A Case for Genetic Enhancement of Cognitive Ability

On my NPR-San Francisco radio show today, I interviewed Ruud Ter Meulen, co-editor of Enhancing Human Capacities (Wiley, May 2011)

That interview has triggered these thoughts:

How much of the difference between America's successful and its underclass is genetic and how much is environmental? Over the last 3/4 of a century, we've put all our chips, literally trillions of dollars of cost and opportunity cost, on trying to improve the underclass's environment. Yet the achievement level of the underclass has remained intractable.

As we contemplate what to do for the next 3/4 century, would we be wiser to double-down on that bet or might we reasonably conclude that we've been fighting a giant opponent with one arm tied behind our back and that we'd be wise to untie that arm.

Speaking non-metaphorically, as I've asked in previous writings, is it time to resist our visceral repulsion against funding the research that would lead to prospective parents to be able to elect to genetically enhance their child's cognitive and emotional abilities? Indeed, such gene therapy would likely benefit the underclass more than it would the successful because the underclass has more room to grow.

As long as parents were not coerced into using such gene therapy and as long as the procedure was covered under MediCal so as to not to exacerbate the gap between society's haves and have nots, I cannot see a rational argument against allowing the necessary research, including the risks and rewards of intervening in the germline as well as the ethical issues, so we might eventually be able to fight this most tough opponent with both arms.

Beyond merely benefiting the underclass, making available to prospective parents the option to genetically enhance their children's cognitive ability and emotional well-being/efficacy makes likely that we'll sooner cure our horrific diseases, have wiser electorates, not to mention the ultimate iPhone.

Dear readers, your thoughts?