Genetic engineering is often criticised for being a manipulative activity, for involving ourselves in Nature’s ways, for tampering with our humanity despite being unaware or uncertain of the consequences.
Yet there may be one area of genetic tinkering that we could pursue which would not necessarily be so questionable, so indeterminate, so risky. That is in relation to pseudogenes.
Pseudogenes are genes that we have previously had but are now non-functioning. They remain within our genetic structure but are not active. They may have ceased being influential for a number of reasons: they may lack the trigger to start them up; they may have been superseded by other genes; they may have mutated and lost their genetic relevance.
And yet, in some form or other, they still exist within us. Dawkins describes them as the “inert legacy of history”.
Examples might include a heightened sense of smell, resistance to certain diseases or poisons, enhanced night vision, greater upper body strength, an ability to run faster.
All we would need to do is to identify those desirable pseudogenes within us and either reactivate them or reconstruct them so that they, once again, can become functional.
The underlying premise behind this course of action is that there are genes within us that we have previously had but which have been abandoned, atrophied or assimilated and consequently now have a status of being unrecognised, unappreciated or disregarded. They no longer have any consequential meaning. And yet, possibly, they may still have some value and desirability. All because we do not currently use them does not mean that we cannot make use of them.
By reactivating them we would be tapping into our genetic past. We would be reawakening and re-establishing obsolete genes. It would be like travelling back in time, like making use of an old technology. And yes, old technologies can still have a place in the world – black and white photographs, vinyl records, Polaroid cameras, classic cars.
The concern would be that Nature has previously relinquished these genes. That would have happened for a reason. Nature has at some point decided that we didn’t need them, that there was something better available or that they weren’t worth supporting. Should we really challenge Nature’s judgement?
Of course, there are also questions around the practicality of such actions: how straightforward is it to rekindle pseudogenes? Are these genes actually worth reactivating or should we just consign them to history? By activating these genes would we lose or would it have some detrimental effect on other areas of our genetic make-up? Is there a limit or capacity to our genetic being?
Reactivating pseudogenes may be a useful entry point into the hazardous world of genetic engineering. It may help to circumvent some of the ethical issues around this field of work. It would also contribute to our learning process and, given that these genes are tried and tested, it might be considered as a relatively safe way of taking those first steps in genetic intervention.
