Slashdot Mirror
Heredity and Humanity
anexilus sent in this essay by the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. He discusses genes, nature and nurture, and tries to allay fears that Gattaca will come to pass. Good reading.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The point here is that a brief look at journals like Cell, or even Nature (you can check them out in any university library) and a good sit down with the text books that they give to 2nd year biochemistry students (which start from the beginning concept wise and explain the state of the art far better than I can) will give you evidence that the situation runs more like this:
We don't know the functions and interactions of all the genes or their products, but those that we do know, we have learned a great deal about and that knowledge is growing exponentially.
It's now possible to engineer soy beans with better nutritional content, at the expense of giving them brittle stems (which requires more intensive irrigation). We may not know much more about what the other genes do, and people are working on it and the thale cress genome right now, but we do know that we need to keep it growing in a not so hot environment, and we've subjected it to more rigorous controlled trials for toxicity than most organic varieties. The genes for more nutritional content are not destiny for the plant. It can still grow up to be a broken backed little sap if you don't give it the right environment. It is a product, designed for a market and built to specifications. It just happens that the product is capable of assembling copies of itself ad infinitum.
Perhaps if we are going to modify thinking organisms to do human like things, we shouldn't do it to our kids, but create a completely different species.
or perhaps we could focus on positive aspects of genetic advantage. If you knew your kid had an propensity to express the genes for Human Growth Hormone and anabolic steroids, would your kid ever forgive you if you didn't train it as an athelete, and it didn't get it picked by talent scouts for that sports scholarship or didn't win gold at the olympics and didn't become a celebrity.
Would you be able to look it in the eye after it's wasted its life eating pizza? When it had the equipment and the tools to do so much more?
Sometimes the message in the fortune cookie is good. And sometimes a "bad" message can hold promise.
This can actually be a fairly sophisticated philosophical observation. "Egad, there's beauty in the world... something must be going on here."
Yes, that old chestnut... beauty and order is proof of the existence of God. Um, no. Why should it be? What is beauty? Beauty isn't absolute. It's a quirk of perception that instantiates an emotional response. Hardly worthy of being considered proof of any kind.
Discrimination is about perception, about facts. We have already experienced some of the injustice of eugenics, and if we are not careful, we may yet again. One infamous example:
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the Supreme Court of the United States, Buck v. Bell (1927).
"it is simple faith to assume that your senses give you an accurate picture of reality."
Ah, postmodernism. Talk about a pointless, cyclic debate.
What's the famous saying about this? "If you doubt existence of a universal truth, open up a window and step outside?"
Something like that...
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
"There's nothing postmodern about it -- Hume was one of those Dead White European Males that the postmoderns hate."
The idea was very postmodern. Postmodernists *love* the thought that physical reality might be subjective.
"Scientists make theories, which they have faith in long before enough data is available to make them plausible to the the scientific community at large. The arguments at scientific meetings are quite heated because not everyone shares the faith in the theories being discussed."
Scientists have hypotheses. This is not bad. They seek to prove, disprove or refine those hypotheses with evidence. The process is not based on faith. The process is based on observation.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
"The notion that science alone holds the secrets of our existence has become a religion of its own. The faith of Dawkins and others in biology seems even greater than the faith of the simple believer in God. Science is the proper way to understand the natural, of course; but science gives us no reason to deny that there are aspects of human identity that fall outside the sphere of nature, and hence outside the sphere of science."
While the rest of the article was first-rate, I have to wonder what the authors were thinking when writing the above. Whether they realize it or not, the authors are falling back on that classic logical fallacy that religious groups everywhere have used to argue the creation side of the creation/evolution debate: "there is no evidence for your argument, so mine must be correct."
Science is about what is observable, and to their credit, the authors admit this in the very next paragraph. But to state that a decision to believe only in the observable is tantamount to an act of "faith" is silly. Science is about observation. When you decide that something may never be observable (i.e. because it may be "supernatural"), you bias yourself beyond repair.
It isn't "faith" to believe that our behaviors are a result of complex natural phenomena--it is a refusal to place credence in that which is unobservable, and therefore undefendable. And *that* is the exact opposite of faith.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Researchers have long known that there is one extremely common genetic factor that confers at least a ten-fold increase in the propensity to exhibit criminally violent behavior. It is called the Y chromosome. No one has suggested that all those who possess this genetic marker--that is, all males--ought to be seen as lacking free will or inherently possessing criminal intent.
And while that may be the case, thank God, it still doesn't stop automotive insurance companies from charging those Y Chromosome carriers much higher auto insurance premiums--regardless to how they actually operate a motor vehicle or their previous driving history.
It's a rant I like to go on a lot...just because I feel like I'm being charged more simply because I have a penis. My insurance company doesn't know what kinda man I am...hell...I could be bordering transgenderism...but somehow the fact that I have a penis (or a Y Chromosome, and those two things can at times be mutually exclusive concepts) is enough to put me into a higher risk category.
Not to worry - _Gattica_ won't come to pass. That's comforting.
Too bad that the author forgot to discuss this with the health insurance companies. These profit-maximizing entities are already going hell bent for leather toward requiring all kinds of genetic tests, and filtering out people based on the results of those tests.
So what, you say? Haven't insurance companies always screened for, say, family history of heart disease? The answer is that although they attempted to screen, and developed some broad exclusion categories, the practical impossibility of actually tracking and classifying health information about millions of individuals meant that, in practice, individual screening did not occur.
Today, with massive collection of personal information and interconnected databases, the situation is quite different. "Mr. Jones, this is your insurance agent. Your supermarket discount card shows that you purchased two cases of beer this week. As a result your car insurance rates are going up $50. Please send payment by this afternoon or your policy will be cancelled".
And now we have genetic mapping. The author says its only one part of the picture. Great. Then why are the insurance companies so intent on preserving their right to collect and classify based on this information?
Given that in the U.S., you are either part of a group health plan, or you are pretty much doomed to die a slow death from lack of treatment, genetic screening is essentially a death sentence for many people who in the past would have been invisible in group pools.
But don't worry - this information can't be used that way.
sPh
NO NO NO. Science incurs prediction, and if the model fails the prediction that model is invalidated and we try again.
Of course, but you're ignoring the questions of 1) the validity of the prediction-making process (i.e., whether the scientific method is a truth-bearing methodology) and 2) the validity of the model.
[1] makes the obvious assumption that the universe is predictable. The problem here is that predictability is a subjective claim. It's a faith claim based on experience. What you don't get is that that's just fine.
[2] Assume you have a model that accurately predicts all phenomena. What methodology do you use to prove that this is how the universe works? Simple. You believe that the model is accurate, even though there is no way to check it.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Read my other comment along these lines in this thread. Basically, you're ignoring your faith in the scientific method, your faith in logic, and your faith in the actual predictability of the cosmos.
Few people think faith has no experiential basis. These faiths of science are gounded in experience and seem pretty acceptable to most people. Why can't you accept them as they are?
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
But see that's the deal. You are engaging in induction when you say the circumstantial evidence is enough justification for the truth of the scientific method. You are engaging in faith, which was my whole point. Thank you for proving it.
You will find more about results-based faith in the writings of William James. He dubs it "Pragmatism." James is a wacko and you will learn the logical consequences of subordinating truth to usefulness.
