criança. Ou, até mesmo, e aí a coisa fica alucinante, uma mesma pessoa poderia ser o pai e a mãe de um filho.
Essas, além disso, são as consequências mais simples. Há outras coisas ainda mais impressionantes.
E vamos para o segundo aspecto científico que me chamou a atenção. Essas células-tronco induzidas fertilizadas poderiam gerar embriões que formariam um indivíduo novo. Extraindo-se algumas células desse embrião se poderia mapear as possíveis doenças ameaçadoras ou, quem, sabe selecionar os embriões que tenham certos genes que sejam considerados mais significativos. Mais inteligências ou, quem sabe, resistência a certo de doenças. Os pais poderiam então selecionar os embriões mais desejáveis. Não entre os poucos embriões disponíveis hoje, mas entre centenas ou milhares. Ou, quem sabe, fazer algo ainda mais impressionante. Poderiam extrair células desses embriões e transformá-las em espermatozoides e óvulos. Hein? Isso mesmo, os embriões poderiam se tornar pais. Esse processo, segundo o autor, poderá ser feito a cada seis meses, ou seja, em 10 anos poderiam ser selecionadas 20 gerações. Hoje, 20 gerações representam algo como uns 500 anos...ou seja, uma seleção acelerada.
Além desse processo, há um terceiro aspecto que é a edição de genes, cujas técnicas estão progredindo muito rapidamente.
O resultado é que em algumas décadas é bastante possível imaginar que a reprodução assistida se torne o modo como os pais tenham filhos.... inclusive aqueles pais que não sejam assim tão ricos.
É claro que uma das dificuldades são as características que são multi-gene, ou seja, dependem da ação de vários genes. O autor acredita que o big data, inteligência artificial e computação ultra-rápida poderiam mapear essa interação de genes em algumas décadas.
Posto isso, como ficam as questões éticas? São muitas. Na verdade, são tantas que é quase impossível continuar com as pesquisas se elas fossem levadas à sério. A minha impressão é que, como tão frequentemente acontece, a ética será atropelada. Talvez tanto pelos estados, quanto pela demanda das pessoas comuns, que vão querer filhos sem doenças ou com características positivas ao mesmo tempo em que, na medida do possível, vão buscar curar ou aprimorar a si próprios.
O autor lembra dos bebês de proveta, lá nos anos 1970. Muita gritaria e lamentação. Hoje ninguém se lembra dessas reclamações. O interesse foi mais forte do que as restrições apresentadas pelas pessoas daquele tempo.
O terceiro aspecto do livro é a prospecção do futuro. Parece que é difícil interromper os muitos interesses em favor da manipulação genética. São as famílias, mas também tantos outros interesses, como as grandes corporações ou, mais ainda, estados-nacionais.
Enfim, o futuro é ao mesmo tempo fascinante, mágico, hipnótico e sombrio.
Tenho a impressão que teremos um pouco desses dois lados.
Esse Hackeando Darwin não está no mesmo nível. Mesmo assim, tem muita coisa bastante interessante. Não está indicado, mas divide-se em três blocos. O primeiro � e para mim o mais interessante � é o que é expõe o estado atual da ciência. O segundo trata dos aspectos morais e, o terceiro, praticamente só o último capítulo, é uma prospectiva do futuro.
O primeiro bloco traz informações interessantíssimas sobre o estado atual da ciência. Os avanços são ao mesmo tempo fascinantes e assustadores. Fascinantes porque nos trazem inovações científicas realmente impressionantes. Três aspectos me chamaram mais a atenção. O primeiro é a possibilidade de induzir qualquer célula a se transformar em uma célula-tronco. Isso cria a possibilidade de transformar essa célula em espermatozoides ou óvulos. Isso é relevante por muitas razões. O primeiro é que cada mulher tem um estoque limitado de óvulos. Algo como uns quatrocentos. Ou seja, o processo elimina esse limite e é possível criar uma quantidade inimaginável de óvulos. Assim, poderíamos imaginar um casal homossexual, por exemplo, que pudesse gerar filhos biológicos, isto é, dois homens sendo pai e mãe biológicos de uma criança. Ou, até mesmo, e aí a coisa fica alucinante, uma mesma pessoa poderia ser o pai e a mãe de um filho.
