DNA, Babies, Life, and Death

DNA evidence in a court case isn't new: but deer DNA in a poaching trial is.

Less than two decades after a cloned sheep's birth, British Members of Parliament okayed human cloning: using DNA from three people.

Scientists who think this is a good idea may be right: at least for some versions of the new tech.

1. Deer DNA Proves Poacher's Guilt
2. Science, Technology, and "Rational Reflection"
   • Mitochondria
   • Therapy and Death
   • Problems — and Opportunities — Ahead

I've said it before, a lot: new ideas aren't always bad, old ideas aren't always good, and thinking is always a good idea. (September 7, 2014; February 14, 2014)

---

Humans are People

(From sporki, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(World Youth Day 2000.)

Human beings are people: all humans, no matter who our ancestors are, where we live, what we look like, or how old we are. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357, 361, 369-370, 1700, 1730, 1929, 2273-2274, 2276-2279)

We have equal dignity, but we're not all alike: and we're not supposed to be. (Catechism, 33, 366, 1934-1938, 2232, 2393)

Maybe that sounds radical: but it's what I must believe, since I'm a Catholic.

Families are important, but not all-important. (Catechism, 2201-2213, 2232)

Children are an important part of a family, and they've got duties. (Catechism, 2214-2220)

So do parents, but it's not the same set of duties. (Catechism, 2221-2231)

Wanting to raise children is a good thing, but nobody has a right to have children. Children are not property. Nobody is. (Catechism, 2373-2379, 2414)

Science and technology, learning how things work and using that knowledge to make new tools, is part of being human. It's what we're supposed to do. Like everything else we do, ethics apply. That includes medical techniques intended to produce children. (Catechism, 159, 2292-2296, 2375-2377, 2414)

That's how we should behave. What actually happens is — sometimes regrettable, occasionally tragic, and that's another topic. Topics. (February 1, 2015; January 18, 2015; December 28, 2014; July 11, 2012)

Life and Health: "Precious Gifts"

Backing up a little: I must believe that human life is sacred; that life and health are "precious gifts;" and that healing the sick is a good idea, within reason. (Catechism, 2258, 2288-2295)

Individual Catholics might feel squeamish about organ transplants, for example: but the Church says they're okay.

On the other hand, we're not allowed to dry-gulch someone and take their kidneys — or kill one person to get parts for another. (Catechism, 2296)

We're also required to believe that humans are people: all humans. That includes folks who aren't old enough to vote: or breathe.

"...The inviolability of the innocent human being's right to life 'from the moment of conception until death'..."
"Instruction on Respect for Human Life In Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day," William Cardinal Levada, Prefect; Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., Titular Archbishop of Thibica, Secretary; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (February 22, 1987))

I live in a country where it's legal to kill people: as long as we do it while they're still young enough to be fair game. This convenient arrangement is getting extended to other folks: who are too old or sick to be worthy of life.

We don't call it Lebensunwertes Leben, but most Americans speak English: and that phrase got a distasteful reputation about 73 years back. (December 5, 2014)

It's been decades since I've heard the phrase "quality lifestyle" used in discussions of euthanasia. I thought it was a bad idea in my youth, partly because I realized that I'd probably get culled soon after the first sweep. (December 5, 2014)

Moving on.

People, Property, and Parts

Designating some humans as non-persons can be convenient.

Folks with the 'wrong' ancestry were once considered property in my country. We're still cleaning up the mess that left. Slavery is a bad idea, and we shouldn't do it. (Catechism, 2414)

Some Catholics have owned slaves, others have been slaves: and neither makes it right.

I didn't become a Catholic because we're all perfect people. Good grief: one Pope was elected three times, kicked out twice, and sold the Papacy once. Then there was the Verdun incident, and that's another yet another set of topics. (September 14, 2014; January 11, 2015)

Sooner or later, someone's going to suggest cloning 'important' people so that Senator Fogbottom or the CEO of Amalgamated Gigabucks will have spare parts available.

That was lurid fiction in 1979. Today? For all I know, someone's discussing a real-life analog to Clonus in Washington.

Life and physical health are "precious gifts." Maintaining or restoring health and normal function is a duty. So is not making health, fitness, or appearance, my top priority. (Catechism, 2288-2291)

That's why I don't feel guilty about having metal and plastic hip joints, re-engineered hands, and a brain that needs prescribed drugs to work properly. (August 29, 2014)

On the other hand, if I needed a new heart — breaking someone else down for parts wouldn't be right: even if the donor wasn't, legally, a 'real' person. Killing one person to help another isn't right. (Catechism, 2296)

Ancient, Not Old-Fashioned

The Catholic Church is old, ancient. Some of our traditions (lower-case "t") go back to the days when Rome was a superpower.

But we're not desperately trying to live in the 1st, or 11th, century.

Our basic principles don't change. No matter what century I lived in, the rules would be:

• Love God, love my neighbor
  (Matthew 22:36-40, Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10:25-27)
• See everyone as my neighbor
  (Matthew 5:43-44; Luke 10:29-37; Catechism, 1825)
• Treat others as I want to be treated
  (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31)

That hasn't changed in two millennia, and it won't.

How we apply those principles to our daily lives: that's changed, and will continue to change.

But forgetting that humans are people was wrong when Rome went through four emperors in one year, it's wrong today, and it'll be wrong when Caesar's assassination, Zhang Zeduan's landscapes, and the United Nations Charter are seen as roughly contemporary.


(Zhang Zeduan's Along the River During Qingming Festival, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)


(From Raphael-Lacoste, DeviantArt.com, used w/o permission.)

Diversity, Unity, and Tradition

As a Catholic, I'm part of an outfit that's καθολικός, universal: a united and diverse people, embracing all cultures and all times.

Our Tradition, capital "T" is important: but the Catholic Tradition isn't our word for 'clinging to a bygone age.'

It is the living transmission of the Gospel.

Our Tradition is not about one culture or one era. It's for Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and everyone else; although the Acts 2:5-11 thing is about the Holy Spirit. There's Sacred Scripture, too. (Catechism, 74-95, 113, 174, and 126)

Before wrenching myself back on-topic, some definitions:

• "BIBLE: Sacred Scripture: the books which contain the truth of God's Revelation and were composed by human authors inspired by the Holy Spirit (105). The Bible contains both the forty-six books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament (120). See Old Testament; New Testament."
• "MAGISTERIUM: The living, teaching office of the Church, whose task it is to give as authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture), or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church's fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals (85, 890, 2033)."
• "TRADITION: The living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Bible), are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ (75-82). The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition (83)."

We should be thinking about ideas, old and new; not assuming that old is good and new is bad:

"...Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected...."
("Divino Afflante Spiritu," "Inspired by the Holy Spirit," Pius XII (September 30, 1943))

Part of that's quoted in the New American Bible's Preface. Pius XII was writing about about scriptural studies, but I'm pretty sure that applying the principle to new technologies makes sense.

---

1. Deer DNA Proves Poacher's Guilt

(From ThinkStock, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)

"Deer DNA used for first time in UK to prosecute poacher"
BBC News (February 4, 201)

"DNA from a red deer has been used for the first time in the UK to help prosecute a poacher.

"James Kennedy, 70, illegally shot and killed and then removed a deer from the Glenfinnan Estate in Lochaber.

"He claimed to having shot it lawfully at another location, but scientists matched a blood stain in his van to remains he had left on the estate.