If the scientific method cannot produce truth, why use it? Can you even call it "scientific" (considering the Latin "scio" for "I know")? I'm interested in the truth, not whiz-bang technology under which you seem too willing to submit science.
Furthermore, and to the point, as you are engaged in an inductive philosophical project about the scientific method, you are engaged in just as irrational a process as any other being attempting to make heads or tails of phenomena. Your process is no more rational, no more deductive, and no more objective than theirs. Concluding that these folks' beliefs are less rational than yours is not only false, but worse it is vitriolic ad hominem.
I suggest that you stop and accept that your preferences are a matter of aesthetics.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Solipsism there is only if you accept Nietsche's critique as final. Personally, I don't; I think science is great. I tend to consider myself more of a Thomist, along Alisdair MacIntyre lines. My beef is with people who assert that a belief is irrational when what they should have said was that the belief was unscientific.
It may, and probably always will, be unscientific to believe in a god, or magic, or somesuch. But such beliefs cannot be called irrational solely because they lie outside of the domain of scientific inquiry.
My favorite quote from MST3K's Cave Dwellers:
Really Dull Old Guy in movie: "Science is only one path, one of many."
Crow: "There's also fan dancing! Woo!"
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
If dominant and recessive genes really were so binary in nature (D | R = D, R | R = R, D | D = D, etc) then unless there was more imbreeding going on, all recessive genes would've eventually gone away and we would all be the same.
That is not correct. Even under such a simple model, recessive traits do not go away, at least in an effectively randomly breeding population. Look up "Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium" in any genetics textbook for a simple mathematical reason why this is so.
You are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "faith".
Faith is belief without evidence. See also the definition of the word "irrational."
It is not faith to believe in the scientific method or logic. In fact, I can point to 10,000 years of scientific progress, and in particular, the last 500 years or so, as evidence that the scientific method works. All of this knowlege and technology that we have is a direct result of the scientific method.
So, one need not have faith to believe in the scientific method. There is overwhelming evidence that it works.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Who said that it is *true*? Nothing can ever 100% prove truth, unless you're in a purely logical setting such as mathematics.
But that matters little. The scientific method is a practical method, and the results are what counts. We don't have anything that's better, so we use the best we do have.
Progress a flimsy term? Hardly. 200 years ago nobody could send spacecraft out of the solar system or decode the human genome. Now we can. Simple idea, glad to help you out with it.
100% truth of the usefulness of the scientific method can never be proven. However, the immense amount of evidence that it works is enough for me. You seem to be caught in the trap of the fallacy of induction. Let me just give you two things: First, you need to be practical - go with what works. Too much idealism can really bog you down in the details. Second, forget about absolute truth. There is no such thing in the real world. Instead, find a way to approximate absolute truth as closely as posible. Get my point?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I will stop if you will likewise understand that at the end of your road lies solipcism, which is way less useful than the scientific method.
Absolute truth does not exist. I suggest that it might be you who is influenced by aesthetics in your search for it. When you need water, you don't need the Holy Grail if a paper cup will suffice.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
There are several major diseases: cystic fibrosis,
tay sachs, huntingtons, AIDS- where the gene(s)
have been exactly known for at least five years,
but are no where near a cure. Its not that simple.
Ah, but true science only concerns itself with aspects of reality that can be measured...
the true scientific response to
"It's something you can't measure" may be "Well I don't care about it then" or "Well let me find a way to measure it"; but it can never be "Well then it doesn't exist"
Almost all the points in the essay are good. However, my over-riding thought remains: So. What.?
Most of the points deal with how our understanding is limited, how genes don't fully determine out heritage, etc.
That will not stop insurance companies!
I understood most of the scientific truths before this, and I think most of the other Slashdot readers do as well, but none of this reflects the reality of what is and will continue to be the political/economic reality in this country and around the world: namely, that those who benefit by the ability to either:
- Use genes as a scapegoat to increase profitability.
- Use genes as a scapegoat for enacting laws that benefit their budget/worldview/buzzword-of-the-week
- Who knows what else.
will continue to bend and distort these truths to their own ends.Sure, maybe arguments like these will become more common knowledge, and thus aid in the fight against those who practice these discriminations, but you all must see the way that people are willing to give up their responsibility to be informed, especially in matters deemed scientific.
I guess I just have no faith that this essay isn't orthogonal to the world we live in.
I think you'd probably think rather differently, if you were born naturally and didn't get lucky in the genetic stakes...
;) )
That was the whole point of the film - those whose parents couldn't or wouldn't pay for them to be engineered to be "perfect" were instantly part of a genetic underclass. Discriminated against, unable to secure any but the most menial of jobs, etc.
Yeah, it's an extreme view of a possible outcome of genetic engineering, but how you can possibly ask if it's "such a bad thing" escapes me.
Anyway, the real dangers of genetically engineering the human race aren't ending up living in a Gattaca-like world. They're loss of genetic diversity leading to susceptability to some new "super plague" that comes out of nowhere and catches us by surprise, and the unforeseen consequences of the offspring of people with an "unfortunate" combination of genotypes.
In fact, for the really, really paranoid types in the audience, how's this for a possible scenario: one country covertly genetically engineering their population, or an elite subsection of it, to be resistent to a "super-bug" designed to decimate the rest of the world? It would solve all sorts of crises in one fell swoop - over population, risk of imminent nuclear destruction, rendering of the world uninhabitable due to pollution, etc. Could be quite tempting to a suitably unhinged leader with the technology at his or her fingertips.
Alternatively, the same leader could just have a similar bug engineered to exploit some property of the "dominant" genotype of their least favourite country. With everyone who can afford it engineering themselves and their children towards a common idea of perfection, such a bug could be absolutely devastating.
I'm not saying that either of these are likely, or reason not to research genetic engineering, just providing food for thought. (Not to mention providing the truly paranoid with another reason for sleepless nights
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
And that's even before we move beyond our current capabilities! Just by eliminating flaws like disease and infirmity, we increase our race's fitness massively, making our children better equipped to deal with a world that changes faster and faster each year. And as we move away from the Earth and into new environments, genetic engineering will allow us to adapt ourselves to fit those environments, meaning the human race can thrive for ever...
That's all fine and well, and I believe that noone disputes that genetic engineering has loads of positive prospects......however it's not the core of the debate, really.
If engaging in genetic engineering pratices, there will be a hard - if not impossible - task in seperating rational desires for improvement from "religious" (in lack of a better term) desires. Would it, for example, be an improvement or not if it was possible to genetically engineer such that homosexuality was to disappear? How 'bout left-handedness? Or bad taste in music
My point is, that while I am not against genetic engineering as such, I find it hard myself to figure out where to draw the line between objective "improvements" and just "adjustments according to my personal taste" (or religion or some such). Much more would I be reluctant - if not directly opposing - to trusting someone else (the genetics, the governments or something) to draw that line.
-- "Life is a bitch - and she hates me..."
So it's like the pea plants. A purple flower is nothing a big can of white spray paint can't cure.
As long as you've got paint (or no phenylalanine in your diet), you're ok..
...hear the Java program that interpret DNA sequence into music ?
{{.sig}}
Politicians exist to get re-elected.
If you have a high proportion of fundies in your district, and those fundies fear genetic engineering because they believe it's against God's will, then you (as a politician) are obliged (on pain of not getting re-elected) to take up the cause.
