Biotechnology affects the world today in ways many have yet to realize. Every day, biotech leaves its mark on the modern world
in terms vast, from the clothes we wear, to the food we eat, to the drugs many take, all the way up to medical breakthroughs
that could very well preserve life itself. One study currently underway, in the category of biotechnology, is the research
of the mind.
Like traits such as eye color, skin tints, even disease, behavior is said to be influenced by the genes, even possibly influenced
by the parent organisms, as well as other environmental factors. However, in terms of the mind, it is intensely more complex
to understand than, for example, webbed toes. The mind, in its seemingly infinite complexities, is a long way off from being
mapped as extensively as the functions of organs and the like in the body, but there have been certain breakthroughs regarding
a few of the basic characteristics of the mind.
Aggression
Aggression is no new trait. For ages, it has been a tool in matters of self-defense, survival, and progression. The levels
of aggression vary from specimen to specimen, in varieties of different organisms. But why? The key is to find the gene that
influences these differences. Researchers at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Department of Neurosciences,
in 2003, seem to have ventured one step closer to mapping the genes of aggression, and influencing the mental status of organisms,
in this case, mice.
Pet-1 is what they called the gene. According to the current information, it exists only in specific areas, that is, in the
serotonin nerve cells. Serotonin is a chemical that acts as a neurotransmitter, sending messages to the brain and spinal cord.
Their numbers are small, only a few hundred thousand of these serotonin-producing neurons in the brain.
Now that we know what serotonin is, let us see what it does: serotonin controls aggression. Normally, it is meant to keep
the level of aggression at a balanced level, but defective serotonin neurons can result in depression, and far too much aggression
than necessary.
Back to Pet-1, Pet-1 is now seen as a gene required for the early development of serotonin. The idea was tested on mice, where
biotechnology comes in. The Pet-1 gene is removed from the fetal mice, the same grown specimens experiencing the weight of
genetic manipulation.
Likely, the process of the mice’s genetic manipulation was undergone by means of “gene knockout”. As the
name may suggest, during this process, the selected gene is made to be nonfunctional. The method used for gene knockout involves
a series of steps (Stamatis 1).
Procedures may vary, but this is one of the ways these scientists could have performed their research:
One rather lengthy step of the process is called gene targeting. As the name states, the idea is to select the specific gene
one would want to make null, rather than any random gene. Gene targeting consists of a gene sequence that has been made in
a laboratory to correlate to a gene already existing in the subject. This manufactured gene would contain a mutation. It would
enter the embryonic system of the subject, as to effect the next generation rather than produce the desired effect in the
current specimen. The new gene would replace the old, by means of homologous recombination, that is, when two similar strands
of DNA line up, and exchange segments. Thus, the Pet-1 gene is null (“Knockout mice” 1-2).
Though, in this picture, the knockout procedure is for color, the basic principle is the same. A foreign gene
is implanted into the embryonic system of the specimen, as this mouse, effecting the outcome in terms of offspring. (“Strange
But True: Exceptions to Mendel’s Rules” 7)
The genetically manipulated mice were compared to mice that
had not been tampered with. The differences demonstrated how much this gene would affect the habits of these specimens.
These mice were put under a series of tests to determine the effects of the loss of the Pet-1 gene. The mice were placed in
a situation, wherein intruder mice would be introduced into their environment. Reactions were timed. Not only did the manipulated
mice attack faster, and more often, but stages in normal attack patterns were skipped. They did not examine their intruders,
but rather, attacked at the earliest opportunities.
Another test was made, wherein the mice were placed in a situation were they were in an open area. That is, without surrounding
structures to protect them. The test was designed to determine where the mice would spend their time, as in a confined area
opposed to an open space. Normal mice explored the open areas, but manipulated mice avoided this. This would suggest that
the manipulated mice are more prone to stress, to abnormal levels.
You may wonder, how does this help us? We’re not mice. Albeit that we, in fact, do share similar functions of the serotonin
system, as in function and structure. The Pet-1 gene, along with many other qualities, is present, so it can be assumed that
the same procedures demonstrated in the test would apply to human beings.
But then, again, how does this help us? Why would we want to raise our levels of anxiety? Well, that wouldn’t be the
question. Instead, it would be the reverse. With refinement of this technology, it would be possible to test, and see who
are experiencing emotional disorders, or are at risk of becoming prone to abnormal aggression and anxiety. Take it a step
further, and then with time, it would theoretically be possible to prevent anxiety disorders without the utilization of drugs.
We are not capable of this now, not yet. The proper utilization of this knowledge may, however, be a piece of the future (Stamatis
1).
Fear
Like aggression, fear is a quality of the mind that has been with us as far back as we can see. It protect by preventing us
from diving in to situations potentially dangerous to us. However, too as aggression, fear can bring with it disturbances
of the mind, including depression or anxiety.
Before anything else is said, let us list what kind of fears are being discussed, and the differences between these fears.