Essas, além disso, são as consequências mais simples. Há outras coisas ainda mais impressionantes.
E vamos para o segundo aspecto científico que me chamou a atenção. Essas células-tronco induzidas fertilizadas poderiam gerar embriões que formariam um indivíduo novo. Extraindo-se algumas células desse embrião se poderia mapear as possíveis doenças ameaçadoras ou, quem, sabe selecionar os embriões que tenham certos genes que sejam considerados mais significativos. Mais inteligências ou, quem sabe, resistência a certo de doenças. Os pais poderiam então selecionar os embriões mais desejáveis. Não entre os poucos embriões disponíveis hoje, mas entre centenas ou milhares. Ou, quem sabe, fazer algo ainda mais impressionante. Poderiam extrair células desses embriões e transformá-las em espermatozoides e óvulos. Hein? Isso mesmo, os embriões poderiam se tornar pais. Esse processo, segundo o autor, poderá ser feito a cada seis meses, ou seja, em 10 anos poderiam ser selecionadas 20 gerações. Hoje, 20 gerações representam algo como uns 500 anos...ou seja, uma seleção acelerada.
Além desse processo, há um terceiro aspecto que é a edição de genes, cujas técnicas estão progredindo muito rapidamente.
O resultado é que em algumas décadas é bastante possível imaginar que a reprodução assistida se torne o modo como os pais tenham filhos.... inclusive aqueles pais que não sejam assim tão ricos.
É claro que uma das dificuldades são as características que são multi-gene, ou seja, dependem da ação de vários genes. O autor acredita que o big data, inteligência artificial e computação ultra-rápida poderiam mapear essa interação de genes em algumas décadas.
Posto isso, como ficam as questões éticas? São muitas. Na verdade, são tantas que é quase impossível continuar com as pesquisas se elas fossem levadas à sério. A minha impressão é que, como tão frequentemente acontece, a ética será atropelada. Talvez tanto pelos estados, quanto pela demanda das pessoas comuns, que vão querer filhos sem doenças ou com características positivas ao mesmo tempo em que, na medida do possível, vão buscar curar ou aprimorar a si próprios.
O autor lembra dos bebês de proveta, lá nos anos 1970. Muita gritaria e lamentação. Hoje ninguém se lembra dessas reclamações. O interesse foi mais forte do que as restrições apresentadas pelas pessoas daquele tempo.
O terceiro aspecto do livro é a prospecção do futuro. Parece que é difícil interromper os muitos interesses em favor da manipulação genética. São as famílias, mas também tantos outros interesses, como as grandes corporações ou, mais ainda, estados-nacionais.
Enfim, o futuro é ao mesmo tempo fascinante, mágico, hipnótico e sombrio.
Tenho a impressão que teremos um pouco desses dois lados.
February 8, 2019
A very readable, relentlessly optimistic book about the future of genetic engineering and how it may be applied to human reproduction.
Jamie Metzl knows his subject matter very well and is an experienced writer: one does not need to have much familiarity with how human genome works or what the current state of science on the matter is to grasp his arguments. He covers a wide array of loosely related topics: genetic engineering, iPC research, IVF, embryo selection, genetic diseases, GMOs, political handling of all those, what “nature� means in such a context� His ultimate goal is to mobilize his readers to consider genetic engineering in human reproduction and spur productive discussions about it, since it is just around the corner, and to this end the book is a great tool and resource.
Unfortunately, my pessimism is almost as bottomless as Metzl’s optimism, and a lot of his exuberantly hopeful claims smashed against my entrenched suspicions about the goodness of humanity. I found the brief chapter on social and political dimensions of the genetic engineering revolution (evolution?) he foresees particularly disconcerting. He does acknowledge the current inequality within first world countries and globally, but does not offer any realistic prognoses or sound advice on how genetic science could and should proceed on such terrain. Metzl limits himself to virtuous claims about how flawed our current social order and moral judgements are, and how they could use a critical eye and rethinking, but does not advance further towards how that could be achieved and what the absence of such rethinking would mean for the genetically advancing future of humanity. I see a world divided not just by wealth and technological progress, but by sheer physical fitness, and so does Metzl, but he does not explore this potential future further, simply stating its possible emergence, prescribing critical thinking as an antidote. I think such blasé attitude towards this most realistic of the futures is irresponsible and wish the social, political and financial consequences of genetically engineering humans were explored further in the book.