Same thing as "It's for the chilllldrun". It's a rhetorical device used to get votes. You think the politicians give a shit about the damage their laws do, so long as they get re-elected? ;)
Personally, I'd like to see a system whereby posession of a law degree precludes one from sitting on a committee responsible for making decisions about technology. Better yet, an amendment where a B.Sc. or P.Eng is a requirement sitting on such a committee.
The real problem with democracy as it exists today is that the people making the decisions have no fscking clue what they're legislating. They are forced - by virtue of their cluelessness - to rely on their advisors. The advisors are similarly clueless, and rely on the only source of information available to them, namely the stuff that's spoon-fed them by the lobbyists.
> religious angles of genetic research
Religious story for you: When I attended church regularly, we had a pastor who held a Ph.D. in philosophy. The best sermon he ever delivered was the one where he stood up in front of the 1000-odd people in his congregation and started a speech on evolution with "I'm not going to attempt to scientifically prove the existence of God. It can't be done." I was flabbergasted -- the guy was being honest about it.
The next 40 minutes was basically the Douglas Adams argument: Proof denies faith, and without faith, God is nothing.
He urged the crowd to stop trying to "prove" creationism and "disprove" evolution. Not only are the observed facts not on your side (Why would a benevolent God endow us with the capacity for wonder and reason, and then load the tar pits with "fake" dino bones, the universe with "fake" redshifts, etc etc, so that when we use these gifts, we come to the wrong conclusions? Do these people believe God is some kind of psychopath?)... but even if someone were to "prove" God existed, it would make faith worthless, and thereby defeat the purpose.
Of course, when he delivered the sermon, he backed up most of the argument with scripture. The best part was towards the end, when I saw many heads nodding -- even the heads of the stereotypical "little old ladies with blue hair".
Props to him. He had clue. Wish more of 'em did.
> I'm a scientist and not at all religious, but I can recognize that quite a lot of faith goes on in science, just like any other field.
There's a huge difference though - hypotheses in science, initially taken on faith, CAN BE TESTED AND DISPROVED.
Not true of religious beliefs supported by faith - they can never be tested.
Which doesn't invalidate them, of course. It just makes them something different that scientific beliefs.
All opinions expressed herein are not my own; I haven't had free will since last year when aliens ate my brain.
I dont think that we will ever have the world see eye to eye on this kind of thing. You will always have the scientists that see it as new areas to learn about but you will also have the church going public that think that the scientists are playing god ane making them have to think twice about the validity of there beliefs in religion. And then there will also be the rest of the population (most of us) that will side one way or another and a few that will not care at all.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?"
One of thing I got out of this very interresting essay was that unless a journalist can spin something to make it melodramatic, or somehow get a pithy catch phrase out of it, they are just not interested. They won't take the time to do the job properly. Are they afraid of their readership/viewers moving on? I think they should give the public more credit and take the time to do a proper writeup of these complex issues. This isn't limited to genetics, you can see this problem in many areas of science and engineering. After all how many people are out there looking for well written and researched information? And how do you tell when you've been "snookered" by a journalistic hack on a subject you are interested, in but have no formal education or training?
Processes, such as deduction and induction, of course. You don't need to see anybody step in front of a truck to realize that it's harmful, if you have some basic ideas about the mass of such vehicles and the general effects of collision.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Journalists can write to a non-technical audience -- that's fine.
But it's unclear to me that they should constantly exaggerate benefits and dangers to the point that science is shown as some bizarre melodrama. Just about every article that shows a touch of progress on cancer treatment is blown up into a "potential cure", while far-out dangers are also maximized when described on paper, or even more so, television. And they *rarely* if ever seem to bother doing any independent verification, such as checking second opinions.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Right. We'd still be mucking about with spontaneous generation theory, treating diseases via bleeding people, heating our huts and caves with campfires...
For those who don't like to do something unless they're certain: Don't eat or drink anything until you can prove that it is perfectly safe. Hint: it's never been done before, and is impossible to do so under the standards that you're proposing. The rest of us can move on once you're gone.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
it is simple faith to assume that your senses give you an accurate picture of reality. The philosopher Hume (regarded as the father of modern atheism, btw) made that point in
NO NO NO. Science incurs prediction, and if the model fails the prediction that model is invalidated and we try again. If you think your senses are wrong, come up with a way to test it. If you can accurately predict your senses are fooling you, science will accommodate it (optical illusions, holograms, interference patterns). It does not require any sort of faith at all. If science uses faith at any step of the way, it is "bad" science.
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
[1] makes the obvious assumption that the universe is predictable. The problem here is that predictability is a subjective claim. It's a faith claim based on experience. What you don't get is that that's just fine.
No, science predicts that some things (ie some aspects of quantum physics) are unpredictable.
[2] Assume you have a model that accurately predicts all phenomena. What methodology do you use to prove that this is how the universe works? Simple. You believe that the model is accurate, even though there is no way to check it.
Of course not, that's the whole point. I don't know that gravity exists, I know that gravity is the best model for predicting the attraction of very large objects. The model of "gravity" is useful in my life and as a predictive tool. Thus gravity may not exist at all (it might be gremlins dragging us all down to the surface at 9.8 m/s/s) but it still has value and is better at predictions than "faith" or complete uncertainty. Now I have heard that the gravity model breaks down in some extreme cases, so a better model may have to be drawn up. That's the TRUE benefit to science... it is malleable to adapt to new evidence, unlike faith.
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
Straw man, as that's not what the author meant.
Excuse me? The article stated that: "faith of Dawkins and others in biology seems even greater than the faith of the simple believer in God. " But Dawkins rightfully rejects the idea of his ideology as faith.
It's not a straw man, its a direct response to "what the author meant". The author "meant" that Dawkins had faith in Biology, and Dawkins had addressed this earlier and points out the obvious differences between faith and scientific beliefs.
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
You have it backwards because I was being so terse. The quoted response of dawkins (and it does appear to be a response here) where he accuses some of cultural relativism.
/. masses. 'Twas not my intention. Perhaps I posted too eagerly after just finishing a Dawkins book that dealt with the exact issues he was criticized for in the article. It's a good read: "River out of Eden"... fairly simple stuff, but a good primer on genetic natural selection.
Maybe I was too generous providing context around the Dawkins quote. My on-topic point was the bit about faith and science in the last two paragraphs. If you read my original post as me setting up the article as supporting cultural relativism you are right, that would be a good definition of a straw man logical fallacy (I did take a semester of logical reasoning after all). Apologies for that.
What I was trying to do was to provide some context to the quote from the last two paragraphs, as they would not make much sense without the first. I read the cultural relativsm bit as an example of faith-based reasoning, separate from the conclusion paragraph. The structure of the argument is:
1) tribal science (faiths) are not evidence based.
2) western science (real science) is supported by evidence and has predictive qualities
3) western science has more value becase "they get results"
(The cultural relativist anecdote is just context for the science vs faith bit, but the confusion arises from the parts that I cut out, which deal with tribal origin myths, which I figured as too off-topic for the post.)
I am sorry if I mislead the
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
The notion that science alone holds all the secrets of our existence has become a religion of its own. The faith of Dawkins and others in biology seems even greater than the faith of the simple believer in God.