"Kennedy was fined £100 and ordered to pay compensation of £70 at Fort William Sheriff Court on Tuesday...."

Maybe spending public funds on DNA testing in this case was overkill: or maybe not. Wildlife management is important here in Minnesota, where I live: and some of the most active supporters of game and wildlife laws are hunters.

I don't hunt, but quite a few of my kinfolk do: and I don't see that as a problem. Animals are God's creatures, but so are we: and part of our job is taking care of this world. (Catechism, 2415-2418)

Here in Minnesota, that job includes managing the populations of wolves, deer, and trout; and dealing with zebra mussels. I'm getting off-topic again. (March 17, 2013; August 17, 2009)

Apparently the odds of DNA profiles like these matching is one in 40 million: so either Mr. Kennedy is guilty, we're looking at a wildly improbable coincidence — or something else is going on. My guess is that Mr. Kennedy shot the deer on protected land.

Poaching isn't the worst crime in the world: but it's nice, having a tool that can help sort out what's true and what's not in these cases.

---

2. Science, Technology, and "Rational Reflection"

"MPs say yes to three-person babies"
James Gallagher, BBC News (February 3, 2015)

"MPs have voted in favour of the creation of babies with DNA from two women and one man, in a historic move.

"The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people.

"In a free vote in the Commons, 382 MPs were in favour and 128 against the technique that stops genetic diseases being passed from mother to child.

"During the debate, ministers said the technique was 'light at the end of a dark tunnel' for families.

"A further vote is required in the House of Lords. It everything goes ahead then the first such baby could be born next year.

"Proponents said the backing was 'good news for progressive medicine' but critics say they will continue to fight against the technique that they say raises too many ethical and safety concerns....

"...Prime Minister David Cameron said: 'We're not playing god here, we're just making sure that two parents who want a healthy baby can have one.'...

"...Estimates suggest 150 three-person babies could be born each year...."

James Gallagher's article doesn't say whether "...150 three-person babies could be born each year..." in England, or worldwide. Either way, it reminded me of the expert who figured that England would need three computers, tops. That was in 1951. (January 27, 2013)

Sooner or later we'll probably see something like "Jurrasic Park Meets The Boys from Brazil" hit the silver screen. Then there's "The_Clones_of_Bruce_Lee," and that's — not quite another topic, actually.

We already have headlines like "Churches oppose three-person baby plan." Here's an excerpt:

"...The Church of England and the Catholic Church in England and Wales said it was not clear the technique - adding a donor woman's mitochondria to another woman's egg - was safe or ethical.

"But a group of scientists has urged MPs to approve the procedure - intended to stop deadly mitochondrial diseases...."
(BBC News (January 30, 2015))

I'm not surprised that scientists who developed this technique want Parliamentary permission: and am pretty sure that they don't see safety or ethical problems. Unless they're daft, the scientists wouldn't ask for human testing until they were confident that their tech would work: and wasn't unethical, by their cultural standards.

Preventing lethal mitochondrial diseases, disease of any sort, is a good idea. (Catechism, 1503-1510)

However:

"...what is technically possible is not for that very reason morally admissible. Rational reflection on the fundamental values of life and of human procreation is therefore indispensable for formulating a moral evaluation of such technological interventions on a human being from the first stages of his development...."
("Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions," William Cardinal Levada, Prefect; Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., Titular Archbishop of Thibica, Secretary; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (September 8, 2008)) [Emphasis mine]

It'd be easy to be excited by the prospect of a world without birth defects, where tragedies like Sharon Bernardi losing all seven of her children to mitochondrial disease didn't happen.

This is a personal issue for me. A friend and classmate died in her teens of a cancer that might have involved an inherited metabolic glitch.

My defective hips may be inherited, or could have happened for other reasons. My quirky neurochemistry is almost certainly inherited: my father was the same way, although less so; and two of my kids enjoy — or suffer — what I do.

The good news with the kids is that we knew what to look for: and this isn't the 1950s, for which I'm duly grateful.

I'm not sure that I'd want to be 'cured' of what makes my brain work the way it does, though. Like what Aristotle said: "There is no great genius without a mixture of madness."

Not that I'm a "great genius," but I am one of those creative types: and if being "normal" meant losing that — thanks; but no, thanks. I'd rather work with what I've got. (January 23, 2015)

Mitochondria

Mitochondria are little modules embedded in the cells of most eukaryotes — a five-dollar word for plants, animals, fungi, and critters with hard-to-pronounce names. Mitochondria do or control quite a bit of a cell's chemical processing, so bad things happen when they don't work.

Mitochondria have their own DNA, and may have started as independent organisms: moving into or getting absorbed by eukaryotes some 1,500,000,000 years back. If that's what happened, they're fully integrated into eukaroytes by now.

Therapy and Death

(From HFEA, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("1) Two eggs are fertilised with sperm, creating an embryo from the intended parents and another from the donors 2) The pronuclei, which contain genetic information, are removed from both embryos but only the parents' are kept 3) A healthy embryo is created by adding the parents' pronuclei to the donor embryo, which is finally implanted into the womb[.]"
(James Gallagher, BBC News)


(From HFEA, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("1) Eggs from a mother with damaged mitochondria and a donor with healthy mitochondria are collected 2) The majority of the genetic material is removed from both eggs 3) The mother's genetic material is inserted into the donor egg, which can be fertilised by sperm."
(James Gallagher, BBC News)

Again, I must believe that human life is sacred: and that humans are people; no matter how young, old, or sick we are. (Catechism, 2258, 2270, 2276-2279)

That's why I'm pretty sure that "method one" isn't acceptable. You'd start with two people: one from the parents, and a donor. You'd wind up with one person: with the donor's mitochondria and the parent's DNA in his or her cells' nuclei.

I could rationalize that half a person is better than none, or that two halves make a whole, or dive into metaphysical gibberish. I won't, because I'm pretty sure that when two living people go into an operating room, and one comes out — someone's missing, and the leftover parts suggest that one of the originals died.

Somehow, that doesn't quite seem right.

Happily, the church doesn't insist that every bit of material with human DNA is a person.

If that were true — it's not — someone would die during every woman's cycle. Men produce about 100,000,000 viable sperm daily, replacing those generated about three months previously.

Thinking that enough people to populate California, Florida, New York state, Illinois, and Texas, every day in every man is — "silly" seems a mild term.

That's why I think "method two" may, in at least some cases, be acceptable. The procedure would start with two eggs — not people — and ultimately end with a person. Nobody dies: and that's a good thing.

Problems — and Opportunities — Ahead

As I said last month, I think we've got problems — and opportunities — ahead. Strictly therapeutic genetic manipulation may, in some cases, be okay: and a blessing to folks with inherited disorders.

