With the advance of gene-editing technologies suggesting a future where we can edit humans on-demand, it looks like the relentless quest for perfection is about to step up a gear. But for the science journalist and broadcaster Angela Saini, the path to would-be perfection is fraught with danger and discrimination.
“Why are we not good enough as we are,” Saini asks. “Why can’t we just accept ourselves as messy, chaotic and varied?” After writing a best-selling book in India, Geek Nation: How Indian Science is Taking Over the World, Saini turned to sifting through the contradictory science on the critical issue of discrimination, first in her book Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong – and the New Research That’s Rewriting the Story and then with this year’s Superior: The Return of Race Science.
As part of our Scientists Meets the Media series, Saini spoke to WIRED about the ethics of gene-editing, the next generation of climate activists, and why overusing antibiotics should be as unacceptable as littering.
Angela Saini on climate change
I feel that when I was growing up, children were starting to be instilled with a passion to protect the environment, to recycle, and repair the ozone layer (which perhaps gives away my age). We used to go out litter-picking and paint posters of planet Earth. Should we then be surprised that this generation cares so deeply about climate change that wonderful young activists like Greta Thunberg are the ones leading the charge?
We gave our children this gift of caring about the future of the Earth and humanity, and it's our responsibility to act on their concerns. Otherwise what have we been teaching them all this time? I despair sometimes that we're not doing enough. We owe to our kids to care more. We can't simply wait for some transformative new technology to come along and plug the gap because it may not come in time.
On the rise of antibiotic resistance
I have suffered with recurrent strep throat for a few years, and as someone who's allergic to penicillin, I found other antibiotics never quite worked effectively. So, at the start of one bout, I decided to let my body fight it off naturally. It wasn't pretty, but ever since, I've been able to fight off the bacteria myself within a day or two.
We turn to antibiotics as a quick fix, when in fact we don't always need them. It would be better for the world if those of us strong and healthy enough to fight off certain illnesses ourselves occasionally forgo antibiotics in the name of the greater good - and perhaps also learn in the process just how naturally resilient our bodies can be.
The rampant use of antibiotics speaks to a wider malaise in society: the need for quick fixes, irrespective of the wider social costs. It is selfish for patients and livestock farmers to use antibiotics when we don't need them. It should be as unacceptable as dropping litter.
On ethics in science
One of the books I always keep near me is Alvin Weinberg's classic Reflections on Big Science, published in 1967. He coined the term "technological fix". Science is rarely value-neutral and there are legitimate concerns now that technologies are moving faster than our ability to manage the ethical implications, especially with renegade scientists able to work in places where regulatory barriers are limited.
Ultimately, underlying so much of what we see is this drive for human perfection or to achieve some kind of utopia. The goal seems to be fixing ourselves or society. We never ask ourselves what we mean by perfection or utopia. Why are we not good enough as we are? Why do we feel the need for our babies to be smarter or have bluer eyes or straighter hair? Why can't we accept ourselves as messy, chaotic and varied? For me, the messiness and flaws are what make us beautiful; they are what define humanity. I don't want to airbrush my future children or grandchildren using gene edits before they're even born.
On the need for more diversity in science
My two most recent books are in some senses rallying cries for the need for diversity and representation in science, not just because this is obviously fair, but also because research is better when you have a variety of perspectives and experiences. What I fear is that sexism and racism are still so structurally embedded in the culture of many institutions that people only get so far before they're driven out. We need to create kinder, more welcoming work environments so that we're not throwing young women and minorities to the lions when we encourage them to become scientists.
Scientists Meet the Media at the Science Museum in London was organised with the Royal Society, sponsored by Johnson & Johnson Innovation and supported by the Association of British Science Writers andWIRED.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