From Richard Dawkins' book: River out of Eden, pp.31-33
There is a fashionable salon philosophy called cultural relativism which hold, in its extreme forms, that science has no more claim to truth than tribal myth: science is just hte mythology favored by our modern western tribe. I once was provoked by an anthropologist colleague into putting the point starkly, as follows: suppose there is a tribe, I said, who believe that the moon is an oldl calabash tossed into the sky, hanging only just out of reach above the reetops. Do you really claim that our scientific truth--that the moon is about a quarter of a million miles away and a quarter the diameter of the earth--is no more true than the tribe's calabash? "Yes," the anthropologist said. "We are just brought up in a culture that sees the world in a scientific way. The are brought up to see the world in a nother way. Neither way is more true than the other." [...]
Western science, acting on good evidence that moon orbits the earth a quarter of a millions miles away, using western-designed computers and rockets, has succeeded in placing people on its surface. Tribal science, believing that the moon is just above the treetops, will never touch it outside of dreams. [...]
Science shares with religion the clain that it answers deep questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos. But there is where the resemblece ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not.
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
OK, so the human genome has been mapped, big deal
A minor nitpick on this. The genome has been mapped, but what's really happened is that it's been sequenced. Mapping a genome is a far older technique created by Thomas Hunt Morgan with his work on Drosophila (his undergrad whose name escapes me had the big insight on ordering the genes). Mapping just places genes at relative distances from each other. This is done by classical techniques such as breeding and linkage analysis.
Sequencing is actually getting the nucleotides (letters) on the DNA strand. It's done by taking the DNA itself and running it through what's known as the Sanger or Dideoxide method. It's those (often brightly colored) bands you see on TV whenever they talk about the genome project. This is a much more modern and fruitful endeavor than mapping a gene, because with the sequence you can start to do some actual analysis as to what the gene does. Sequencing also allows you to find genes that you didn't know were there in the first place. Because the whole genome is essentially sequenced, it's mapped as well, but a genetic sequence is a lot more important than a genetic map.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
The others might rain fire, but I think Zeus would do something wacky like turn into a turnip and have sex with your wife.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Not specifically trying to flame you, but I certainly would hope so; otherwise I would be forced to make the bald statement that you are obviously a crappy IT person..
/.) believe that since there is "only a chance in a million that something goes wrong", are willing to roll the dice for everyone..
Look at this realisticly - anyone who had ever written/tested/maintained a complex system knows just how difficult they are to "debug". Much worse is that a faulty element in a system usually ends up breaking something downstream, rather than the element itself. On top of that it is fairly well accepted that the more complex a system the more delicate the balance between it's components. Most of the crowd in this forum are the elite of the IT business - and I bet they would agree that there are interactions in their own work that occur for which they have no explanations. No explanations other than that the fault lies outside of their immediate area of responsibility; can anyone say *object oriented*?
Now if we can't with absolute certainty guarantee how a piece of software will behave under all conditions, why are we so willing to chance the same with DNA when we aren't even the "authors of the code"?
Am I phobic about genegeneering, do I want it banned? No definately not. That is definately the future humanity must pursue for reasons stated over and over here and elsewhere. My issue is with the people who (as quoted from another thread here on
At the end of the day as long as you don't have to take the genetic tests I don't see a problem. You can keep paying the higher rate because of your family history or you could take the tests and hope they come out negative. On average people would be better off taking the tests (insurance companies can provide cheaper insurance if there is less uncertainty).
I'm normally so careful to preview too...
Having said that, I strongly believe that I'm who I am because of my experiences, but perhaps that's just my genes making me think that way...
I'm pretty much certain that this will happen. here in the UK the government has already changed the relevant laws to make it possible
On the other hand, i suspect that it's actually a short-term problem caused by the paucity of knowledge in the field. Basically, at the moment, we know about a number of genetic characteristics which seem to manifest as risk-associated characteristics in the phenotype, and insurance companies and the like are able to pick up these characteristics and treat them as risky,and thus expensive to cover.
But as time goes by and we discover a borader range of these characteristics, it seems to me that we could well reach a situation where everyone has some sort of 'risky' characteristic, or, as the research goes further, some particularly 'risky' combination of characteristics. At which point it would cease to be worth the insurers' effort to factor these issues into the price, as most people's 'risks' would tend to balance out.
None of which makes it particularly moral in the short term, of course. But I wonder whether a lot of the problem at the moment is naive opportunism, in which case the opportunity will pass.
TomV
It can be a bad thing by reducing diversity.
As a species, going by the evidence of the early genome sequences to date, we appear to be a remarkable monoculture. The phrase used in the popular press goes along the lines of 'there is more genetic difference between two chimpanzee siblings than between any pair of humans.'
This, in itself represents a risky position - diversity within a species allows the species (not individuals) to survive as the environment changes.
Consider the Sickle-Cell anaemia example cited in the article. The gene survives at least partly because although it's a killer in a lot of places, in places where malaria is a major cause of death, the AS phenotype of the sickle-cell variation allows enough individuals to reach breeding age without dying from malaria to preserve the variation, and the species (they still get the disease, they're just more likely to survive it).
So what's worrying about diving into GE the moment we know it's even possible is that we could merrily, and with entirely well-meant motives, eliminate something which could be the salvation of our species when faced with some at-present unanticipated risk when it faces us at some unspecified point in the future. It's easy to eliminate a known gene, but a lot harder to design and implement a brand new one to meet a new hazard.
And with the particularly low diversity in our species, our differences are especially precious.
TomV
Sure, we need to be careful, but we shouldn't lose out on an opportunity because there's a one in a million chance something will go wrong. After all, what are the odds of that happening?
Everyone knows that million-to-one chances happen nine times out of ten. :-)
My point being: real scientists need to jump in and help these poor folks because they really could use the help.I mean who's never heard the argument that goes something like "I know God exists 'cuz flowers are purty"?
Unfortunately, that's exactly the argument used by this author: "God must exist because humans are purtier than slugs." Every time I see this argument, I am blown away by the arrogance of it. Man exists, therefore God must. Surely Jehovah, or Allah, or Shiva, or Zeus or Odin would rain fire on any human haughty enough to make God's existence contingent on his own.
Ok here goes my attempt to resolve the nature v. nurture debate. 1) Think of Nurture (environment) as a bullet through your brain. 2) Think of yourself (Nature) as being a Pea Plant instead of a human being (assuming you are one). Either case means that you don't go to Harvard, get married or act nice to your dog. Neither circumstance is more important than the other. If you don't have the right genes, you are not a human, if your environment can't support life, you are dead.
real scientists need to jump in and help these poor folks
But you know: If one can proove the existance of God, then this is the final proof that God does not exist. (see D.Adams. THGTTG)
... and I couldn't figure out how such strict rules about dominant and recessive genes could produce the variety of species we have. If dominant and recessive genes really were so binary in nature (D | R = D, R | R = R, D | D = D, etc) then unless there was more imbreeding going on, all recessive genes would've eventually gone away and we would all be the same.
The dominant/recessive model is only the simplest example of interactions between genes. Mendel was actually rather lucky/selective in finding a number of properties of peas that follow this model. In general, properties of organisms are determined by interactions between many different genes, each possessing any number of variants.
For example, it was announced that there was a 98% similarity between chimpanzee DNA and human DNA. So one preacherman made the point that a watermellon is 98% water and a cloud was 100% water and that proved the scientists wrong.