The same technologies could be used to purge "undesirable" traits from humanity. Since many of my ancestors are of an 'inferior race,' I can hardly be expected to show enthusiasm for eugenics. And that's yet again another topic. (January 23, 2015; December 5, 2014)

Catholic viewpoints:

• Bioethics
  • "Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions"
    William Cardinal Levada, Prefect; Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., Titular Archbishop of Thibica, Secretary; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (September 8, 2008)
    (From www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html (February 12, 2015))
  • "Document of the Holy See on Human Cloning"
    From the Vatican (September 27, 2004)"
    (From www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2004/documents/rc_seg-st_20040927_cloning_en.html (February 12, 2015))
  • "Reflections on Cloning"
    Prof. Juan de Dios Vial Correa, President; Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, Vice-President; Pontificia Academia Pro Vita; Libreria Editrice Vaticana (1997)"
    (From www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_30091997_clon_en.html (February 12, 2015))
  • "Instruction on Respect for Human Life In Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day"
    William Cardinal Levada, Prefect; Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., Titular Archbishop of Thibica, Secretary; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (February 22, 1987))
    (From www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documentd/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html (February 12, 2015))
• Sacred Scripture and being human
  • "Divino Afflante Spiritu"
    Pius XII (September 30, 1943)
    (From w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html (February 10, 2015))
  • "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God"
    International Theological Commission (July 23, 2004)"
    (From www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html (February 12, 2015))

My take on science, faith, and getting a grip:

• "Mutant Malaria, Designer Babies, and Ethics"
  (January 23, 2015)
  Particularly
  • Technology and Using Our Brains
  • Thinking, Curiosity, and Ulysses
  • Mad Scientists and Ethics
  • Getting a Grip About Designer Babies
    • 'Curing' Creativity?
• "Regeneration: Getting Closer to Growing Lost Organs"
  (August 29, 2014)
  Particularly
  • Brand-New Tech, Same Old Challenges
  • New Tech, New Rules, Same Old Principles
  • Living in 'The Future'
• "Getting a Grip About Dr. Moreau, Pigs, and Human Dignity"
  (February 14, 2014)
  Particularly
  • Olive Trees, Parapets, and All That
  • Serious News, Sensationalist Prose
  • The Pancreas of Pig 29
• "Science, Technology, and Being Human"
  (January 27, 2013)
  • Fear and Change
  • Learning the Right Lesson
  • Change and Choice
  • Blink, and You'll Miss Something
  • Faith and Science
• "Transhumanism, Bioethics, and Me"
  (April 8, 2012)
  Particularly
  • Eugenics, Enhanced Humans: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
  • Stronger, Smarter, Prettier: But Should We?
  • Ethics: Simple, Sort of

Mutant Malaria, Designer Babies, and Ethics

Malaria that's resistant to a very successful anti-malaria drug is spreading. The good news is that scientists know where this particular strain's immunity came from.

Other scientists say that "society needs to be prepared" for designer babies, and that "it is time for a serious public debate on the issue."

1. Malaria: Keeping Ahead of the Microbes
   • Mosquitoes and Microbes
2. Getting a Grip About Designer Babies
   • 'Curing' Creativity?

---

Technology and Using Our Brains

Maybe liking technology runs in the family. I've mentioned Arba Zeri Campbell, the first person in his part of the country to have a telephone, before. (August 12, 2012)

My first impulse is not fearing that we'll offend God by making lightning rods, or using the Internet. (January 25, 2014; April 27, 2014)

We've got brains, and are expected to use them. Part of our job is learning about the universe, and using that knowledge. Thinking is not a sin. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 154-159, 2292-2296)

Sometimes our curiosity gets us killed. Georg Wilhelm Richmann, for example, found out how an insulated rod reacts to a nearby thunderstorm. More accurately, other scientists did.

Professor Richmann is probably the first person to die while conducting electrical experiments.

Then there was the time scientists learned why "tickling the dragon's tail" is a bad idea. It wasn't a real dragon, survivors learned quite a bit about what extreme radiation levels do to humans, and that's another topic. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (October 17, 2014))

Thinking, Curiosity, and Ulysses

(From Google Maps, used w/o permission.)
(Casinal Pio IV, currently home of the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences, and the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas.)

I've run into the notion that religion, Christianity in particular, is against science — and pretty much any tech invented in the last few centuries. Some of my fellow-Christians seem dedicated to maintaining this stereotype. (April 4, 2014)

Folks who express concern about thinking 'too much' are, I'm sure, sincere.

We can use our brains to rationalize acts which are not good, like slavery or genocide. The problem isn't thinking. It's part of the mess we call "original sin." (Catechism, 396-412, 2313, 2414)

Curiosity isn't a sin, either. Yes, Dante's Inferno shows Ulysses in Hell: but Dante's Malebolge is where "simple" fraud is punished. That's fraud committed without particularly malicious intent.

Ulysses shows up in the eighth trench, reserved for deceivers. He's not there because he 'tampered with things man was not supposed to know.' (January 9, 2015; August 1, 2014)

Reasoning — thinking — is part of being human. We can use our ability to reason for good or ill. It's our decisions that make a difference. (Catechism, 35-39, 1704-1707, 1950-1960)

I didn't become a Catholic because there's a science academy at the Vatican. But I don't have to check my brain at the door when I go to church. (April 27, 2012)

Mad Scientists and Ethics

Mad scientists in the movies can be entertaining.

Their real-life counterparts, like Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov: not so much.

Medical experiments at Auschwitz and Dachau, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and Willowbrook State School's Hepatitis studies don't show that science is evil.

They are, however, reminders that ethics apply to science: or should. (Catechism, 2292-2295, 2415-2418)

Since I'm a Catholic, I must believe that human life is sacred: all human life. (Catechism, 2258, 2270, 2273, 2276-2279)

A big problem with in vitro fertilization, for example, is that usually only one of the people conceived live. The 'extras' — don't. (Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the dignity of procreation — Replies to Certain Questions of the Day, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1987))

Wanting a child and not being able to conceive is distressing. Wanting to raise children is a good thing: but "the end does not justify the means." (Catechism, 1753, 2201-2203)

Expecting knowledge, or anything else, to take God's place would be daft: and against the rules. That doesn't make seeking knowledge bad. Being curious and developing new tools is part of being human. (Catechism, 2113, 2292-2295)

We're made in the image of God, rational creatures whose job description includes stewardship of the physical world. (Genesis 1:27-28, Psalms 19:2; Wisdom 7:17; Catechism, 282-289, 341, 373, 1730, 2375)

The trick is remembering that ethics matter: no matter how curious we are, or how much we want something.

"...if methodical investigation within every branch of learning is carried out in a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms, it never truly conflicts with faith, for earthly matters and the concerns of faith derive from the same God...."
("Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word-Gaudium et Spes," 36 (December 7, 1965))

---

1. Malaria: Keeping Ahead of the Microbes

(From Science Photo Library, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("Malaria parasites - seen tightly packed in this red blood cell - have evolved resistance to artemisinin"
(BBC News))

"Genetics of malaria drug resistance revealed"
Rebecca Morelle (January 19, 2015)

"The genetics underpinning resistance to a frontline malaria drug, artemisinin, have been revealed, scientists say.

"In South East Asia, malaria parasites have developed tolerance to the treatment, and there are fears that this will spread.

"Now, in the largest genetic study to date, scientists have identified mutations in the parasite genome that are linked to resistance.

"The study is published in Nature Genetics.

"The researchers say the findings will help them to identify areas where artemisinin resistance could spread.

"Lead author Dr Olivo Miotto from the Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Research Unit (MORU), in Thailand, said: 'Artemisinin is the best drug we have had for a very long time, and we want to continue this success story.

"'And for that its effectiveness has to be protected and sustained.'

"When the first malaria drug, chloroquine, was developed, researchers thought that the disease would be eradicated within years.

"But the malaria parasite has proved far tougher than they ever imagined. Drug after drug has been rendered useless as the parasite has evolved to evade treatment...."

