As a liberal New Yorker, I've been reading the NYT since about age 12, and intensely since age 17. As a biologist, I've always found Oliva Judson's column, "the Wild Side" to be a very pleasant read, as her facts are usually dead-on, her commentary imaginative, and her wit scintillating. I've also always browsed the comments sections for little tidbits to meditate on, and usually there isn't much beyond agreement from the scientifically inclined crowd, and the occasional fundie-troll dropping by to decry evolution as a conspiracy to destroy God, Country and Apple Pie.

In her most recent article however (http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/a-commitment-pill/?apage=2), the consternation was not originating from the usual suspects, but rather from two groups, one representing themselves as proponents of free will, while the other saw this as a matter of increasing happiness. Both of these positions I found to be a bit shallow, as in this case, I saw such a hypothetical technology as increasing happiness as well as augmenting free will.

In fact, what Olivia's was describing would be similar to having the afterglow of a honeymoon in pill form. It would be perfect for middle-aged men who felt conflicted over their flagging commitment to their wives, just like Viagra helps men with ED get over the emotional impact of reduced potency.

If the husband wished to leave his wife, then the option of divorce would certainly be open, but if he didn't want to leave her, then he would have more - and possibly more effective - options available to him then just marriage counseling.

The true danger, just as with all technology, would come from how our society would use such a pill. If we treat it as a way of enabling a person to make a choice, then I don't see a problem with such technology being developed. Of course it’s true that, if we use it to restrict the individual's ability to make choices on their own (i.e. a chemically-assisted shotgun wedding) then it would be an atrocity. But the responsibility for the atrocity will be on our own society, and not the fault of the technology.

Furthermore, arguing against such a pill because it's "unnatural compared to 95% of mammals" is innately flawed, and not just on a biological level (how many mammals domesticate other organisms?); sometimes people don't want to be restricted by their genes. If we could create a pill that cured Trisomy 21, or allowed transgender people to actually switch genders, or for people with early-onset diabetes to stop killing their own insulin-producing cells, would we decry it as wrong? If a man wishes to remain committed to his wife, to “get the spark back”, then why should anyone restrict his ability to do so?

Genetic engineering, pharmacology and biochemistry, like all of science, increases the choices available to us, and thereby can be a tool for enhancing individual freedom. The only way to make sure that we avoid the nightmare scenarios is to understand the science behind them, and thus become capable of recognizing the signs of encroaching authoritarianism before it has a chance to dominate us. Restricting the science just makes sure we can’t recognize it when it’s used by those with ambitions of control and domination.