Then he went on to point out that cars have evolved and changed over the years, but it was because there were people behind the change...cars don't evolve by themselves, so, therefore, neither do animals.
My point being: real scientists need to jump in and help these poor folks because they really could use the help.I mean who's never heard the argument that goes something like "I know God exists 'cuz flowers are purty"?
And how to you intend to ensure that the benefits are spread equally to all?
Don't get me wrong, you essentially have a very nice idea. Sounds rather like communism, in fact, except that it doesn't deal with money or resources. Too bad communism didn't work out...
Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet that human nature would treat genetic superiority as another form of currency. Once a few people got their hands on it, they might not want to share it with those that were "lesser" than them.
Because "better" is not an absolute concept. What we feel is better now might not be considered this way in several years time. Should we engineer out homosexuality. Should we engineer our black skin.
You wish to eliminate disease and infirmity? At what cost though. Who is diseased and who is infirm. Even this is not obvious.
Genetic engineering also have a large risks associated with it. Any organism is enormously complex. You change one thing and it impacts on thousands of others. Its very hard to change things for the better without impacting on others. I am short sighted. Wearing glasses is a simple solution and has few side effects. Old simple technology is something the best way forward.
I have no problem with genetic engineering. Indeed I have worked with and produced genetically engineered organisms. If we are too use such organisms we need to go slowly, introduce them incrementally and carefully. And if we are to use these techniques on humans we need to be more careful still. The maxim should be "if you can do no good, then do no harm". Instead what I see is a headlong rush to reduce the time to market, I see short terms financial concerns instead of long term safety. Its not only sad and pathetic, its dangerous.
Phil
It is for this reason that I think of DNA as merely being a blueprint. Just like the blueprint to a house, you can view it and see how it is supposed to be, but the houses environment plays a large role in how it turns out (method used to prevent water from coming in the basement, type of roofing used, etc.).
And just like a house, a blueprint doesn't give you an idea of what your home will be like. There's neighbours to take into account, internal and ever-changing style, the inhabitants and events/memories... and location location location *tongue in cheek*
not sure how all of those translate to people, but hey, I took the analogy and ran with it...
Why is there this huge phobia about genetically engineering the human race? What is so wrong about seeking to be better than you are?
;)
When people talk about humanity, the natural negative traits are often overlooked. Genetic engineering has great potential, for good and bad for the human race as a whole.
After all, we go to school in order to become better than we were - to expand our horizons, to be able to accomplish and learn new things. Through life we're taught that it's good to seek to better yourself, to always strive towards a higher goal. Hell, it's the American Dream!
Bettering ourselves is not a bad thing, but we should also keep our eyes open, vigilant for abuse of new techniques.
By not engaging in it, we're cheating both ourselves and our children, depriving them of a brighter future.
A brighter future is a good thing, but there's also greater potential for parents trying to live out their own dreams through their children.
as long as the benefits are spread to all, then genetic engineering holds the promise of a freedom from the myriad of inherited diseases that kill or cripple millions each year.
Very much so... it would be very nice to see the last of terminal illnesses like Cystic Fibrosis
the human race can thrive for ever...
I'm not diagreeing with you on this, but we should put some thought into why we want ourselves as a species to thrive forever... do we really add something special to the universe?
not trying to be a wet blanket, just pointing out the flipside
trying to stifle progress is a bad thing, but when we are messing with people's lives (be it via genetics or laws or our actions), we should take the time to think of why we want to do these things, possible repurcussions and of what things we'd like to prevent and/or be prepared for
DNA is not merely a blueprint.
Unless you're going to tell me that binary machine language is just a blueprint?
Executables in the right platform are instructions.
It's just that DNA become a set of instructions executed by the human machine inside the womb.
Your high school education is insufficient. It is a blueprint, yes. The DNA forms the blueprint for protiens, which then go off and do stuff. However that just means they are about as close to blueprints as a stream of Java byte codes are blueprints for a program ^^;
As per the recessiveness... if you work out your logic, then a recessive gene exists in 25% of the population, inactive. Because it never expresses itself, it doesn't get weeded out or promoted. In true random fashion, it never, ever, goes away.
Only dominant genes that have negative survival value get removed from the pool. Dominant genes *always* express themselves, and if they always reduce the chance for survival, then they will statistically over time get removed.
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
It doesn't bother me personally that there are laws against it. If nothing else, the scientific community would effectively police its own. What bothers me is that the law is, as I said, being made by people who don't even understand the science they are regulating. I'm not demanding that our lawmakers be geneticists, but something other then lawyers would be nice for a change. Actually, something other then idiots would be nice for a change, but that's a different rant.
What gets me is how many politicians are swayed by the religious angles of genetic research and still insist that there is a seperation of church and state. (Right up there with one of the S.C. State Congressmen arguing that tattooing should remain illegal in S.C. because the Bible says so.)
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
One thing that bothered me about Gattaca-style testing... let's say you give a blood sample. Fine and dandy. What if, however, there are a few cancerous or mutated cells in there, say just enough to throw off a genetic test? Sure, it might warn you that you need to take your anti-cancer pill, or cut down on the hard radiation in the workplace, but wouldn't this also reduce the number of people available for the "high profile" jobs in the Dystopian Utopia that is 'Gattaca'?
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I would, but that would be redundant. Okay, define learning as something other then memories of facts and processed data? You can't. You don't learn that you shouldn't touch hot stove elements until you observe the deletorious effects. (In my case, it was watching someone else burn themselves accidentally that made me never want to touch a hot stove element.) You learn to read by association of letters with sounds and you learn what the words mean by association of the words themselves with pictures or ideas.
What else is there? (Yes, I know, I'm leaving myself open for all kinds of things about racial memory and scores of other ideas, but this is also known as trying to foster discussion. BTW, I don't believe in racial memory...)
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Good point. Evolution can be grossly defined as an organism's changes in response to its' environment (presuming that the environmental changes are are not so relatively drastic to cause the immediate death of the organism).
Humans, by and large, currently alter much of our environment to suit us. Too hot? Air conditioning. Too cold? Central heating. We can install air and water filters to insure purity, and we can add vitamins to our diet to insure proper nutrition. We aren't evolving any more.
Of course, given that you usually can't see evolutionary changes in less then a couple dozen lifetimes of the organism in question...
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Does the fact that the human genome is mapped mean that the geneticists automatically know what everything does? Clearly not... I can look at a map and not know where everything is, because I can't focus on the entire map. And a lot of the map and the results are still being debated over.
Because there isn't enough genetic matter (or combinations of DNA sequences) to map all human characteristics, it must mean that there is some genetic "Dark Matter" equivalent. Or, well, I forget the term, but there is a part of the DNA sequence in humans that doesn't seem to do anything. Might be that once you get past a certain stage in embryo development, parts of the genetic code aren't needed any more. How often does the human genetic code need to be "told" that a human is supposed to have five fingers on each hand, or two eyes? Or that your eye colour is blue (or brown, green, whatever?)
As for insurance companies, it all depends. If gene therapy becomes widespread, insurance companies will probably end up covering a variety of procedures, but only once it is an "accepted medical treatment". I could just as easily see them raising life insurance rates on someone who could have a genetic ailment cured but refuses to do so, thereby increasing the likelyhood of injury or ailment.