Despite this shortcoming, “Hacking Darwin� is absolutely worth a read. It is educational, interesting and pleasantly written, and is capable of starting necessary discussions, as it has between my friends and I. I tip my hat to Jamie Metzl for that success.
Thanks to NetGalley for a digital ARC of the book.
Jamie Metzl knows his subject matter very well and is an experienced writer: one does not need to have much familiarity with how human genome works or what the current state of science on the matter is to grasp his arguments. He covers a wide array of loosely related topics: genetic engineering, iPC research, IVF, embryo selection, genetic diseases, GMOs, political handling of all those, what “nature� means in such a context� His ultimate goal is to mobilize his readers to consider genetic engineering in human reproduction and spur productive discussions about it, since it is just around the corner, and to this end the book is a great tool and resource.
Unfortunately, my pessimism is almost as bottomless as Metzl’s optimism, and a lot of his exuberantly hopeful claims smashed against my entrenched suspicions about the goodness of humanity. I found the brief chapter on social and political dimensions of the genetic engineering revolution (evolution?) he foresees particularly disconcerting. He does acknowledge the current inequality within first world countries and globally, but does not offer any realistic prognoses or sound advice on how genetic science could and should proceed on such terrain. Metzl limits himself to virtuous claims about how flawed our current social order and moral judgements are, and how they could use a critical eye and rethinking, but does not advance further towards how that could be achieved and what the absence of such rethinking would mean for the genetically advancing future of humanity. I see a world divided not just by wealth and technological progress, but by sheer physical fitness, and so does Metzl, but he does not explore this potential future further, simply stating its possible emergence, prescribing critical thinking as an antidote. I think such blasé attitude towards this most realistic of the futures is irresponsible and wish the social, political and financial consequences of genetically engineering humans were explored further in the book.
Despite this shortcoming, “Hacking Darwin� is absolutely worth a read. It is educational, interesting and pleasantly written, and is capable of starting necessary discussions, as it has between my friends and I. I tip my hat to Jamie Metzl for that success.
Thanks to NetGalley for a digital ARC of the book.
April 21, 2024
As a physician-scientist practicing medicine in the genetics and diagnostics fields, and someone who's fascinated by technology and the future in general, I frequently find myself drawn to speculative non-fiction about the future of science and medicine. In Hacking Darwin, Jamie Metzl, who's not a scientist, talks about his optimistic mindset about the future of genetic engineering to make humans healthier, smarter, longer-lived, etc. (much of the book focuses on humans, though genetic engineering of crops and animals is briefly discussed) while simultaneously discussing the ethical implications of such a world and how it will likely further global inequalities unless we develop ethical guidelines now.
While I am agreement with his latter point, I found myself struggling with the first point, based on differences between how Metzl and I understand human genetics. Most traits and common diseases like cardiovascular disease aren't monogenic (caused by a variant in a single gene), and even those that are monogenic can't all be cured by getting CRISPR to edit a few DNA base pairs. Cell biology is complex, and DNA variants can be pathogenic by a number of mechanisms -- from single DNA base pair changes that are low-hanging fruit by today's technologies, to complex insertions/deletions, intronic variants, 5' untranslated region variants that lead to aberrant expression, to deletions of whole exons or genes, to dominant negative/gain-of-function changes. The best uses of human genetic engineering today, in my opinion, are pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to select for embryos without a devastating familial mutation, which started several decades ago (discussed in books like Joselin Linder's memoir , and Gina Kolata's book ), and the emergency of gene therapies starting in the 2020s for diseases like sickle cell anemia, spinal muscular atrophy, and hemophilia A that introduce functional genes in people whose inherited copies are faulty and lead to much morbidity and mortality.
