Going from engineering a genetically modified organism to engineering a genetically modified human seems a short step(scientifically). Is it being done? Is it taboo? Will it be done? (This is as much psychology as it is genetics?) If so, then do we look to personality types?
I am not sure this will be easy to do, because the mind is more than genetics. The human mind is able to alter genetics with these science techniques; mind over matter. If someone gets cancer that messes up their bodies, until you can barely recognize them, their mind and spirit can remain the same. if they choose to fight. Genetic modified is more about superficial things, like bigger corn, below the mind. The state of the art still uses trial and error and can't even define consciousness. There is no cause and effect platform, for the current state of the art to go beyond superficial, leading to unpredictable. They can turn the screw, but don't know what is next until after the genie is out of the bottle. One possible cause and effect platform, would be to genetically alter the human limbic system so certain emotions stay on much more often. Say you could genetically alter a person, so they always feel love. This only requires the limbic system releasing a certain chemical package, most to the time. This simple change would impact child development and the mind over their entire life. When memory is created, the limbic system attaches an emotional valence. Our memory is a composite of thought and feeling. If love is always on; constant chemical blend, this will impact the memory writing process, due to this becoming part of a persistent memory valance assignment. The limbic system can also help trigger and sustain specific personality firmware, and therefore with love always, love would activate the love based firmware, more often. The result would be a unique radiant personality that sees the world through the filter of love, with nothing but good memories, even for the bad; super optimist and radiant with a love glow.
This is relevant: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/536736/crispr-patent-fight-now-a-winner-take-all-match/ earlier: http://www.technologyreview.com/fea...the-biggest-biotech-discovery-of-the-century/ One implication of the new techniques is that genetic modifications of anything would become much more predictable in certain respects, due to the great increase in precision and control of the modification - a key factor in modifying humans. It is this technology that allows the expectation of reasonable modification of humans not already seriously afflicted with disease - embryos, gametes, etc. One of the inventors of this approach, and parties to the lawsuit - the U of California scientist Jennifer Doudna (and I believe the co-researcher Emmanuelle Charpentier also) - has been actively promoting the establishment of some rules for its use, particularly in humans but also in living organisms generally. One reason for her activism is that there are currently no such specifically motivated curbs or enforced standards of safe use, and the field is quite dramatically powerful as well as being new and poorly understood. She believes that is a dangerous situation, even with her invented improvements in precision and control. That would have no influence on the modifications of crops and other such organisms, of course, all of which are already perfectly controlled and well understood in all important respects, as we have been reliably informed by experts.
I'd a high-school biology teacher, Bill Seaman, who, in 1962-3, told us exactly how the cold war would end ---with uncanny accuracy. He also had a pet theory/idea that if we could graft chloroplasts to human skin, then we could just lay out in the sun and produce our own food. Pancreatic cancer anyone?