*shrug*
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Journalists have to write to that level as most, if not all of their readers don't understand the science behind the article. I mean, I consider myself a fairly smart person, and 99% of Scientific American is above my head. Similarly, I can't debug most programs worth a darn, fix cars beyond an oil change, or cook very well. I also only have a layman's understanding of genetics (hah! I did get back on topic!). Therefore, reading an article where the average word has 12 syllables is only going to confuse me.
But if it is put in terms that I do understand, I can eventually, if I am interested enough, build on it by reading other articles.
What should bother you more is that the laws concerning genetics research are made by people who not only don't understand it, but oftentimes refuse to try and understand it.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Yeah, but people aren't being denied any but the most menial jobs because they aren't "perfect". Gattaca had anyone who wasn't in prime physical and mental condition being relegated to either janitor status or being pretty much cast out of society. We're not there... yet.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
1) Because we don't know what we're doing yet. Tamper not with forces you don't understand.
2) We don't even understand the map fully yet. Yeah, that little bit of genetic code that could get rid of Type 2 diabetes in 8.3% of the people suffering from it could also increase their chances of developing some form of cancer. If you can't understand the instructions, don't mess with the recipe.
3) Education and genetic engineering are far different then you pre-suppose. Education is really nothing more then memorization of existing facts. You "learn" that 2+2=4. You "learn" what verbs are. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, is changing the basic building blocks of life to suit a "whim". A whim not to have diabetes, or to have green eyes, or whatever.
Now, I'm not a neo-Luddite. If there were a safe way to genetic engineer things so I didn't need glasses, didn't have asthma, and didn't stand a decent chance of getting some sort of cancer within the next 25 years, I'd go for it. But at this point in the game, not even the people who actually what the hell they are talking about are ready to take that step. AFAIK, they're still in the 'experiment on white mice' stage. Look at the sheep clones, for one example. The clone is genetically as old as the original, and right now they can't fix that. Do you really want anyone playing with human genetics at this stage where we still don't undertand it?
Yes, I realize that everyone, to some extent, practices their own genetic manipulations in the dating/marriage scene. But it's one thing to marry that cute redhead so your kids can have red hair. It's another thing entirely to try and alter DNA without knowing for absolute certain what will happen.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
If you've read Darwin's Radio, you know that the DNA sequence that"doesn't seem to do anything" codes for the SHIVA virus. Duh.
-- Hobbits suck!
But what combination of factors causes a child in one strict, oppressive household to become a high-school dropout, while a child in another becomes a focused overachieving genius? If you want to raise the latter, what help does science offer? There may be no way to even measure the subtleties that nudge a child one way or the other, let alone use those measurements to provide any meaningful guidance to prospective parents.
In short, nowadays most scientists agree on the fact that the world is not deterministic but chaotic, which means that even with the smallest error delta in two measurements at instant t, at instant t + x, you may end up with two completely different measurements, and that applies fully to genes and their expression. Chaos is a very comfortable place for God to hide if you measure God by the difference between universal knowledge and scientific knowledge.
É que os desafinados também têm um coração
...if much of Gattaca has already come to pass?
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Have you actually seen Gattaca?
By not engaging in genetic engineering, we deprive our children of a brighter future? Like in that movie you mentioned?
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Hmmm. You might read more /. Here are some of the stories over the past few months:
Companies lay claim to your DNA
UK DNA database now tracks innocent people
Railroad company violates civil rights in genetic tests
British citizens denied coverage based on unapproved genetic screening
British government allows genetic screening
You see, when it comes to Gattaca, you are right that "we're not there... yet." But I only said that much of Gattaca is already happening. With the British government allowing insurers to deny coverage based on genetics, it is only a very few small steps away from having an underclass that can't get health insurance, while genetically lucky (and soon, engineered) people form a privileged class. In my eyes, Gattaca is already happening.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
I don't know about this guy.. gene therapy IS big and WILL have massive impacts on humanity in the years to come. Just because we haven't nailed down how everything works doesn't mean it won't happen. Gene therapy may not prevent cancer, but helping to stop it is big enough news for me to get excited about it. Just my $.02
I agree that gene therapy, germ-line genetic editing, and even the oft-maligned eugenics have great possibilities-- but they also have great risks. The phobia, even near hysteria, generated in the public about these technologies is likely due to journalists' and authors' over-dramatization of these risks. I think we shouldn't categorically rule them out, but rather explore carefully, and have respect for the risks.
What risks lurk in germ-line control? If genomes become too homogeneous, that leaves the whole population vulnerable to, say, that one new virus mutation that exploits a "security hole" in the now common genetic code. If some unforeseen bug in a custom gene, or its unexpected interaction with some other gene variant, causes major problems 20, 40, or more years into someone's life, how can we reasonably assign risk assumption, liability, or even just cost of resulting medical care? In essence, we'd be borrowing the problems of software engineering, compounded by working in a system that's haphazardly constructed and mind-bogglingly complex, with no documentation and only binaries to study!
Eugenics are not inherently evil-- for example, a number of states have premarital genetic screening to warn potential parents of the risks they face if one or both of them carry a deleterious or seriously maladaptive recessive (hemophilia A[carried on X, so not recessive in XY or XYY case], Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia, etc.) the couple may choose to adopt, or to combine one partner's genes with a known good set taken from a gamete bank. Alternatively, if they decide to roll the dice on their own genes, amniocentesis can identify when these variants combine, and may lead parents to abort rather than allow a lifetime of suffering. Misguided application of eugenics, however, can certainly be evil, as can misguided application of other technologies-- the potential for evil is obvious in weapons of mass destruction, but what about remote sensing, psychology, and mass media being used for surreptitious surveillance, spin doctoring, and manufactured culture?
In short, there is immense power in genetic engineering, whether by genetic editing or eugenic breeding, and that power can be used for good or ill. Whatever we do, though, we need to do with both eyes open.
...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
Uses arguments like "Yet it can be effectively cured with a one hundred percent environmental intervention" and "So sickle-cell anemia, widely considered to be the classic single-gene Mendelian disease, is not so clear-cut after all" to support the claim that there are few "Mendelian" genes. Yet in both cases his examples are 100% mendelian. He's clouding the issue by introducing irrelevant facts. Just because you don't exhibit symptoms doesn't mean you're cured. Just because other genes might reduce the effects of sickle-cell anemia doesn't mean you don't have it.
It makes it difficult to trust the rest of his argument.