As a kid, I read Greg Bear's science fiction short story book (1989), which contains the story "Sisters" about a hypothetical future where most babies are genetically engineered for desirable traits (not unlike Metzl's projections for the near-/mid-term future), which goes terribly wrong as the engineered individuals all develop unforeseen complications. At this point, our technology is still immature enough where this may be a reality should our hubris overpower our science and ethics, as may be seen with China's CRISPR babies engineered by He Jiankui -- CRISPR gene editing was performed with the goal of rendering both copies of the babies' CCR5 genes nonfunctional, which confers resistance to HIV infection (it's a naturally-occurring phenomenon in rare individuals today), but in addition to failing to genetically disrupt both copies of CCR5 in either baby, there were unintended variants created in CCR5 and possibly off-target effects that remain to be seen.
The other major elephant in the room on this topic are environmental factors. Even if we were able to hypothetically engineer humans to have the lowest possible risk of cardiovascular disease, such humans would also have to spend a lifetime exercising consistently and avoiding poor dietary choices (i.e., the Western diet) to have maximal impact. Metzl talks about this in his discussion of the longevity community who try to prolong their lives via metabolic hacks and a potpourri of supplements, but really, to counter any disease of longevity (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, dementia, cancer, etc.), there's no one-and-done fix.
Further reading:
by Bartow Elmore -- about the genetic engineering of crops -- which in itself isn't a bad thing, but has been exploited by certain multinational organizations in what should be a cautionary tale for the prospect of human genetic engineering
by Nathan Lents - a good counterpoint to this book
by David Epstein
by Eric Topol -- my favorite writer about the future of healthcare
by Walter Isaacson
While I am agreement with his latter point, I found myself struggling with the first point, based on differences between how Metzl and I understand human genetics. Most traits and common diseases like cardiovascular disease aren't monogenic (caused by a variant in a single gene), and even those that are monogenic can't all be cured by getting CRISPR to edit a few DNA base pairs. Cell biology is complex, and DNA variants can be pathogenic by a number of mechanisms -- from single DNA base pair changes that are low-hanging fruit by today's technologies, to complex insertions/deletions, intronic variants, 5' untranslated region variants that lead to aberrant expression, to deletions of whole exons or genes, to dominant negative/gain-of-function changes. The best uses of human genetic engineering today, in my opinion, are pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to select for embryos without a devastating familial mutation, which started several decades ago (discussed in books like Joselin Linder's memoir , and Gina Kolata's book ), and the emergency of gene therapies starting in the 2020s for diseases like sickle cell anemia, spinal muscular atrophy, and hemophilia A that introduce functional genes in people whose inherited copies are faulty and lead to much morbidity and mortality.
As a kid, I read Greg Bear's science fiction short story book (1989), which contains the story "Sisters" about a hypothetical future where most babies are genetically engineered for desirable traits (not unlike Metzl's projections for the near-/mid-term future), which goes terribly wrong as the engineered individuals all develop unforeseen complications. At this point, our technology is still immature enough where this may be a reality should our hubris overpower our science and ethics, as may be seen with China's CRISPR babies engineered by He Jiankui -- CRISPR gene editing was performed with the goal of rendering both copies of the babies' CCR5 genes nonfunctional, which confers resistance to HIV infection (it's a naturally-occurring phenomenon in rare individuals today), but in addition to failing to genetically disrupt both copies of CCR5 in either baby, there were unintended variants created in CCR5 and possibly off-target effects that remain to be seen.
The other major elephant in the room on this topic are environmental factors. Even if we were able to hypothetically engineer humans to have the lowest possible risk of cardiovascular disease, such humans would also have to spend a lifetime exercising consistently and avoiding poor dietary choices (i.e., the Western diet) to have maximal impact. Metzl talks about this in his discussion of the longevity community who try to prolong their lives via metabolic hacks and a potpourri of supplements, but really, to counter any disease of longevity (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, dementia, cancer, etc.), there's no one-and-done fix.