"Evolved?" I've been told that evolution is the "religion of the antichrist," some folks think the Pope is the Antichrist, and that's another yet topic. (January 2, 2014; July 17, 2011)

I'm a Catholic, so I believe that God created a good world: one that's getting better, changing. Scientists use the word "evolution" when discussing one facet of this "state of journeying." (Genesis 1:31; Catechism, 282-308)

That gets me back to malaria, almost.

Microbes evolve quickly, partly because their generations are very short. On top of that, bacteria can swap genes with quite a few other critters. It's called conjugation, transformation, and transduction: so bacteria evolve really fast.

About a century back, antibiotics looked like the ultimate answer to disease: then we found out about viruses, and microbes developed resistance to the drugs. Informed speculation about viruses started around 1880s, and that's yet again another topic.

Ancient Romans thought malaria was caused by noxious fumes form swamps. Folks in the Renaissance apparently figured the same thing. "Malaria" means "bad air," "mal aria" in Medieval Italian.

The Romans were right, sort of. Most mosquitoes lay eggs in stagnant water, and Anopheles mosquitoes spread malaria. Malaria was around long before we were. Scientists found malaria microbes in 30,000,000-year-old mosquitoes.

Mosquitoes and Microbes

Mosquitoes have been around a lot longer: about 260,000,000 years. Anopheles mosquitoes branched off upwards of 120,000,000 years ago. Anopheles is the type that carries Plasmodium microbes that cause malaria. (June 13, 2014)

The four or five species of Plasmodium that cause malaria in humans aren't bacteria. They're parasitic Protozoans: unicellular eukaryotic critters.

In other words, one Protozoa is a single cell with a membrane around its nucleus. There will not be test on this. I'm a recovering English teacher — emphasis on 'recovering.'

Malaria starts out feeling like the flu. Some folks who get malaria recover, some die. The disease messes with the brain, spleen, liver, lungs - - - among other major systems.

The BBC article focuses on efforts to understand an artemisinin-resistant sort of malaria microbe. It looks like mutations on a gene called kelch13 give microbes this resistance.

So far, these resistant microbes have reached Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar/Burma. The BBC article says that resistant malaria parasites show up in the same place: the Cambodia-Thailand border.

Preventing, or at least slowing down, the spread of artemisinin-resistant malaria seems like a good idea.

So, I think, is finding a way so eradicate malaria entirely. We've done that before, with smallpox: and I'm pretty sure that life on Earth will continue, even if we kill off one more disease microbe, or the five species of mosquito that infect humans with it. (February 12, 2014)

Was eradicating smallpox the right thing to do? After all, Edmund Massey, an English preacher, said that God wants us to be scared of getting sick. I am not making this up:

"...The fear of disease is a happy restraint to men. If men were more healthy, 'tis a great chance they would be less righteous. Let the Atheist and the Scoffer inoculate. Their hope is in and for only this life. Let us bless God for the Afflictions He sends upon us, and grant us patience under them...."
("Against the Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation," Edmund Massey (1722))

Then there was Pope Pius VII, who said vaccination is "a precious discovery which ought to be a new motive for human gratitude to Omnipotence." That was in 1814. (February 12, 2014)

Life and health are "precious gifts." We're expected to keep ourselves healthy: within reason. Healing folks who are ill is a good idea, too. So is caring for folks who are dying. (Catechism, 2278-2279, 2288-2289)

That reminds me of Father Damien of Molokai. He's Saint Damien now, and that's still another topic. (May 11, 2010)

---

2. Getting a Grip About Designer Babies

(From BBC News, used w/o permission.)

"'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say"
James Gallagher, BBC News (January 18, 2015)

"Rapid progress in genetics is making 'designer babies' more likely and society needs to be prepared, leading scientists have told the BBC.

"Dr Tony Perry, a pioneer in cloning, has announced precise DNA editing at the moment of conception in mice.

"He said huge advances in the past two years meant 'designer babies' were no longer HG Wells territory.

"Other leading scientists and bioethicists argue it is time for a serious public debate on the issue.

"Designer babies - genetically modified for beauty, intelligence or to be free of disease - have long been a topic of science fiction.

"Dr Perry, who was part of the teams to clone the first mice and pigs, said the prospect was still fiction, but science was rapidly catching up to make elements of it possible.

"In the journal Scientific Reports, he details precisely editing the genome of mice at the point DNA from the sperm and egg come together...."

At first glance, 'designer babies' sounds like a wonderful idea. Someone would go to a doctor, specify hair and eye color, intelligence, level of attractiveness, athletic prowess, and other traits: and get a 'perfect child.'

Maybe the kids would even come with a guarantee: so if they didn't meet expectations, they could be returned. Another, more expensive, option might be to order twins: take one home, and have the health service keep the other one as a source of spare parts, in case the 'real' child had a serious accident or disease.

Either way, that approach would treat people as commodities: property. That's unacceptable. Humans, no matter how old we are, are people. (Catechism, 357, 1929, 2258, 2270-2279)

Wanting to raise a child is a good thing. But children are people, not property. Nobody has a 'right to a child.' (Catechism, 2207-2208, 2378)

So, do I see research aimed at changing human genetic code as evil? It's not that simple.

'Curing' Creativity?

I see problems — and opportunities — with 'designer babies.'

Some genetic disorders like haemophilia and Tay-Sachs disease, are often fatal. Others, like Muenke and Williams are more like disorders or disabilities.

ADD, Asperger syndrome, or whatever it is I've got, may be a genetic glitch, too. So may be whatever went wrong with my hips. From some viewpoints, I'm a mess. (February 12, 2011)

I don't think I'd mind having lived with two normal hip sockets: but I'd have missed many learning experiences along the way.

At first glance, being 'cured' of ADD/Asperger's/whatever seems like a good idea. Maybe it would be. My attitude toward major depression is much less ambivalent. I'm certainly not going to stop taking the powerful antidepressant and other drugs that help me control my brain. (December 14, 2014; August 17, 2014)

But I wouldn't want to be "normal" if it meant losing the way I see the world.

I'm not in the same league as Paddy Considine, Johnny Dean, and Luke Jackson, but I suspect that some quirky neurological kits have an 'up' side. (September 1, 2013; December 9, 2012)

Then there's what Aristotle said: "There is no great genius without a mixture of madness," except my language wouldn't exist for a couple thousand years in his day. I don't think he'd have used Latin, either, although it sounds cool in that language: "Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementia."

Wrenching myself back on-topic: Since I'm Catholic, I must see humans as equal; and diverse. Each of us is a person, made in the image of God, creatures with rational souls. We're not all alike, though: and that's how it's supposed to be. (Catechism, 1934-1938)

I agree with Dr. Tony Perry: "...it is time for a serious public debate on the issue" of 'designer babies.'

I suppose discussion of genetics and bioethics among Catholics isn't 'public.' It's certainly not the sort of thing you're likely to hear on talk radio, and that's — what else? — another topic.

As far as I can tell, none of what I'll quote near the end of this post is definitive: but I think it makes sense.

Basically, learning more about how our genes work is a good idea. We're getting to the point where people conceived with disorders like Tay-Sachs disease can live past childhood. This is a good thing.

We're also close to being able to purge unwanted traits from humanity. This looks good on paper. In practice, applied eugenics has a bad track record. Really bad. (December 5, 2014; November 5, 2012)

Finally, here's part of what I found on the Vatican's website:

"...In theory, it is possible to use gene therapy on two levels: somatic cell gene therapy and germ line cell therapy. Somatic cell gene therapy seeks to eliminate or reduce genetic defects on the level of somatic cells, that is, cells other than the reproductive cells, but which make up the tissue and organs of the body. It involves procedures aimed at certain individual cells with effects that are limited to a single person. Germ line cell therapy aims instead at correcting genetic defects present in germ line cells with the purpose of transmitting the therapeutic effects to the offspring of the individual....

