Pseudogenes – Reliving the Past

Genetic engineering is often criticised for being a manipulative activity, for interfering with Nature’s ways, and for tampering with our humanity despite being unaware or uncertain of the consequences.

Yet there may be one area of genetic tinkering we could pursue that would not necessarily be so questionable, indeterminate, or risky. That is in relation to pseudogenes.

Pseudogenes are genes that we once had but are now non-functional. They remain within our genetic structure but are not active. They may have ceased to be influential for a number of reasons: they may lack the trigger to activate them, they may have been superseded by other genes, or they may have mutated and lost their genetic relevance.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, and the ability to run faster.

All we would need to do is identify the desirable pseudogenes within us and either reactivate or reconstruct them so that they can once again become functional.

The underlying premise behind this course of action is that there are genes within us that we previously had but have since been abandoned, atrophied, or assimilated, and are now unrecognised, unappreciated, or disregarded. They no longer have any consequential meaning. And yet, possibly, they may still have some value and desirability. The fact that 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 using 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 why we gave them up. If Nature had relinquished these genes, it would have been for a reason. Nature may at some point have decided that we didn’t need them, that something better was available, or that they weren’t worth supporting. If that’s the case, should we really be challenging Nature’s judgment?

On the other hand, given our societal development and the creation of a new Living Environment, it may have been this influence that led to certain genes being decommissioned. There was no need or benefit from these genes in society, so they could be dispensed with, enabling other, more attractive and lucrative genes to be nurtured.

Either way, there may be gains from reactivating some of these genes.

If their loss was down to Nature, we are no longer living in Nature’s world; if it was down to society, that society is changing so much that some genes may come back into fashion.

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 to our genetic being, that there is a specific, quantifiable number of genes that we may have? If so, by introducing new genetic possibilities, which genes would we then choose to extinguish?

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 a relatively safe way to take those first steps in human genetic intervention.

For other interesting blogs on this subject area, check out Articles or the Article Index