There is an instinctive fear, and there is a learned fear. While the differences may sound clear enough, it was only just
discovered in 2002 by the researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Columbia University, that instinctive fear and
learned fear are different on a biological basis. The previously assumed had then been given evidence.
It was the researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Columbia University that identified the gene, located in
the amygdala (a section of the brain). Called the gastrin-releasing peptide, or GRP, the newly discovered gene was then described
as a protein designed to keep learned fear from excelling too far. In other words, it controls the memory of learned fear.
(“Researchers Discover Gene that Controls Learned Fear” 1-2)
(“Memory Loss Online” 1)
As with aggression, experiments were made to determine the effects of the gene. Mice were used, once again, with the knockout
technique.
Mice without the GRP gene were compared to normal mice. The two varieties were analyzed under specific situations. In this
case, as learned fear would function, the mice were placed in a situation where a certain tone would precede a mild electric
shock. They were trained with this activity, the mice learning that the sound meant pain. Later in the testing, the knockout
mice had a much greater level of fear than the normal mice, as was exhibited by their freezing posture, the length of time
longer than the same animalistic posture seen on the normal mice.
What made this study particularly special, was that there was now significant evidence to show that learned fear and instinctive
fear are different, as said earlier. The mice were placed under stressful conditions later on in experimentation, such as
open spaces, bright lights, and mazes. The mice showed little difference. The GRP gene seemed specifically related to learned
fear.
The importance of this knowledge of the GRP gene involves the disorders in fear there are now. Anxiety, depression, and others.
Though this really is only the beginning in terms of this specific area, it is still intensely important. Also, there has
been some discussion over whether this knowledge would serve as a model for a variety of mental disorders, bringing us a step
closer toward understanding the difficulties faced in medicine, and thus bringing forward the possibility of removing these
obstacles. (“Researchers Discover Gene that Controls Learned Fear” 2-3)
Violence
The researchers of the USC School of Pharmacy and the Keck School of Medicine of USC have broken ground on the subject of
gene-related violence. Monoamine oxidase, otherwise known as MAO, is an enzyme known for the oxidation of certain neurotransmitters
(or, in other terms, something that transfers nerve impulses across a synapse). Oxidations lowers the potency of these neurotransmitters,
affecting the characteristics of behavior.
In previous experiments, once again, mice were used as the subjects. Knockout mice, missing the MAO A enzyme, were compared
to those who had not been tampered with. The knockout mice exhibited excessive levels of violence, as compared to the normal
mice. The concept was applied to human beings, thus leading to the discovery that people with changes in their MAO A levels
were prone to violent tendencies, reinforcing the experiments performed on mice.
Later, a different study was performed with a similar concept. Instead of tampering with the MAO A enzyme, researchers produced
mice missing the MAO B enzyme. The experiment took a turn when it became clear that one of the mice had sustained a mutation.
It was missing both the MAO A and MAO B enzymes, resulting in a mouse of low body mass, but extreme levels of anxiety. This
mouse was far more timorous than the others involved in the experiment, it demonstrated a higher level of fear than its counterparts
when a person came close to the cage. It is believed that this behavior is similar to that of human anxiety.
After this accident in the process had been made, researchers took advantage of this, breeding mice after this specimen, that
is, lacking the MAO A and MAO B enzyme. These mice have shown behavior tendencies as its predecessor, including the fear of
new and unknown territory, the panic when placed in a maze, and the reaction when other mice invade the knockout mouse’s
comfort zone. Namely, the knockout mouse would have the conspicuous inclination to run away.
These breakthroughs seem to have a great deal of potential for future research and application. Researchers have said that,
with three different varieties of MAO knockout mice, there is a profound opportunity to study the structures and functions
of the MAO system. Furthermore, years from now, it is very possible to utilize this information. We may be able to prevent
excessive violence, perhaps, as well as anxiety in stressful situations. Perhaps, at some point, the knowledge of how people’s
enzymes work can be used in criminal cases, to determine the guilt or innocence of a suspect (Oliwenstein 1-2).
Economic Impact
Biotechnology, particularly in terms of psychological manipulation, is a very new field, and thus far, the current economic
impact is not heavily significant. However, the potential for future economic impact is great. In the articles of the discovery
of the Pet-1 gene and the MAO system, there has been talk of what will happen once enough is known to utilize the information.
Though perhaps adding up to little at the current moment, this technology is significant in terms of what it will very likely
lead up to in the future.
At the present time, there are countless psychological disorders with little tangible solutions. Often current medicine can
lead to side effects that amount to problems worse than the disorder meant to suppress. With biotechnology in the behavioral
sciences, new and better solutions can be made. Of course, the ones benefiting from these improved treatments would be the
consumer, in terms of recovery from whatever psychological disorder they may be suffering from. With this recovery, they may
gain a positive financial impact, as work could have suffered with the disorder. They would have an increased quality of life,
as well as the consumer’s family. Also, in terms of money, the ones benefiting would be the company producing the treatment
and the stockholders for that company.