"...For a moral evaluation the following distinctions need to be kept in mind. Procedures used on somatic cells for strictly therapeutic purposes are in principle morally licit. Such actions seek to restore the normal genetic configuration of the patient or to counter damage caused by genetic anomalies or those related to other pathologies....

"...The moral evaluation of germ line cell therapy is different. Whatever genetic modifications are effected on the germ cells of a person will be transmitted to any potential offspring. Because the risks connected to any genetic manipulation are considerable and as yet not fully controllable, in the present state of research, it is not morally permissible to act in a way that may cause possible harm to the resulting progeny....

"...The question of using genetic engineering for purposes other than medical treatment also calls for consideration. Some have imagined the possibility of using techniques of genetic engineering to introduce alterations with the presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene pool. ... Apart from technical difficulties and the real and potential risks involved, such manipulation would promote a eugenic mentality and would lead to indirect social stigma with regard to people who lack certain qualities, while privileging qualities that happen to be appreciated by a certain culture or society...."
("Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions," William Cardinal Levada, Prefect; Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., Titular Archbishop of Thibica, Secretary; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (September 8, 2008))

---

"...The uniqueness of each human person, in part constituted by his biogenetic characteristics and developed through nurture and growth, belongs intrinsically to him and cannot be instrumentalized in order to improve some of these characteristics...."

"...Therapeutic interventions serve to restore the physical, mental and spiritual functions, placing the person at the center and fully respecting the finality of the various levels in man in relation to those of the person. Possessing a therapeutic character, medicine that serves man and his body as ends in themselves respects the image of God in both...."
("Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, International Theological Commission (July 23, 2004))

Cloning, gene therapy, and being human; Catholic viewpoints:

• "Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions"
  William Cardinal Levada, Prefect; Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., Titular Archbishop of Thibica, Secretary; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (September 8, 2008)
• "Document of the Holy See on Human Cloning"
  From the Vatican (September 27, 2004)
• "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God"
  International Theological Commission (July 23, 2004)
• "Reflections on Cloning"
  Prof. Juan de Dios Vial Correa, President; Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, Vice-President; Pontificia Academia Pro Vita; Libreria Editrice Vaticana (1997)

My take on what we can do, and what we're learning to do:

• "DNA Test Hype; and Studying Life's Origins"
  (December 5, 2014)
  Particularly
  • Applied Genetics: Technology is Technology
  • Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and Me
  • Being human
• "Regeneration: Getting Closer to Growing Lost Organs"
  (August 29, 2014)
  Particularly
  • Brand-New Tech, Same Old Challenges
  • New Tech, New Rules, Same Old Principles
  • Living in 'The Future'
• "Mutant Mosquitoes and a Made-to-Order Cancer Treatment"
  (June 13, 2014)
  Particularly
  • Health and Using the Brains God Gave Us
  • Mutant Mosquitoes: When Swatting Isn't Good Enough
    • Malaria, Mosquitoes, and Living in Minnesota
  • Made-to-Order Cancer Treatment
  • Biomarkers, Cancer, and the FDA
• "Getting a Grip About Dr. Moreau, Pigs, and Human Dignity"
  (February 14, 2014)
  Particularly
  • Olive Trees, Parapets, and All That
  • Serious News, Sensationalist Prose
  • The Pancreas of Pig 29
• "Transhumanism, Bioethics, and Me"
  (April 8, 2012)
  Particularly
  • Eugenics, Enhanced Humans: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
  • Stronger, Smarter, Prettier: But Should We?
  • Ethics: Simple, Sort of

DNA Test Hype; and Studying Life's Origins

A company whose DNA test was banned by the FDA is back: in the United Kingdom.

Meanwhile, scientists are learning that complex organic compounds may be forming in Titan's atmosphere: another piece to the puzzle of how life began. Another team found that up to half of Earth's water came from interstellar space.

Finally, a quick look at astrobiology and assumptions about intelligent life in the universe.

1. DNA Test: Science, Technology, Marketing, and the FDA
   • "A List that has Grown Over Time"
   • Experts and Viewpoints
   • Looking Ahead
2. Titan and Life's Origins
   • Tholins, Faith, and Knowledge
3. The Ocean that Fell to Earth?
4. Astrobiology: Seriously

---

Applied Genetics: Technology is Technology

We've known that traits are inherited for a thousand generations, maybe more, and applied that knowledge. (November 22, 2013; August 8, 2013)

The deal Jacob made with Laban in Genesis 30:27-3:13 at least hints that Jacob knew how to make sure many dark sheep and spotted or speckled goats were born.

"...it was thousands of years after people had started breeding animals. Jacob and Laban (who doesn't come across as the brightest bulb in the bin) lived in a society that had been breeding sheep for a very long time...."
(Drifting at the edge of Time and Space (October 29, 2009))

We've been breeding plants and animals for so long that it seems as 'natural' as fire and string. I've said it before — "Just because we've been using it since time out of mind, technology is technology."

More of my take on genetics, technology, and getting a grip:

• "Hard Science Fiction, Cultural Blinders and Laban's Sheep"
  Drifting at the Edge of Time and Space (October 29, 2009)
  Particularly
  • Artificial Life Forms - Like Macaroni Wheat
  • Jacob, Laban, and Applied Genetics
  • Something to Beware of, Something to Use
• "Habitable Worlds, Homer, and Haldane — or — Ganymede's Oceans, and Imagining Kepler-186f's Sunsets"
  (May 9, 2014)
  Particularly
  • Fire, String, and Other Dangerous Technology

Genetics: Hippocrates and Old Family Photos

Aristotle, Hippocrates, and folks who practiced Ayurveda, thought about why offspring look like their parents — but not quite. They came up with pretty good explanations, particularly considering that statistical science and X-ray fiber diffraction hadn't been invented yet.

More recently, Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi and Judah Halevi noticed and recorded how specific traits were inherited.

The pace picked up in the 18th and 19th centuries, with research by Karl Friedrich von Gaertner, Gregor Mendel, Joseph Gottlieb Kölreuter, and Charles_Victor_Naudin.

Darwin's theory of evolution made sense, but his pangenesis hereditary theory didn't.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theories of evolution and heredity weren't a particularly good match with reality either.

Scientists realized that evolution, changing inherited traits, wasn't 'magic.' Some mechanism was at work. But in Darwin's day, nobody had come up with a good explanation for how heredity works.

Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, and Karl Pearson helped get biometrics started. Pearson also helped introduce social Darwinism and eugenics. I'll get back to that.

An obscure scientific journal had published Mendel's work: which was eventually rediscovered in the 20th century.

The Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment isolated DNA in the 1940s, Walter Fiers's team completely sequenced the Bacteriophage MS2 genome in 1976, and scientists analyzing DNA are uncovering previously-unknown chapters of humanity's story. (October 31, 2014; July 11, 2014)

That upsets some folks, but not me. I've mentioned old family photos and change before. (July 15, 2014)

Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and Me

Some wealthy Europeans and Americans of the 1870s decided that they were richer than most because they were stronger than anyone else.

I'll grant that they were better at accumulating wealth: but think that 'social Darwinism' is an ethical minefield.

