Attachment III - Page 15 
A22 THE NEW YORK TIMES, THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1962 
Founded in 1651 
ADOLPH 3. OCHS. Publisher IS96-193S 
ARTHUR HAYS SULZBERGER. Publisher I US- 1961 
ORVH E. DRYTOOS. Publisher 1961-1963 
ARTHUR OCKS SULZBERGER. Publisher 
• 
A. M. ROSENTHAL. £ lecutive Editor 
SEYMOUR TOPPING. Managing Editor 
ARTHUR GELB, Deputy Managing Editor 
JAMES L GREENETELD. Assistant Managing Editor 
LOUIS SO. VERSTEIN, Assistant Managing Editor 
• 
MAX rRANKKL. Editorial Page Editor 
JACX ROSENTHAL Deputy Editorial Page Editor 
• 
CHARLOTTE CURTIS, A hoc late Editor 
TOM WICKER, Associate Editor 
• 
JOHN D. POMERET. Eire. VP.. General M onager 
DONALD A N T ZEN , Sr. VP. Consumer M ark rang 
LANCE R. PRIM13, Sr. VP.. Adiertumg 
J. A RIGGS JR-, Sz. V.P., Operations 
JOHN M. O'BRIEN, VF, Controller 
m.MR J. ROSS, VJ», Systems 
Whether to Make Perfect Humans 
The rapid advance of genetic engineering raises 
a question fundamental to the nature of man: Should 
inheritable alterations to the human gene set be per- 
mitted? Unfortunately, genetic engineers, resentful 
of recent public debate over the health hazards of 
gene splicing, seem more interested in quietly per- 
fecting their craft than in collaborating in a new in- 
quiry into its consequences. 
Biologists have already attempted to repair the 
genetic defect that causes the blood disease beta- 
thalassemia by introducing copies of the normal 
gene into a patient’s bone marrow cells. The tech- 
nique does not yet work, but in time, it or others will. 
Changing the genes in the ordinary cells of the body 
presents no special problem because, like any other 
surgical intervention, the change dies with the 
patient. 
But researchers are already contemplating a 
more thorough cure for genetic disorders, that of 
correcting the defective gene in a person’s germline 
cells — the eggs or sperm. Repairs of this sort repre- 
sent an altogether novel change because they would 
be passed on to the patient’s descendants. 
On first impression, that sounds like the finest 
kind of medical advance. It might, for instance, 
allow eradication within a generation of such 
scourges as sickie-ceil anemia. But consider some 
possible consequences. 
There are a finite number of human genes and 
therefore a lesser number of genes that are some- 
times defective. Maybe a genetic package could be 
developed containing nurmal copies of ail such 
genes. V/hat if all children received such a package 
as routinely as vaccinations, creating a physically 
perfect population? Might not so large a change 
alter the species? Might it even create a new spe- 
cies, bearing in mind how minute a difference there 
seems to be between our DNA and that of our near- 
est relatives, the higher apes? 
Theologians may have doubts about making 
man perfect; should not biologists share them, even 
if for rather different reasons? 
Repairing a defect is one thing, but once that is 
routine, it will become much harder to argue against 
adding genes that confer desired qualities, like bet- 
ter health, looks or brains. There is no discernible 
line to be drawn between making inheritable repairs 
of genetic defects, and improving the species. 
The question is not whether but when such 
genetic change will become possible. There are no 
evident limits to the powerful tools that molecular 
biologists now have available. Once the biological 
machinery is completely understood, we are likely 
to be able to tinker with it. 
• 
At the request of three church groups, the Presi- 
dent’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Prob- 
lems is considering the implications of genetic engi- 
neering for human existence. It may get little help 
from biologists; despite having gained all they 
wanted during the recent discussion of health haz- 
ards, they mistrust the public’s capacity for rational 
debate and don’t want genetic engineering to again 
become the focus of attention. 
Other Government agencies have exhaustively 
studied the immediate issues, including risk and in- 
dustrial applications. The commission, if it wishes to 
make a unique contribution, will look at the longer- 
term aspects. In particular, the question of whether 
the human germline should be declared inviolable 
deserves close attention. 
Such a restriction will probably prove unjusti- 
fiable. But deliberate manipulation of the human 
germline will constitute a watershed in history, per- 
haps even in evolution. It should not be crossed sur- 
reptitiously, or before a full debate has allowed the 
public to reach an informed understanding of where 
scientists are leading. The re makin g of man Is worth 
a little discussion. 
[ 330 ] 