Further reading:
by Bartow Elmore -- about the genetic engineering of crops -- which in itself isn't a bad thing, but has been exploited by certain multinational organizations in what should be a cautionary tale for the prospect of human genetic engineering
by Nathan Lents - a good counterpoint to this book
by David Epstein
by Eric Topol -- my favorite writer about the future of healthcare
by Walter Isaacson
February 28, 2019
This is a great scientific book to read if you don't normally read scientific books and let's face it - we are already dealing with DNA issues so it makes sense to be smart about it. Jamie Metzl provides insight through funny anecdotes, plain speaking English and sifts through all the facts and figures to give us a history of our DNA, what we know already and most important of all, where we are going in the not too distant future. Our children probably will be picking out our grandchildren from a catalog of desired traits and disease-free genes and great grandparents will be there to welcome them. Very readable and equally exciting and frightening in the same measure.
The information is especially valuable for people wanting to start a family in the coming years. My thanks to the publisher for the advance copy.
The information is especially valuable for people wanting to start a family in the coming years. My thanks to the publisher for the advance copy.
March 14, 2019
An interesting and fascinating book about an interesting and fascinating topic.
I liked the style of writing, the clear explanations and how the author is able to talk about very complex topics in a clear and engaging mode.
This book is a lot of food for thought, highly recommended!
Many thanks to SOURCEBOOKS and Netgalley for this ARC. I voluntarily read and reviewed this book, all opinions are mine.
I liked the style of writing, the clear explanations and how the author is able to talk about very complex topics in a clear and engaging mode.
This book is a lot of food for thought, highly recommended!
Many thanks to SOURCEBOOKS and Netgalley for this ARC. I voluntarily read and reviewed this book, all opinions are mine.
April 7, 2020
After ‘The Gene: An intimate History� I thought that any book about genetics would only be a disappointment. I was more than happily surprised. This is a book about genetics which starts where The Gene� finishes and which looks to the future rather than the past -Where we are going rather than where we have come from - and it is jaw dropping. Engaging, often dryly humorous and not a little scary. Informative yet really enjoyable
May 30, 2020
Easy to understand for those who aren’t familiar with genetic engineering, Informative and engaging!
August 23, 2019
This is going to be a long one, so buckle up if you're interested...
This was an interesting read. Author Jamie Metzl writes with a style that holds the reader's attention, while effectively communicating the information.
This easy writing style makes the book accessible to the layperson. It is not written in the overly technical manner that is a hallmark of many other science books.
He covers a lot of ground in here. He starts the book theorizing about the increased utilization of IVF technology in the future, and then a brief outline of genetics, and the mapping of the human genome by The Human Genome Project.
He then moves on to Mendelian diseases, twins studies and intelligence. He disappointingly mentions Charles' Murray's "The Bell Curve":
...Conveniently not mentioning that the data documenting "g" - or general intelligence is very well documented and evidenced, as is the data on group differences. Murray's book was controversial because it hurt people's feelings. That there are average differences between groups is something patently obvious to any child, and something he ironically mentions towards the end of the book, when talking about the prowess of Kenyan runners.
It would truly be a miracle of evolution if isolated groups located in vastly different environments around the globe all evolved identical traits, at the same time. He should know better.
Moving on from this, he talks about how stem cells can be used to make gametes, and revolutionize IVF technology.
This seemed like some odd reasoning, however:
I'm not sure you can just keep amplifying intelligence like that. They make the assumption that each grouping of embryos would have examples of progressively higher intelligence zygotes among them, well above the mean. Why would that be so? It seems more likely to me that the embryos will exhibit different values, but will still largely group around the mean. This is evidenced by how intelligence is distributed already in society. If super-high IQ happened with a large statistical regularity, random chance would dictate there would be many more intelligent people than there are now.
Even if you could repeatedly select for the highest among the group, at some point you will push up against the physical limitations of our inherent hardware. Neurons can only fire so quickly. Only so many networks can be established and maintained. Our hardware is fixed and finite. He goes on to theorize a person with an IQ of 1000. Doesn't sound very likely to me.
The book moves on with talk about CRISPR and gene therapy, gene editing, and the related ethics.
These leftist writers crack me up:
LOL, judging by the relative technological, cultural, and musical output from the rest of the entire Middle East, I'm going to hazard a guess of NOT TOO MANY...