Besides, wealth and political power isn't much good if you don't have kids. Being the richest man in the graveyard never appealed to me much, and that's another topic.

The 'we're better than others' Victorians didn't call themselves social Darwinists. That term didn't get traction until about 1944, when the Allies were interfering with an effort to apply social Darwinism and eugenics on a continental scale.

Despite the catchy name, I think social Darwinism can be credited to folks like Herbert Spencer, Thomas Hobbes, and Thomas Robert Malthus. Oddly enough, tomfoolery seems to come from another Thomas, and that's yet another topic.

The notion being part of a 'superior race' was more appealing before the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei started purging Europe of Lebensunwertes Leben (life unworthy of life) around the middle of the 20th century. Das herrenvolk's policies gave eugenics supporters a serious public relations problem. (August 24, 2012)

Odd notions aren't limited to one nation or era. One of my college professors claimed that 'races' don't exist because traits like skin tone and hair curliness overlap. I sympathize with him, a little, since back then we were still very close to the 'good old days' of 'whites only' signs.

My ancestors looked Anglo: with a haircut, new clothes, and some practice, we could pass for 'regular Americans.' Getting a job wasn't always easy, though.

A substantial fraction of my forebears are the 'inferior' "Irish Iberians" pictured in Harpers Weekly. (1899)

"No Irish need apply" notices were before my day, but that sort of thing leaves a lasting impression.

Getting back to eugenics, the idea of killing defective people doesn't appeal to me: even if the motive is 'compassionate:' because they wouldn't enjoy a "quality lifestyle," as the argument went in my youth.

I was born with defective hips, and probably inherited by glitchy neurochemistry, too. Even in my early teens, I realized that I'd probably have been removed in the second or third sweep: and I prefer being alive to the alternative.

Being Human

So, why aren't I calling for outlawing genetic studies, and denouncing scientists as Godless advocates of iniquity?

Simple answer: I'm Catholic, and understand my faith.

Science and technology, learning about the universe and using that knowledge to develop new tools, is part of being human. We're expected to use our brains: wisely. (Wisdom 7:17; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 307, 1730, 2292-2295, 2415-2418)

Like anything else humans do, ethics apply to science. No matter how 'scientific' someone's curiosity is, experiments like the ones performed at Auschwitz, Dachau, Tuskegee, and Willowbrook are wrong.

The problem isn't science. Experimentation on humans is okay unless it involves "disproportionate or avoidable risks," or experiments are done without informed consent. We're supposed to treat animals humanely, by the way: but animal experimentation is okay, within reason. (Catechism, 2295, 2416-2418)

Our view of human life won't let us kill people because they're defective: and genocide is not acceptable behavior either, no matter what the motive. (Catechism, 2268, 2313)

God, Clay, and Getting a Grip

We are created in the image of God, male and female. Each of us is a person: not something, but someone; made from the stuff of this world, and filled with God's 'breath:' matter and spirit, body and soul. (Genesis 2:7; Catechism, 355, 357, 362-368)

That doesn't mean that the first of us looked pretty much like Albrecht Dürer's 1504 engraving. I've said it before: trying to believe Adam and Eve were German is daft.

I read Genesis 1:1-2:4 and 2:4-25 as an explanation of God's role in our existence: among other things. As far as I'm concerned, all that's changed in the last few centuries is how much we know about the "clay" God used. (February 23, 2014; December 13, 2013)

That reminds me: we're made in the image of God, "little less than a god," as Psalms 8:6 says. We're pretty hot stuff: but we're not God.

I've used this story before:

God was walking along a riverbank with some man. They were talking about how much humanity had learned recently. The man was particularly impressed with developments in molecular biology. "I can make life, just like you did in Genesis," he said.

God asked, "could you make a man?" The man thought a minute, then said, "yes."

"Okay," said the Almighty. "Let's see you do that." They had come to a spot on the riverbank where a small landslide had exposed fresh clay. The man bent down and scooped up a lump of clay.

"Wait," God said. "If you're going to do this on your own, you have to create your own clay."

My father told that short tale when we were discussing humanity's capacities and limitations: and I've used it before. (February 10, 2013; January 25, 2012)

Our first parents were masters of themselves and in harmony with the world, with the perfect job.

Then we decided we wanted to be "like gods," on our own terms; at which point Adam tried blaming his wife — and God.

That did not end well. (Genesis 1:27, 31, 2:15; Catechism, 371-379)

If we lived in an unchanging world, Genesis 3:1-19 would leave us with no hope. We'd be stuck in a broken world.

Happily, change happens. This universe is in a state of journeying toward an ultimate perfection. (Catechism, 302)

Over the last few generations, we've started realizing just how long the universe has been on that journey: 13,798,000,000 years. Earth formed 4,540,000,000 years back: give or take 4,540,000 or so

Some folks don't approve: and insist that Ussher, a steadfast Calvinist, has to be right. Ussher decided that creation started on the nightfall preceding October 23, 4004 BC: based on what he read in the Old Testament. That was pretty good British scholarship back in the 1650s.

Me? I prefer taking reality 'as is,' and see what we're learning about the scale of creation as opportunities for "greater admiration" of God's work. (October 10, 2014; July 15, 2014)

Folks who ardently defended 'Bible truths' against "Reason, empty with the fumes of that same flattery by which we originally fell" predate Darwin.

"...Such is the Basis of Scripture, and such also is the legitimate deduction of History. ... Reason, empty with the fumes of that same flattery by which we originally fell, cometh of the unhallowed embrace, and finding in the crust of the Earth certain animal Types which ascend in the progress of Time, from the more simple to the complex, ... avers that Matter, like 'the Nilotic Mud,' generated Creatures with the mere dawn of life, which improving upon themselves, at last elicited a man, a man like to all previous existences, imperfect, rudimental, savage. We care not how much the offensive Thesis is laughed at in the person of grotesque Lamark...."
("The Book of the Great Sea-Dragons, Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri," Thomas Hawkins, Thomas; p. 1 (1840))

Since I believe that God created, and is creating, everything: studying things of the world and things of faith can not get in the way of faith. (Catechism, 159, 279, 301)

Being curious is okay, and scientific discoveries should be cause for "even greater admiration" for God's greatness. (Psalms 19:2; Catechism, 282-289)

---

1. DNA Test: Science, Technology, Marketing, and the FDA

(From Science Photo Library, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("The personal DNA test detects a range of gene variants"
(BBC News))

"Controversial DNA test comes to UK"
Michelle Roberts, Paul Rincon, BBC News (December 2, 2014)

"A personal DNA test that has sparked controversy in the US has launched in the UK.

"The UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) says the 23andMe spit test, which is designed to give details about a person's health risks based on their DNA, can be used with caution.

"But critics say it may not be accurate enough to base health decisions on.

"The company, California-based 23andMe, stands by its test.

"Backed by Google, the firm offered US customers details of health risks based on gene variants they carry.

"But in November 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the company from marketing its service in the US, claiming 23andMe had failed to provide adequate information to support the claims it made about results...."

There's quite a bit going on here. 23andMe probably wants to sell more of their services, and government regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have their own issues. Doctors presumably want reliable diagnostic tools, and folks have varying sorts of health issues.

I'll get to 23andMe's troubles, genetics, and patent medicines: after making obvious, or maybe not-so-obvious, points about health, faith, and ethics.