There is still an additional way for biotechnology to be utilized for our sake. That is the genetic manipulation of people
before birth. With this, parents will be able to choose personality traits for their children. This ability can benefit the
parents and grandparents, the consumers. It also means great profit to companies that provide the services and their stockholders.
However, there are certain ethical issues to be considered, as shown in the following section.
Ethical Issues
With biotechnology, there come many disputes on the ethics of the matter. This argument can very well be broken up into different
pieces, such as the social well-being of the biogenetically engineered, the repercussions of experimentation, the religious
views in terms of tampering with the human mind, and what could possibly come out of genetic manipulation in the future.
The first ethical perspective to be examined is the possible status of the human being who has been genetically altered. Even
though we have not reached the stage where scientists can genetically alter personality traits, society is already looking
into the ramification. There is a fear that the genetically altered will be placed in the world as a second class citizen,
because they were born differently than others.
Of course, by another opinion, the social situations faced by one genetically altered may be little different from what many
face already. Discriminations are made for nearly everything comprehensible by the mind, and an altered person would only
need to find a healthy environment to avoid such occurrences of discomfort. After all, the benefits can be good. The person
may have avoided some behavioral disorder, made better by science.
Another moral issue is the possible repercussions of experimentation. What could happen when we genetically alter people in
terms of behavior? Ultimately, the possibility for side effects can be great, and to tamper with human beings and somehow
fail leaves a greater impression than if scientists permanently damaged a mouse. While tests can be repeated time and time
again on animals, there are still concerns over the wellbeing of people. There is the possibility that animals are affected
in a different way from humans. Not all factors are yet fully understood, the mind still far from mapping. The attempt to
alter one personality trait could affect others, rendering the person unstable. Also, there has been some serious discussion
as to whether animals should be used for these purposes, since every animal is a living being. So, what about human beings?
The leap is a giant one. It is a great wonder to some if the benefit is worth the risk.
Also, there are religious issues to be taken into consideration. By most religious standards, every person is formed by some
higher power, such as God. As it is His position as creator to, essentially, create, to change the personality traits of new
generations would trespass on divine right. In many religious sects, it has been a held belief that God melds the mind, choosing
how any given person would be, so to change that through science would be going against many religious teachings.
Taking into consideration that no one can speak for everyone else, it is well within the possibility of conception that not
every religious person is against the idea of genetic manipulation. Further, the religious person is most definitely not the
only kind of person out there. Nonthiests may or may not agree with genetic manipulation. To some, it may be seen as a great
frontier to explore, and learn from, and put into action for the betterment of society. To others, perhaps it is to be considered
unnatural or merely not worth the risk. By then, it boils down to the individual’s personal set of ethics. (Smith 5-7)
Finally, there is a question of what the future may hold for humanity if personality is tampered with before birth. Of course,
at the current time, people cannot choose what their offspring will be like, so it is not a problem at the moment. However,
people are still thinking over what could happen in the future if children are genetically influenced by science before birth.
Naturally, parents would want only the best traits for their child, we could run the risk of losing individuality and identity.
Imagine if every parent asked their doctor for a child with great leadership, persistence, etceteras. American society, which
so stresses the worth of the individual, will be changed. Though uniqueness would likely still exist, it would not be the
same. In addition, there is already a question of what would happen to certain scientific theories, such as evolution. Already,
those living in developed countries do not exist the same way as those who live in undeveloped countries. In developed countries,
there isn’t the same need for competition, and so, people do not need to adapt to their environment in the same ways
as animals. When genetic manipulation is added into the equation, evolution would be severely damaged. The inheritance of
traits would, in many cases, cease to exist as a leading factor in human reproduction, and so, nature would be replaced by
science. Perhaps by certain standards, this may not be as awful as it sounds. Nature produces its own vice as well, such as
aggression, and phobias. Certain traits that pass on are those that could hurt the individual who receives them. To prevent
unfavorable traits, but still maintain individuality, there is a question of where the line should be drawn.
Bibliography
George Stamatis. “Researchers discover anxiety and aggression gene in mice.” Eurekalert 23 January 2003.
15 April 2005 [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-01/cwru- rda011603.php].
Lori Oliwenstein. “Anxious Mice May Parallel Men.” USC 13 September 2004. 30 March 2005 [http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10512.html]
Michelle Smith. “Genetic Engineering.” Bucconeer.worldcon.org 15 April 2005 [http://www.bucconeer.worldcon.org/contest/2002e_5.htm].
“Researchers Discover Gene that Controls Learned Fear.” HHMI 13 December 2002. 20 March 2005 [http://www.hhmi.org/news/kandel3.html].
“Knockout Mice.” The Wellcome Trust 1 October 2003. 15 April 2005 [http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/technologies/hg17b005.html].
“Strange But True: Exceptions to Mendel’s Rules.” NIGMS 15 April 2005 [http://www.nigms.nih.gov/news/science_ed/genetics/chapter2.html].
Memory Loss Online 15 April 2005 [http://memorylossonline.com/glossary/images/amygdala.jpg].
