A new experiment, which is admittedly very interesting, but hardly reassuring, involves changing behavior in ants. Specifically, turning a soldier ant into a different caste. This experiment successfully modified the behavior of the subjects and had the big soldier ants running around foraging rather than guarding.
For those who don’t know, from the ant colony’s perspective, this is a pretty useless thing to do. It’s like using a tank to go shopping for fine china. The role of the big ants is to defend the colony.
The experiment, conducted at the University of Pennsylvania by developmental biologist Daniel Simola, focused on genes which affect neural operations, including learning and memory. A “few” enzymes which regulate these behaviors were identified. The ants were first fed the new substances, then directly injected into the brains after hatching.
The new enzymes effectively altered behavior. According to researchers, similar enzymes exist in mammals.
Such fun, so far, isn’t it? The theory is that these enzymes can be used to modify social behavior. The manipulation of one gene helpfully called Rpd3, set off a “cascade” of changes in related genes.
Carefree Frankengenes, or dangerous research?
I happen to be one of those people who distrusts this type of research intensely. To my way of thinking, there’s not much to be said for anything which can alter behavior, causing anything or anyone to act involuntarily. Why is so much science so apparently hell-bent on manipulating the brain?
We need to look at risks here. This research is obviously embryonic, but let’s extrapolate. If this treatment was effective in humans:
*You could make a case for the theory that people like serial killers, etc. could be turned back into non-aberrant people.
*You could perhaps turn off the genetic causes of schizophrenia, depression, chronic anxiety, etc.
*You could also turn people into virtual strangers. Human behavior, after all, is also based on the mindsets of the individual. Change that, and what’s left?
*What if this therapy is used on hyperactive kids, and permanently changes them into some sort of socially acceptable vegetables?
*Social interactions, etc. are also not something to take for granted as if there’s some sort of acceptable norm to which all must conform. Imagine a cookie cutter humanity. It’d be even worse than now. Arguably, the only real safeguard in any society is that people are aware of issues and able to respond to them, not “enzymed” into passive idiots.
*This sort of therapy could be a godsend to dictatorships, terrorists, and other groups which currently alter behaviors by other means.
There are no obvious safeguards for this treatment. Can you undo the effects of the enzymes, like simply reinstate the original condition?
A lot of reading has led me to believe that science is either naïve or extremely cynical, in mind research. It’s as if there’s some sort of dogmatic science which thinks it’s OK to create potential weapons to use against the mind.
It would be nice to think that these fears are groundless. Not in this world, though. Who would you trust with the ability to permanently change behavior? Politicians? Pharmaceutical companies? Any passing collection of jerks who can turn the drugs into profitable business?
Would you want to see things like this in the hands of terrorists, organized crime or those strange human social insects who think everyone should be like them? There’s a whole class of genetic science, notably “inheritable genetic modifications” which is so appallingly risky that you have to wonder who’s so interested in this type of science, and why.
In a very lengthy article last year, I discussed the “naïve science theory” and came to the conclusion that science simply has trouble knowing how to handle some very sensitive issues, particularly ethical issues. Nor does science have a great track record in managing corporate interests. Why on Earth would scientists, particularly brilliant scientists, in some cases, trust Big Dollars and Big Egos with anything, let alone very potent science?
With all due respect to U Penn and this truly fascinating and very important work, someone needs to start looking at risks and finding fixes for possible problems. If we wind up with some sort of therapy which can basically reprogram people, the risks are too big to ignore.