If you've been to this blog before, feel free to skip to the next heading — or take a coffee break, go for a walk, whatever.

Being healthy, or not being healthy, is okay. Health, wealth, or their lack, doesn't mean we're being punished or rewarded. (Matthew 5:45; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2448)

Health is a 'precious gift.' I'm expected to take care of my health: within reason. (Catechism, 2274-2279, 2288-2289)

Obsessing over good health, putting anything besides God at the top of my priorities, is called idolatry: and is a very bad idea. (Catechism, 2112-2114)

Genetic testing can, I think, be a valuable tool. But like any other tool, it can be misused. I see no problem with using DNA tests to spot health risks: if the doctor and patient use that knowledge to maintain the patient's health.

Checking someone's DNA to see if the individual has the 'right' or 'wrong' traits: that's a bad idea that gets worse if folks see to it that only the 'right' genes get passed along.

"...'...Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity'⁸⁵ which are unique and unrepeatable."
(Catechism, 2275)

Enough of that. Let's look at why 23andMe got in trouble with the FDA.

"A List that has Grown Over Time"

"...For example, your company’s website at www.23andme.com/health (most recently viewed on November 6, 2013) markets the PGS for providing 'health reports on 254 diseases and conditions,' including categories such as 'carrier status,' 'health risks,' and 'drug response,' and specifically as a 'first step in prevention' that enables users to 'take steps toward mitigating serious diseases' such as diabetes, coronary heart disease, and breast cancer. Most of the intended uses for PGS listed on your website, a list that has grown over time, are medical device uses under section 201(h) of the FD&C Act. Most of these uses have not been classified and thus require premarket approval or de novo classification, as FDA has explained to you on numerous occasions....

"...In your letter dated January 9, 2013, you stated that the firm is 'completing the additional analytical and clinical validations for the tests that have been submitted' and is 'planning extensive labeling studies that will take several months to complete.' Thus, months after you submitted your 510(k)s and more than 5 years after you began marketing, you still had not completed some of the studies and had not even started other studies necessary to support a marketing submission for the PGS. It is now eleven months later, and you have yet to provide FDA with any new information about these tests...."
(Food and Drug Administration's warning letter to the CEO of 23andMe, Inc. (November 22, 2013)) [emphasis mine]

I don't know what led up to that letter.

If 23andMe's website had an expanding list of nifty uses for their test kits, before they'd completed evaluating their product, my guess is that the company's marketing department had more influence than its lawyers.

There's nothing wrong with marketing, at least I hope not: since I spent two decades working in that field. Like anything else humans do, though, marketing and advertising can be ethical: or not.

We've come a long way since the 'good old days,' when advertisements for products like Bonnore's Electro Magnetic Bathing Fluid "greatly exaggerated the curative powers of their remedies," as the Smithsonian's page puts it:

• "Balm of America: Patent Medicine Collection | History"
  The National Museum of American History, Smithsonian

Wacky claims and snake oil salesmen didn't disappear when America's Food and Drug Administration started in 1906: but the heyday of patent medicines was over in my country. My opinion.

After 1906, American drug makers had to label their products if they contained alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide. ("Balm of America: Patent Medicine Collection | History")

More than a century later, we're still sorting out what's legal, what's not, and that's yet again another topic.

Experts and Viewpoints

"...Dr Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in California, said the UK and Canadian launches could be a way of placing pressure on the FDA by demonstrating that regulators in other countries found no fault with their product.

" 'Genetic testing is an important medical tool in certain situations, but for healthy people as a way to predict common complex diseases, it's pretty useless,' she told BBC News.

" 'Most complex diseases and almost all the common ones - with some exceptions such as the BRCA 1 and 2 genes (implicated in breast cancer) - are multi-factorial with many genes and other biological, social and environmental causes.'..."
(Michelle Roberts, Paul Rincon, BBC News)

Wikipedia identifies the Center for Genetics and Society as "politically progressive:" which doesn't make them always right; or wrong. (November 3, 2008)

Dr. Darnovsky's claim that genetic testing is "pretty useless" for predicting "common complex diseases" in healthy folks may be right: to a point. We're very complex creatures. Our genes are just one factor influencing our health.

But I also think that getting data about one of many factors is useful: as long as we remember that it's just one piece of the puzzle, not the whole picture.

Stanford University's director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences, Professor Hank Greely, made an astute observation:

" 'They may also want to make it clear to the public, to their investors, to their employees that they're alive and kicking.' "
(Michelle Roberts, Paul Rincon, BBC News)

Would I get my genes tested by 23andMe's product?

That's two questions:

1. Would I have my genetic code tested?
   • Probably not
2. Would I prefer having a doctor use 23andMe's product?
   • No

My household's budget doesn't have much room for 'extras.' We know family history for quite a few generations, and so have a reasonably good picture of inherited glitches we should look for. I'd be fascinated with results of a detailed genetic profile: but that's a luxury we can't afford.

From what I've seen, 23andMe's testing product may or may not give accurate results.

The company's marketing decisions make trusting the technology they sell difficult. That won't matter to 23andMe, though, since I'm not one of the folks who decides which medical tech gets used.

Looking Ahead

My kids may live long enough to have genetic screening, 3D imaging, and diagnostic nanobots, used as routinely as thermometers and stethoscopes are today.

The odds are that they won't be as enthusiastic about the new tech as I am. The one who's an artist seems to prefer old-school drawing to digital graphics, and that's still another topic.

More about what's coming:

• "Medical nanorobot architecture based on nanobioelectronics."
  Cavalcanti, Shirinzadeh, Freitas, Kretly; Abstract; US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health (2007)

---

2. Titan and Life's Origins

(From NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute, via Space.com, used w/o permission.)
("Saturn's moon Titan appears as a hazy ball from a distance in this photo taken by NASA's Cassini spacecraft."
(Space.com))

"Saturn's Hazy Moon Titan Holds Clues About Life's Origins"
Elizabeth Howell, Astrobiology Magazine, via Space.com (November 27, 2014)

" Where did life on Earth come from? There are several theories as to what might have happened. Maybe comets came bearing organic material, or life was transported from another planet such as Mars, or something happened in the chemistry of our planet that made life possible.

"Luckily for researchers, there is a possible laboratory in our solar system to help us better understand the conditions on Earth before life arose — a situation sometimes referred to as a 'prebiotic' environment. That location is Titan, the largest moon of Saturn.

"Titan has fascinated researchers for decades, particularly after NASA's Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft flew by Saturn in the 1980s. The missions revealed a moon completely socked in with haze, which is a different experience to those used to gazing at Earth's airless, cratered moon...."

Panspermia, the idea that life on Earth arrived from somewhere else, goes back at least to Anaxagoras, more than two dozen centuries back. Some 19th century scientists suggested that life could spread on meteors or comets, which restarted the idea in our era.

A few years ago, scientists found evidence that microorganisms could spread from one planet to another, in rock blasted into space by meteor, comet, or asteroid impacts. Organic material from Earth got trapped inside spatter from a meteor impact.

Darwin glass fell back to Earth, but embedded organics could be thrown out of Earth's atmosphere: or arrive on Earth from a Martian impact. It's possible that life on Earth started on Mars. (January 17, 2014; October 25, 2013)

Panspermia may describe how life can travel from planet to planet: but not how life starts.