To his credit, however, he then talks at length about GMOs, their introduction, usage, and benefits. He has a good blurb about anti-GMOers:
Superfluous long-winded chapter at the end completely detached from reality where the author recommends global-wide regulation on genome editing, based on some empathy-driven ethical concerns he has. These leftist writers are hilarious - in a tragically ironic way... So knowledgeable in certain fields, yet so disconnected from reality.
You know who is not encumbered by the same ethical constraints and concerns? CHINA AND RUSSIA. The author doesn't seem to realize the obvious here. Also completely detached from reality; he suggests military intervention could be needed in countries who don't agree to global restriction terms. Has he no understanding of MAD? MAD makes sure this would not be a tenable option with countries like China and Russia...
Overall, this was a really interesting book, covering a broad range of science, and related research.
I would recommend it, despite the author's inclusion of his laughable, irrelevant and unneeded political/ideological commentary. A cursory glance of his Twitter feed reveals a virtual cornucopia of leftist nonsense, coupled with raging Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I wanted to give this 5 stars, but the author's inclusion of his screeching leftist nonsense makes me subtract 2 stars. This book didn't need his ideological commentary. I don't know why these "progressives" feel that people will appreciate their evangelizing and virtue signalling in a science book...
This was an interesting read. Author Jamie Metzl writes with a style that holds the reader's attention, while effectively communicating the information.
This easy writing style makes the book accessible to the layperson. It is not written in the overly technical manner that is a hallmark of many other science books.
He covers a lot of ground in here. He starts the book theorizing about the increased utilization of IVF technology in the future, and then a brief outline of genetics, and the mapping of the human genome by The Human Genome Project.
He then moves on to Mendelian diseases, twins studies and intelligence. He disappointingly mentions Charles' Murray's "The Bell Curve":
"By simultaneously raising the taboo topics of intelligence differences between people and groups, IQ, and race, Herrnstein and Murray smashed into the buzz saw of progressive public opinion.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert called The Bell Curve “a scabrous piece of racial pornography masquerading as serious scholarship.� Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould, a longtime critic of the concept of general factor intelligence, argued that other environmental factors like prenatal nutrition, home life, and access to quality education had a more significant influence on a person’s intelligence than Herrnstein and Murray accounted for.
Other critics attacked the book as reductionist, scientifically sloppy, and dangerously biased."
...Conveniently not mentioning that the data documenting "g" - or general intelligence is very well documented and evidenced, as is the data on group differences. Murray's book was controversial because it hurt people's feelings. That there are average differences between groups is something patently obvious to any child, and something he ironically mentions towards the end of the book, when talking about the prowess of Kenyan runners.
It would truly be a miracle of evolution if isolated groups located in vastly different environments around the globe all evolved identical traits, at the same time. He should know better.
Moving on from this, he talks about how stem cells can be used to make gametes, and revolutionize IVF technology.
This seemed like some odd reasoning, however:
"In their thought-provoking paper, Embryo Selection for Cognitive Enhancement: Curiosity or Game Changer?, Oxford professors Carl Shulman and Nick Bostrom attempt to quantify what increase in IQ might be possible based on mating unimplanted embryos with each other.
The IQ of a traditionally conceived child, an n of 1, simply has the genetic component of IQ he or she is born with. Because the genetic component of IQ varies among embryos created by the same parents, other than identical twins, we can safely assume the range of IQ options would be greater the larger the number of embryos that might be generated. This means that we would have a greater chance of selecting an unimplanted embryo with a higher IQ if the number of options was larger.
According to Shulman and Bostrom’s calculations, the average IQ difference between the highest and lowest IQ of the fifteen or so embryos conceived in IVF, as practiced today, from the same parents would be about twelve points. But if we use the induced stem-cell procedure to start with a hundred fertilized eggs, rather than just ten or fifteen, the average difference between the highest and lowest genetic IQ potentials between these hundred options is estimated at about twenty points. Making a thousand embryos could increase the average differential between the highest and lowest IQ of all the embryos to about twenty-five points.
Twenty-five IQ points may seem like a small return from generating and testing a thousand
pre implanted embryos, but that difference would, on average, lead to vastly different life experiences...