The human genome is an imense piece of work. There is a huge amount of data available and each gene requires a huge amount of time to find and verify. The plant genome, Arabidopsis thaliana, was completed late 2000 and still 80% of the 25,000 genes are unproven, they may look right to the bioinformaticians and gene modellers, but real laboratory scientists are needed to verify that this really is the right gene. This takes at least 3 years of postgrad work, to characterise the gene, and a possible function. This is even before you start trying to characterise a mutation. A mutation might be a small change in the sequence, a substitution of one of the bases in the DNA which produces a very subtly different protein. Alternatively the mutation may occur in other sequences close to the gene that will cause the gene to behave differently, very subtle changes in the promoter and enhancer elements. These may take many man months or years to identify. These changes are gross and ugly within the maze of complex interactions that are cells. One very small change in an upstream element may mean that two molecules do not interact at quite the right time following exposure to a certain toxic chemical. This means that another protein isn't activated which doesn't induce a phosphorylation cascade that interacts with another pathway and causes a major response. Things are too complicated at the moment for anyone to understand. Mendelian genetics is within the grasp of everyone, mutant genes make mutant proteins and things either happen or not. What the scientists can't work on, except in a few rare cases, is where proteins interact in complex manners and where a large number of proteins complex together. How does a tiny genetic change affect anything... can this be traced. Which proteins are affected. If there are ~60,000 proteins in the soup we affectionately call our cells how can the exact pattern of changes be followed? Computers can solve some of these questions - who has the most powerful computers in the world? To really answer these questions many millions of man hours will be needed to characterise each pathway and interaction in detail. Scientists are trying this in yeast, a very simple cell, and the amount of background junk that is always present because naturally certain surfaces will always bind - makes the whole subject rather difficult and complicated. Single genes in breast cancer, colour blindness and other "simple" diseases will be characterised, and the affected people will be treated, cured, or otherwise helped (this is why pharma is interested). Complicated cancers, emotional states and orientations, attitudes, and polygenic traits will remain a very difficult problem for many many years. Add to this the subtleties and nuances of small changes in the regulation of a single protein and the whole picture becomes very complicated, and in my opinion can never be solved completely. There are too many variables in the environment for all possible stimuli and variables within the cell to be understood... I fear the abuse of our sequences by insurance companies, who will tax us for what may be incorrectly described, published and understood. I fear the abuse of our sequences by companies who patent the genes, and patent the cures to expensive chemicals that can cure our cancers, diseases and mental problems. I am not who I am because of my genes. They make me tall, male, blue eyed. Am I fat because of my genes, am I predisposed to working in front of a computer, liking whisky, enjoying airsports ....
I don't know and I don't believe anyone who believes that they know so !
Its not a blueprint, its a recipe. It doesn't tell you what you get, only how to make it. If you change DNA, you have to let it run through its recipe and only at the end do you find out what you get.
Grayswan, Lord of the Morning
If you open your mind too wide, people will throw trash in it.
Eugenics is a Bad Thing.
:-)
Consider the modern theory of evolution, which is mainly about differential reproduction. Succinctly, its not "survival of the fittest", but rather "faster reproduction of the fitter". In a population, there are not completely "fit" and completely "unfit" members. There are only "fitter" and "less fit". The individual members of a population do not evolve, the population as a whole does. It does so not becuase the "less fit" die -- they do, but only after reproducing some. The "fitter" also die, but reproduce a little more. Over many generations, the genetic state of the whole evolves.
In modern society, this mostly does not happen. Just about any human--fit or not--can have as many children as they want. Not to stereotype, but we all know of crack whores having children and geniuses who do not. So, according to the modern theory of evolution, humans stopped evolving about 50 years ago and that will continue into the future.
When we are capable of genetically engineering our children, THAT is when human evolution will resume. At a much faster rate. Our evolution will resume with US in control of it. Whether you believe in Mother Nature or God, we will be that entity. We WILL have become GOD. Not just in our minds, but in reality. And we will screw it up in a magnitude that only a God can.
In the next few generations after widespread genetic engineering of children, it cannot be doubted that "pretty people" -- people that are only fit to be models or actors -- will be vastly over-represented. Geeks and nerds like us will be vastly under-represented. The consequence of this is that all the machines (gene manipulators, machines that make gene manipulators, computers that design the machines that make gene manipulators, ets...) will break down and there will be no one to fix them. Society will collapse and all the "pretty people" will be even more useless in that society than they are in this one. They will all die and Mother Nature or God (whichever you believe) will reassert control over evolution.
QED.
Grayswan, Lord of the Morning
If you open your mind too wide, people will throw trash in it.
Let us take a simple case. A non-sex linked trait where the dominant is neutral and the recessive if reinforced is fatal resulting in spontaneous abortion early enough in the pregnancy that it is never noticed by the parents. Both parents have an one dominant and one recessive A and B respectively. They have four children representing the normal distribution of AA, AB, AB, and BB. One child is aborted, One doesn't pass on the gene and two do pass on the gene. In a closed society a majority of that society will eventually have the recessive. It will never breed out of existance. If it is a sex linked trait that results in death before the child becomes reproductively capable it will breed itself out eventually. Unfortunately most human traits are not so cut and dried.
"If there is nothing you are willing to die for, then you are not really alive." Myself
Why is there this huge phobia about genetically engineering the human race? What is so wrong about seeking to be better than you are?
After all, we go to school in order to become better than we were - to expand our horizons, to be able to accomplish and learn new things. Through life we're taught that it's good to seek to better yourself, to always strive towards a higher goal. Hell, it's the American Dream! ;)
So surely genetic engineering ourselves is nothing more than the ultimate realisation of this wish?
By not engaging in it, we're cheating both ourselves and our children, depriving them of a brighter future.
Unfortunately there are far too many cultural forces out there which are only too happy to spread fear about new technologies. By linking genetic engineering to movements like eugenics they have managed to make something which could benefit everyone into the next big evil. Eugenics was evil, and it is my shame that we in this country practised it, but as long as the benefits are spread to all, then genetic engineering holds the promise of a freedom from the myriad of inherited diseases that kill or cripple millions each year.
And that's even before we move beyond our current capabilities! Just by eliminating flaws like disease and infirmity, we increase our race's fitness massively, making our children better equipped to deal with a world that changes faster and faster each year. And as we move away from the Earth and into new environments, genetic engineering will allow us to adapt ourselves to fit those environments, meaning the human race can thrive for ever...
FUD aside, how can this be a bad thing?
It's certainly true that susceptibility to some diseases, along with other inherited traits, is determined by the interaction of tens or even hundreds of genes, and today we don't have the knowledge or the ability to factor all of them together and come up with a more precise picture of what's likely to happen to an individual. However, I think it's naive to assume that we'll never have the knowledge and ability to do so.
One obvious limitation we see today is the amount of computing power required to do the required multidimensional analysis and figure out which genes interact with which others to produce a particular effect. But all indications are that Moore's Law will be in effect for a while longer, and even if it peters out, the problem seems parallelizable enough that someone may eventually build a system or a network to churn through all the raw data. The United Devices cancer-cure project is a step in that direction.
Combine a few orders of magnitude of additional computing power with a vastly larger set of raw data and highly-refined techniques for reading and manipulating DNA -- none of which seems out of reach -- along with a public perception that biology is destiny, and something like Gattaca becomes quite plausible. Or if not that extreme, then certainly health plans rejecting applicants due to DNA and genetic screening for certain high-risk jobs ("We only want people who can get by on four hours of sleep").
What's more likely beyond our ability to ever comprehend is nurture, not nature, and ultimately that'll limit how precisely we'll be able to mold ourselves. A hundred years from now you'll probably be able to screen or engineer your kid's genes to give her a 25-point IQ boost or whatever amount of intelligence ends up being genetically determined. But what combination of factors causes a child in one strict, oppressive household to become a high-school dropout, while a child in another becomes a focused overachieving genius? If you want to raise the latter, what help does science offer? There may be no way to even measure the subtleties that nudge a child one way or the other, let alone use those measurements to provide any meaningful guidance to prospective parents.
We can, and IMO should, try to figure out everything that can be figured out about how our bodies tick. We can, and in some cases should, use that knowledge to improve the species. In the end I think we'll find it impossible to reduce ourselves to simple, predictable automatons, and that's just fine with me. Without the ability to surprise ourselves every once in a while, life in our custom-tailored bodies would get pretty dull.