Scientists have found several explanations for how life started that cover at least some of the facts, including:

• A primordial soup of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen; zapped by lightning
• Molecules deposited on minerals embedded in clay
• Complex molecules
  • Stirred and heated near hydrothermal vents
  • Preserved in ice
• Metabolic chemistry coming first, then genes
  (LiveScience)

The 'struck by lightning' theory could work: but we've since learned that Earth probably didn't have enough hydrogen when life began.

Thinking that metabolic chemistry could start before living critters had genes isn't as crazy as it may seem. Terrence W. Deacon showed that heating a molecular brew produces short-lived "autocells:" microscopic capsules which could, in principle, trap organics long enough to start the chemical reactions we call "life." (October 18, 2013)

Background on Professor Deacon's autocells:

• "Reciprocal Linkage between Self-organizing Processes is Sufficient for Self-reproduction and Evolvability"
  Terrence W. Deacon, abstract, ResearchGate (2006)

An intriguing possibility is that early organic molecules may have formed on diamond crystals: and that's — another topic. (June 27, 2014; Apathetic Lemming of the North; July 28, 2008)

How can I claim that God exists: and not be horrified that we're learning how life began? It has to do with secondary causes.

Tholins, Faith, and Knowledge

"...'The study of organic chemistry on Titan's surface would extend our understanding of the diversity of prebiotic chemistry, and perhaps life's origin on Earth,' said Dr. Chao He, a chemist at the University of Houston (now moved to Johns Hopkins University), who led the study...."
(Elizabeth Howell, Astrobiology Magazine, via Space.com)

Dr. He's team formed tholins, simple organic molecules, in a close approximation of Titan's atmosphere.

Similar processes probably happen on Titan, so the question now is how stable tholins are in Titan's atmosphere and on its surface: and if Titan's tholins include chemical precursors of life.

I'm not shocked that scientists are learning how life works: and knowing something of the process doesn't threaten my belief that God exists, and sustains this universe.

Fearing knowledge is irrational. As Leo XIII wrote, "truth cannot contradict truth." (Catechism, 159, 214-217; "Providentissimus Deus")

Knowing that a fire's light and heat involve electron transitions doesn't cause a crisis of faith, forcing me to decide whether I'll believe that physical realities exist or that God exists. (July 15, 2014)

Everything we observe reflects a facet of the Creator's truth, according to its nature. (Catechism, 301-308)

All natural processes involve secondary causes: creatures acting in knowable ways, following laws woven into this creation. Since I believe that God creates everything, and that God is not a liar: learning about this universe gives me more reasons to praise God.

---

3. The Ocean that Fell to Earth?

"Up to half of Earth's water is older than the sun"
Aviva Rutkin, New Scientist (September 25, 2014)

"...Much of the water on our planet and around the solar system started out as tiny grains of ice floating in interstellar space. The discovery provides important clues about not only the make-up of our solar system, but also what planets around other stars might be like....

"...All water in the solar system – whether on planets, in comets or meteorites, or icy moons like Europa – contains a certain amount of deuterium – an isotope of hydrogen that has an extra neutron attached....

"...Ice found between stars is even more deuterium-rich, so it was long suspected that it was the source of our solar system's heavy water. But the young solar system was so violent and full of radiation that any incoming ice should have been ripped apart, recombining later into water – according to this picture.

"But when (University of Michigan in Ann Arbor's Ilsedore) Cleeves and her collaborators built a model of the early sun, they found that this explanation didn't stand up. After their model scrapped all of the interstellar ice, they found that oxygen was being locked up in frozen carbon monoxide. And there wasn't enough ionised, deuterium-rich hydrogen being produced either. In short, the nascent solar system wouldn't have had the ingredients for water with the high levels of deuterium we see...."

This isn't a new idea. Deuterium levels in Earth's ocean is very similar to what we've found in comets, which suggests that water in both comes from the same place. Comets probably come from the Oort cloud, debris on the borderlands of Sol left over from the Solar system's formation. (November 14, 2014; October 24, 2014)

Cleeves' research is important, though, since it confirms what scientists expected. If the new numbers are accurate, as much as half of Earth's water came from interstellar space.

University of Chicago planetary scientist Fred Ciesla points out that water ice isn't the only stuff found between stars. Scientists have found organic molecules too, like formic acid, benzine, and iso-propyl cyanide.

"Organic" doesn't mean "living," but it looks like life's chemical components are spread throughout this galaxy. (November 28, 2014; October 3, 2014)

If Earth's water fell from interstellar space, the odds are pretty good that many Earth-size planets circling other stars have oceans too.

---

4. Astrobiology: Seriously

"Introduction: Astrobiology"
Stephen Battersby, New Scientist (September 4, 2006)

"Nobody has yet seen an extraterrestrial, which may sound like a problem in establishing a science of astrobiology. But in the past 20 years or so, scientists have found clues that life may be quite common in the universe, and many are hopeful that they will soon find hard evidence of life beyond Earth.

"Some hints come from terrestrial life. Biologists have discovered many species of extremophile - micro-organisms that thrive in extreme environments, such as alkali lakes and rock fissures deep underground. Life may have originated on the ocean floor around thermal vents or black smokers, which may be common features of other planets and moons.

"And chemical traces of metabolism appear in Earth's rocks shortly after the planet's ferocious Late Heavy Bombardment by meteorites, implying that life might be able to get started quickly and easily...."

Life may be unique to Earth: or we may find life in the oceans of Europa and Enceladus, and on thousands of Earth-size planets in our part of the Milky Way galaxy. Right now, we don't know.

Since we live on a planet circling a mid-size star, roughly halfway out from the center of our galaxy: I think it's likely that life may be a fairly common phenomenon.

Either way, my faith wouldn't be shaken. God's God, I'm not, and I'm okay with that. My job is praising God and admiring the Creator's work: not telling the Almighty how to run the universe.

Stephen Battersby's article ends with the Fermi paradox: if civilizations are common, why haven't we seen seen them?

Conventional pessimism says that we haven't met space aliens because people destroy themselves as soon as they get as tech-savvy as we are. I think the 'tech kills' attitude is as silly as the older 'tech solves all our problems' one.

Maybe we are the only people in the entire universe. Or not. Like I said: we don't know.

If we do have neighbors, I think it's safe to assume that they're not human: and that's — what else? — another topic. (June 27, 2014; May 9, 2014)

Still more about life, the universe, and being human:

• " 'Organic,' 'Wow!' — and Double Planets"
  (November 28, 2014)
  Particularly
  • Life in the Universe and Using Our Brains
• "Harpooning the 'Rubber Duck' Comet; Public Safety — and Space Aliens"
  (November 7, 2014)
  Particularly
  • 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: 4,500,000,000 years in cold storage
  • Faith, Philosophy, and Space Aliens
    • Fear and Hope
    • "...It's a Mighty Sobering Thought"
• "Regeneration: Getting Closer to Growing Lost Organs"
  (August 29, 2014)
  Particularly
  • Brand-New Tech, Same Old Challenges
  • New Tech, New Rules, Same Old Principles
  • Positive Law, Isus Positum: Human-Made Rules
  • Natural Law, Lex Naturalis: Universal Principles, Changing Applications
  • Living in 'The Future'
• "Oxygen, Life, and Autocells"
  (October 18, 2013)
  Particularly
  • What If We're Not Alone?
  • Space Aliens
  • Life's Origins: Autocells?
• " 'Think Nice Thoughts About Eugenics,' and Good News"
  (August 24, 2012)
  Particularly
  • Eugenics: 'It Can't Happen Here?'