...Shulman and Bostrom estimate that breeding five generations of embryos picked for having the highest IQ among their ten cohorts could create a bump up of sixty-five points in IQ, and a 130-point bump after ten generations."
I'm not sure you can just keep amplifying intelligence like that. They make the assumption that each grouping of embryos would have examples of progressively higher intelligence zygotes among them, well above the mean. Why would that be so? It seems more likely to me that the embryos will exhibit different values, but will still largely group around the mean. This is evidenced by how intelligence is distributed already in society. If super-high IQ happened with a large statistical regularity, random chance would dictate there would be many more intelligent people than there are now.
Even if you could repeatedly select for the highest among the group, at some point you will push up against the physical limitations of our inherent hardware. Neurons can only fire so quickly. Only so many networks can be established and maintained. Our hardware is fixed and finite. He goes on to theorize a person with an IQ of 1000. Doesn't sound very likely to me.
The book moves on with talk about CRISPR and gene therapy, gene editing, and the related ethics.
These leftist writers crack me up:
"Mozart grew up in the Hapsburg court, but how many Mozarts are today languishing in Syrian refugee camps?"
LOL, judging by the relative technological, cultural, and musical output from the rest of the entire Middle East, I'm going to hazard a guess of NOT TOO MANY...
To his credit, however, he then talks at length about GMOs, their introduction, usage, and benefits. He has a good blurb about anti-GMOers:
"...anti-GMO activists, many inspired by some combination of a distrust of new
technologies, U.S. global corporations, and market capitalism more generally, as well as by the
romanticizing of small farmers and fears their food supplies will be contaminated, have increasingly raised the alarm over what they started calling Frankenfoods.
Anti-GMO organizations have launched massive disinformation campaigns designed to counter and
muffle the voices of the scientific community. Many people are susceptible to this type of disinformation because most of us instinctively resort to a “naturalistic fallacy� that nature is natural, even though our ancestors have been massively modifying much of it for thousands of years."
Superfluous long-winded chapter at the end completely detached from reality where the author recommends global-wide regulation on genome editing, based on some empathy-driven ethical concerns he has. These leftist writers are hilarious - in a tragically ironic way... So knowledgeable in certain fields, yet so disconnected from reality.
You know who is not encumbered by the same ethical constraints and concerns? CHINA AND RUSSIA. The author doesn't seem to realize the obvious here. Also completely detached from reality; he suggests military intervention could be needed in countries who don't agree to global restriction terms. Has he no understanding of MAD? MAD makes sure this would not be a tenable option with countries like China and Russia...
Overall, this was a really interesting book, covering a broad range of science, and related research.
I would recommend it, despite the author's inclusion of his laughable, irrelevant and unneeded political/ideological commentary. A cursory glance of his Twitter feed reveals a virtual cornucopia of leftist nonsense, coupled with raging Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I wanted to give this 5 stars, but the author's inclusion of his screeching leftist nonsense makes me subtract 2 stars. This book didn't need his ideological commentary. I don't know why these "progressives" feel that people will appreciate their evangelizing and virtue signalling in a science book...
February 7, 2021
This book illustrates many of the ways that genetic engineering can help humans (and through them, the rest of the world but less so). It offers up a repeated narrative through time of a woman seeking to have a child through IVF and the options available to her as technology becomes more advanced.
The technology and genetics explored include: preventing serious disease, improving immune response, selecting for physical traits, identifying personality, etc. Some of this technology is already here, and saving lives: like identifying life-threatening recessive genes in early stages of development. Some of it is already here and can be used for "designer" babies: like identifying deafness or dwarfism. Some of it is postulated - like identifying genetic markers for intelligence, kindness, strategy, etc.