I totally agree -- as long as the tests are elective. But I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the big insurance companies requested to have DNA testing included with other blood tests performed just after birth.
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Agreed. The thing the worries me most is that people will THINK they understand things and will use that information incorrectly. Of course, this kind of thing was happening long before genetics research. I guess we don't always learn until we make a mistake.
Interesting. Somebody mod this parent up.
I don't have as much of a problem with this as I would with concessions against people who have genetic preconditions towards something that is not curable. For example, diabetes runs in my family (Type 2). If I'm found to have enough of the 15 or so gene sequences linked to diabetes, my insurance company could decide to drastically increase my rates. Or health care could require that I sign a clause that relieves them of the responsibility of paying for typical diabetic treatment items. All of this could happen, even though I might never become diabetic because I exercise and eat carefully. They could even choose to monitor my exercise and diet to use that as a condition of my insurance. This is where my largest fear comes in. Actually, I fear more for my children at this point than myself.
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
To add to this article, remember that even though human genome mapping has been considered complete, reports have since been released indicating that there just isn't enough genetic matter there to effectively map all human characteristics, and that there most be something else that contributes. It might be some of the latent DNA sequences that are considered to be trash, or something else within the proteins themselves. All of this adds up to some pretty big arguments should any of us enounter "gene prejudice."
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Hopefully I'm not pulling all of this out of my caboose. What I learned in highschool is that DNA is a blueprint. That's all I learned about it. I did learn about Gregor Mendel (read the article if you need a refreshing on who I'm talking about) and I couldn't figure out how such strict rules about dominant and recessive genes could produce the variety of species we have.
If dominant and recessive genes really were so binary in nature (D | R = D, R | R = R, D | D = D, etc) then unless there was more imbreeding going on, all recessive genes would've eventually gone away and we would all be the same.
Alas, like the article says, this isn't the case. It is a rather horrifying thought that everything can be known about you through your DNA. It is also a rather upsetting thought that all of your choices that you make in life could be pre-determined by your DNA. Tests do show (as stated by the article), however, that a persons environment has a large affect on how s/he turns out.
It is for this reason that I think of DNA as merely being a blueprint. Just like the blueprint to a house, you can view it and see how it is supposed to be, but the houses environment plays a large role in how it turns out (method used to prevent water from coming in the basement, type of roofing used, etc.).
The Moo went "Cow!"
There is a general misunderstanding about the nature-nurture debate. We are all zombies in a sense, because our conscious is as the rest of our body -- automatic. The problem is in trying to separate mind from brain. You are your brain, and you are its conscious and unconscious processing. One must look no further than the fact that in the laboratory scientists can directly alter decisions of monkeys:
"The ability to predict and influence choices provides compelling evidence that choices are deterministic. Certainly, to the extent that neurons will not discharge unless they are depolarized by other neurons, brain states can be determined naturally only by earlier brain states. However, does such apparently Laplacian determinism grant as much prediction and influence as the evidence seems to indicate? Perhaps not. Complex dynamic systems that are far from equilibrium are usually not predictable. The brain is without doubt such a dynamical system that produces behaviour with the signature of chaos. In fact, some have argued that cognition is at least as dynamical as it is computational. Thus, the states of the brain, like the clouds in the sky, happen because of earlier states of the system.
But brain states and behaviour can be as unpredictable as the weather. If current research is correct that choices derive from states of the brain, and states of the brain, although deterministic, are not entirely predictable then it follows that choices may be made that are unexpected. Certainly the world is an unpredictable place, and it seems almost self-evident that the behaviour of most creatures, including humans, can be unpredictable. As we survey this landscape, we should realize that all of the neurophysiological results that we have reviewed were obtained after weeks of training monkeys to perform rigidly constrained tasks in impoverished environments, quite unlike the real world. Accordingly, conclusions drawn from the results of these experiments should be generalized to real-world situations with caution.
Still, the results that I have reviewed seem relevant to understanding freedom of choice. If we ask whether we are free, the kind of answer we want may not be possible. A better question to ask is: do we make choices? The answer is certainly yes. Do our choices have any influence on our relationship to our peers and the environment? Again, yes. Are our choices constrained? Yes, because of natural law and historical circumstances, but not entirely because of random chance and deterministic chaos. Consider a game of cards. To begin a fair game, the cards are shuffled to introduce randomness that produces unpredictability and lack of control over what cards are drawn. Once the hands are dealt, your freedom to play a certain card is limited by the rules of the game, the hand you are dealt, and your knowledge of strategy and tactics. But within these limitations you have many choices to react to, or anticipate what other players do both the astute tactics and the blockheaded blunders. The moment of deliberation about which card to play seems to embody all of the freedom one could hope for. The fact that such deliberation is accomplished by your brain takes away none of the joy of the game."
-- The Neural Basis for Deciding, Choosing, and Acting. - Nature Reviews Neuroscience; Jan, 2001
As we see above, you are not only defined by your genes, but your environment as well. If I were to teleport you to the 12th century, you would be a different person, with different actions, thoughts and beliefs - at least in regard to possible worlds hypotheses.
And yes, it is obvious that the content of the information that you process would affect who you are -- not only in the mistaken separation of mind and body.
This is emphatically not the case. Is "gene that is correlated with a 2 point increase in IQ" too hard to understand? They don't even need to know the formal definition of covariance, because most humans can understand the general concept regardless.
While we're at it, we should also blame the scientists who let this misunderstanding propagate because it makes it much easier for them to get research dollars.
Here is an analogy that I remembered as I read the good doctor's article; I believe /.'ers will relate.
So far as DNA influences our lives and behaviors can be likened to the extent that different hardware platforms effect the performance and behavior of a computer. In this analogy, your life experience (nurture) could be likened to the software on that computer. I think few would argue that ASCI white with nothing but Solitaire loaded to it would be a very useful machine, and a nurture buff would be hard-pressed to load ASCI white's actual software to their Comodore 64.
RPGers have been aware of the difference between wit and wisdom for years. Why is it that Nature vs Nurture remains a debate? I would think that anyone who has grown older to find that they are slower but wiser would figure out just how our brains and our minds interact.
I don't know about you, but... Considering how frequently medical interactions with the human body have unanticipated side effects, I sure wouldn't want to be the mommy of one of the first genetically altered kids. Everything seems fine, then BOOM! third arm growing out of the back of their head!
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
It bothers me that laws are made at all concerning genetic research. It bothers me that there even exist people who refuse to try to understand anything. And it bothers me that our educational system in the U.S. is so weak that the average reader of newspapers is expected to have retained less than the first 20% of all that education.
That the laws are being passed by people who don't understand and won't try to understand is merely a symptom. Those people aren't elected by having a clue or making an effort to pass reasonable and useful laws, they are elected by convincing people to vote for them. The dumber those voters are, the easier it is for those people to keep getting re-elected while passing useless, misguided, or even harmful laws. This makes meaningful educational reform anywhere from unlikely to impossible under our current system.
Lest I seem to be pushing a program rather than commenting on an article, I admit that most people in any country aren't likely to be interested in or capable of understanding the details of advanced genetic theory. However, oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy is still inexcusable. Just because people wouldn't understand the truth, that doesn't make it acceptable to lie to them.
-- Robert Bunn, gun-toting neo-Nazi anarchist redneck freak