Did Scientists Just Discover a Way to Control ALL Human Beings? | Unveiled

Did Scientists Just Discover a Way to Control ALL Human Beings?

Why are we like we are? Academic thought is somewhat split. One psychological theory, behaviorism, for example, suggests that human behavior is mostly learned. That any one person can be taught to be anything, and therefore that skills, ideas, beliefs, tolerances – everything that makes that person them – aren’t genetic. On the other hand, there’s growing research to show that genes do have a significant role to play… and perhaps with major consequences.

This is Unveiled, and today we’re answering the extraordinary question; Did scientists just discover a way to control all human beings?

Among all the modern technologies that have the potential to change society as we know it, gene editing might just have the most potential of all. To some degree, humans have been manipulating DNA ever since we invented agriculture, when we started selecting which plants to grow and where. Fast forward 12,000 years or so, and today we think of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) with negative connotations. But really, although the methods have changed, humans have been trying to control the natural world for centuries. And, in recent times, there’s been a monumental shift.

Gene editing, the act of manually manipulating DNA at its source, really took off around the year 2012, when scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier invented the CRISPR-Cas9 technique. It enables researchers to target specific DNA sequences to alter, delete, or add genes as they see fit. And, today, CRISPR technology has become increasingly associated with not just the future of farming… but also with the future of human beings. And perhaps this latest study shows just how far we could go.

In new research by a team at Georgia State University, certain genes and hormones have been targeted. Specifically, vasopressin and its associated receptor (the AVPR1A receptor). Vasopressin is a hormone that’s naturally produced in the body. AVPR1A (short for Arginine Vasopressin receptor 1A) is a gene allowing the effects of that hormone to be felt. Vasopressin is known to have two main biological functions: reabsorbing water into the bloodstream from the kidneys, and constricting blood vessels (which can lead to heightened blood pressure). But – and crucially for this research – vasopressin is also a social catalyst. It’s thought that it promotes social behavior in many different forms, ranging from attraction to aggression. For example, it’s believed to play an integral role in keeping communities and social groups together. Previous research has also shown that the AVPR1A gene, the receptor, has the potential to increase selfishness. In the journal “Nature”, AVPR1A has before been referred to as the “Ruthless Gene”, to underline its apparently dictator-like influence over us.

The Georgia State University study, led by Professors H. Elliott Albers and Kim Huhman, set out to explore how vasopressin affects behavior in Syrian hamsters – chosen as subject because their social structure and response to stress reportedly mirrors our own. To test how vasopressin influences sociability then, researchers used the CRISPR-Cas9 tool to remove the hamsters’ AVPR1A gene, effectively disabling the vasopressin within them. Up to this point, the hypothesis had been that vasopressin removal should make the animals calmer in general. That it should lead them to isolate from the group if anything, to “keep to themselves” more than they had done, and to limit social interactions in general. With their social regulator taken away, predictions were that they should become less social but also more peaceful. That’s not what happened, though. To everyone’s surprise, the hamsters basically turned into bullies. Both male and female hamsters displayed far more aggression than usual, and especially towards members of their own sex.

This result was pretty shocking. It seemed to fly in the face of past research, with it previously thought that more (not less) vasopressin might’ve brought about the extra energy, and therefore the aggression. But, here, vasopressin had been removed completely, and the aggression definitely increased as a result. One suggested explanation is that while vasopressin does affect specific areas of the brain regarding social behavior, its receptor gene perhaps serves to calm overall behavior in some way. Take that gene away, as was done in this experiment, and the balance collapses. The mechanics still aren’t well understood, though, and both gene and hormone are now considered far more complicated than first thought.

Returning to the study, the gene-edited hamsters attempted to show dominance to others by chasing, biting, and pinning them up against the side of their cage. Whether male or female, these hamsters had suddenly turned very violent. There was little doubt that the experiment had changed the mood and behavior of the animals… uprooting their once stable and relatively peaceful community.

Beyond the lab, then, the research presents some potential concerns. Many are already unsure of how gene editing technology will impact the future, with fears regarding “designer babies” tending to dominate the headlines. But one worry here is that it may be less about selecting the best and most desired attributes, and more about instilling control. On one level, were humans to be stripped of our AVPR1A gene in a similar way – perhaps at birth – then we’d potentially grow up to be much less friendly and more aggressive as if by nature. On another level, though, anyone with the power to add or remove this particular gene might also – it would seem – have a means to shape and influence whole lives and even societies.

During a separate, 2008 study, scientists had looked specifically at the role of AVPR1A in humans while they were playing a game… and it was found that the less of the gene there was in a person, the more likely they were to attempt to steal money, cheat, and/or display selfish behavior in the game. Take away the controlled environment, though, and substitute it for the broader game of life… and the repercussions could be far bigger and much more serious. Imagine a generation of humans artificially designed to be aggressive and selfish. A planet-wide species either entirely or partly lacking the fundamental traits for peaceful cooperation. Maybe that generation would learn to adapt and change to their new natural instincts… but it’s also easy to see how they perhaps wouldn’t last long. Were a human inherent quality to lead to a rise in selfishness, and then crime, and then violence, and then warfare… the species finds itself in a hugely volatile place, given the tech and weapons at its disposal.

But still, it’s not all bad. And as much as we can speculate over the end of the world… it can also be argued that the same gene editing knowhow could be used in the future to prevent crime and to stifle conflict. If, in the future, and as a result of this latest experiment (and others like it), scientists are able to get a grip on aggressive tendencies… then that could also mean fewer fights and more cooperation between ourselves. If successfully and positively applied on a wide scale, then, a vasopressin regulator might pave the way toward a more efficient civilization… the like of which is suggested in models like the Kardashev Scale, where the collective species begins to operate as one. While there may still be something of a loss of individuality here… the human species could also rise as a more effective group, no longer held up by in-fighting or disagreements. It would all depend on exactly how gene technology is used.

With general gene editing tech in the here-and-now, when we aren’t yet at such heady (and hypothetical) heights as full social control, there are already many proposed applications that could bring major benefits. There are ideas on using it to eliminate some diseases, for example, and some mental health conditions, to allow future generations to live happier and healthier lives. Ultimately, gene editing is another step toward us better understanding life and our own bodies… and perhaps it’s the most significant step we’ll ever take. But, nevertheless, at this still early stage in its exploration, there’s almost always two sides to the argument. And the more worrying aspects so often boil down to the question of “how much control should we really have?”.

What’s your verdict on the wider implications at play here? How do you envisage the future once gene editing technology is more understood and more commonplace? With the genetic makeup of anyone and everyone potentially ready to be reshaped at will… where’s the line for what can and can’t be done? And, with this latest study in particular, exactly how much power could someone wield if they can tell their subject when to be calm, and when to forget all of that and fight?

Time will tell the direction down which society will head. The thin line between utopia and dystopia stretches out before us. But that’s how scientists may have just discovered a way to (potentially) control all human beings.