The author spends a little time talking about ethics throughout, and legality and policy considerations in the last part. However, this was my greatest discomfort with the book. It seems to me that Jamie missed some very real ethical dilemmas in the woman-visiting-their-fertility-doctor narrative throughout. The "choices" of genetic combinations never discussed the likelihood that the "smartest, kindest, most something or other" embryo might also have the weakest immune response or any other sort of contrary combination. Let's ignore all of the physical appearance space (like eye and skin color). Sure, if we first eliminate the possibility that you could pursue further development of embryos that will develop into humans whose lives will be incredibly short and/or painful, some of the moral divergence is reduced....but it there is a whole lotta grey between "definitely gonna have a terrible short life" to probably going to be healthy. That grey area is where I think most of the moral ambiguity resides (assuming that embryo selection were to be a generally accepted practice). Back to the connection between science, health, policy, and morality - what kinds of incentives will these hypothetical future mothers face? Are there incentives to raise certain types of children over others. Who structured those incentives? Who is responsible for making those choices, or changes to them?
Interesting book, nonetheless. I'd also recommend for readers of this one.
The technology and genetics explored include: preventing serious disease, improving immune response, selecting for physical traits, identifying personality, etc. Some of this technology is already here, and saving lives: like identifying life-threatening recessive genes in early stages of development. Some of it is already here and can be used for "designer" babies: like identifying deafness or dwarfism. Some of it is postulated - like identifying genetic markers for intelligence, kindness, strategy, etc.
The author spends a little time talking about ethics throughout, and legality and policy considerations in the last part. However, this was my greatest discomfort with the book. It seems to me that Jamie missed some very real ethical dilemmas in the woman-visiting-their-fertility-doctor narrative throughout. The "choices" of genetic combinations never discussed the likelihood that the "smartest, kindest, most something or other" embryo might also have the weakest immune response or any other sort of contrary combination. Let's ignore all of the physical appearance space (like eye and skin color). Sure, if we first eliminate the possibility that you could pursue further development of embryos that will develop into humans whose lives will be incredibly short and/or painful, some of the moral divergence is reduced....but it there is a whole lotta grey between "definitely gonna have a terrible short life" to probably going to be healthy. That grey area is where I think most of the moral ambiguity resides (assuming that embryo selection were to be a generally accepted practice). Back to the connection between science, health, policy, and morality - what kinds of incentives will these hypothetical future mothers face? Are there incentives to raise certain types of children over others. Who structured those incentives? Who is responsible for making those choices, or changes to them?
Interesting book, nonetheless. I'd also recommend for readers of this one.
July 15, 2020
Книгата превежда през пътеката на еволюцията, с поглеждане през рамо към миналото, споделяне на актуални лабораторни разработки и почти философски зареяни мисли за бъдещето.
По-голямата част се върти около генома (предимно човешкия) и стремежа за решаване на проблема със стареенето. Авторът се опитва да прави паралели с научната фантастика и някои разработки, които се доближават до популярните сценарии. Разсъждава за множеството морални проблеми от "хакването на естествения ход на еволюцията", свързани с религия, предрасъдъци, полове, мутации, генно инжинерство, IVF и тнт.
Надявам се съм успял да ориентирам. Кн��гата би могла да предложи добро време за размисъл по тези въпроси, но нито е осеяна с кой знае какви прозрения, нито с неочаквани въпроси/отговори, нито представя изцяло нови постановки. Както се казва, за някои от хипотезите, SciFi авторите са се сетили преди 50 и повече години, когато не сме имали и 10% от сегашните научни знания в материята на генетиката. Все пак е добър повод да се замислим над повечето от поставените въпроси.
По-голямата част се върти около генома (предимно човешкия) и стремежа за решаване на проблема със стареенето. Авторът се опитва да прави паралели с научната фантастика и някои разработки, които се доближават до популярните сценарии. Разсъждава за множеството морални проблеми от "хакването на естествения ход на еволюцията", свързани с религия, предрасъдъци, полове, мутации, генно инжинерство, IVF и тнт.
Надявам се съм успял да ориентирам. Кн��гата би могла да предложи добро време за размисъл по тези въпроси, но нито е осеяна с кой знае какви прозрения, нито с неочаквани въпроси/отговори, нито представя изцяло нови постановки. Както се казва, за някои от хипотезите, SciFi авторите са се сетили преди 50 и повече години, когато не сме имали и 10% от сегашните научни знания в материята на генетиката. Все пак е добър повод да се замислим над повечето от поставените въпроси.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 434 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.