Recently, there was a call for a global treaty, modeled after the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to regulate human genetic engineering. The reference to nuclear weapons immediately called to mind the current global situation, with “rogue” states defying international calls to halt their nuclear development programs. It’s easy to envision a future with a recalcitrant state carrying out a program of human genetic engineering in violation of the so-called Genetic Heritage Safeguard Treaty. Certainly top Pentagon scientists have raised this issue. But is a 20th century solution really the best way to solve a distinctly 21st century problem?
Without dueling superpowers to keep the smaller nations in line, non-proliferation has already started to breakdown. That goes to show that a 20th century solution can’t solve a distinctly 20th century problem in the 21st century. In addition, the technology for human genetic engineering, once developed, will be far easier to conceal from inspectors and satellite reconnaissance than the equipment required to produce nuclear weapons. Thus, enforcement will be much more difficult, even with ostensibly cooperative nations. Enforcement also relies on powerful nation-states, which may be another relic of the 20th century thanks to emerging neofeudalism.
We do need global regulation of human genetic engineering, but it’s vitally important that we not reject world-changing innovations just because they’re new or scary. Genetic engineering isn’t Frankenstein. We need to look at the situation, as much as we can, in terms of what someone in the year 2100 would want us to do and not just have a knee-jerk, 20th century reaction.
