Could Colorblindness Cure Be Morally Wrong? 981
destinyland writes "One in 12 men suffers from colorblindness, though '[t]he good news here is that these folks are simply missing a patch of DNA ... which is just the kind of challenge this Millennium is made for. Enter science.' But NPR's Moira Gunn (from Biotech Nation) now asks a provocative question. Is it wrong to cure colorblindness? She reports on an experiment that used a virus to introduce corrective DNA into colorblind monkeys. ('It took 20 weeks, but eventually the monkeys started distinguishing between red and green.') Then she asks, could it be viewed differently? 'Are we trying to 'normalize' humans to a threshold of experience?'"
Re:WTF? Just ask the patient. (Score:1, Informative)
As someone who is red green colorblind, if someone asked me, I'd say yes. It's in part prevented me from working in a number of fields I'd be interested in. I wanted to be a pilot as a kid. I later wanted to be an electrical engineer, but I have a hard time with resistor values that are color coded, so that was out. I have a hard time with Ethernet cable pairs, lights on switches and routers, so I have a difficult time with networking courses. You tell me you can "fix" my vision, count me in.
Re:WTF? Just ask the patient. (Score:3, Informative)
I'm deaf and they are researching a similar cure for my condition. I can't wait to hear again. But what if they decided it would be wrong to change me from the way my genetic makeup made me? Or maybe the people in a third world country shouldn't be helped to advance because they would loose their heritage? In each case, the people should have the right to decide their fate. Just my opinion but interesting question.
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Qualia beast raises its head again (Score:4, Informative)
The answer is they have extra depth, actually extra spectral resolution.
Color perception is a byproduct of the retina being stimulated with a particular spectral distribution of light. Its a spectral sampling, much like how the ear samples the spectral distribution of sound, but a totally different method and with much much lower resolution.
We all see the same spectra, some people get more or less information than others. Mainly this manifests in differences in discrimination ability between colors as well as disagreement about what constitutes a "color match" between observers that are getting different information.
Debating about what this maps to in the head is mostly an exercise in mental masturbation, the brain simply integrates available information in a statistically optimal fashion.
Re:The Qualia beast raises its head again (Score:3, Informative)
No, he's talking about a philosophical matter that we will never, ever be able to know. It's a thought exercise that young children often engage in to entertain themselves, although ultimately, the answer is "mu"
Two people can agree on a color, and point to the same color by the same name, but is it internally also the same? Could someone see a world where red looks like what you see blue as? You'd call them by the same name, because you attached those names based on common experience, but does the internal "representation" have any reality?
You can't determine it experimentally any more than you can measure what someone "hears" when they read a book. And maybe even less likely than that.
He's trying to imagine what it would be like to see four colors instead of three, which is an exercise that is probably as difficult and meaningful as a monochrome-viewer to imagine two or three colors, or a flatlander to imagine a three-dimensional world. Ultimately, i'd guess "not only an extra color, but a whole extra bunch of combinations of colors with a more complex system of complementary colors." But I can only see the standard 3, so I can't really imagine it.
Of course a non-colourblind person would ask this (Score:3, Informative)
Those of us that ARE colourblind would LOVE to have it corrected. People don't realise how much of an impact it can have.
I work in IT, not because it's what I dreamt of doing as a kid, but because I wasn't allowed to be a Pilot, a Captain (my father used to drive tugboats for a living) or even a Police officer.
If you haven't experienced it first hand, then you have no right to question whether people who do experience it every single day of their lives, should be "allowed" to change it.
I want the same employment opportunities as everyone else, and I want my nephew (son of my sister) to have the same employment opportunities as everyone else too, whether he's inherited the gene or not as well.
Re:Sure why not (Score:3, Informative)
Humans can already see some ultraviolet. The only problem is that our lenses filter out the UV part of the spectrum. In WW2, however, elderly people who had had cataract surgery were used to read UV signal lights that normal people would not be able to see.
Re:WTF? Just ask the patient. (Score:5, Informative)
Temple Grandin would disagree, she is autistic and the worlds foremost expert on animal handling facilities. She is known as the woman who thinks like a cow [youtube.com] because she believes her autisim gives her insights into animal behaviour.
similarity to cochlear implants (Score:2, Informative)
Re:WTF? Just ask the patient. (Score:3, Informative)