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)
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).
"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?
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.
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..."
...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 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?
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...
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 &
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?
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!"
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