Whenever I read editorials on the Human Genome Project, I really wonder just how much people understand about it. The whole idea of the project is simply to catalogue the entire DNA sequence from humans. My understanding of the project says that that is all that it entails. However, most articles make it sound like the HGP's "goal is to alter the nature of human existence," as Katz wrote. While it is expected that the sequence will provide enormous amounts of information upon which discoveries and treatments and such can be made, these things are not the inherent goal of the project. Just the sequence is the goal.
And what can really be had from the sequence? Most people talk about genes, which, yes, are very important, but the entire genome is not packed into these nice little packages. Many regions of the genome are simply not expressed at all and some serve only a regulatory function. And it probably wont be known which are which for a long time. I would like to note that while all of the Escherichia coli genome has been sequenced, probably at least a third (if not more) of the regions that could be genes are unknown in function! And it is still not known what exactly makes 0157:H7 virulent over the E. coli we carry around in our own guts. Bacteria are much easier to study, and many people are putting in many man hours to answer these questions. My point is that, while we may know what the sequence is, it will take a huge amount of resources to make any sense of it, before it could even be used for the things people fear it could be used for.
Mammals are harder to experiment with, and much more complex than bacteria. There are many practical limitations to the speed with which discoveries can be made in human genetics. Just knowing three billion base pairs of code do not a cloned child, or an engineered perfect child, make. (The practicality of such a venture is hard for me to see at this point.) I think time and money will be the limiting factor in the advance of the horrors spoken of in this article.
And, since mammals are so much harder to work with, they take more time and more MONEY. Ultimately, yes, it will be up to the people with the money to decide just what future advances are made in the wake of such a potentially enormous amount of information. Only the people who can afford to do the work will do it; they will get their money from the people who have it and decide to give that money to said people to have the work done.
I do think there needs to be international discussion on the subject, but within reasonable boundaries. Instead of focusing on the bad things that "could" happen, the people with the power to influence the money should be talking about what SHOULD be done. Then, if the resources are directly applied to those experiments and scientific ventures deemed valuable by the whole, there will be little left for any other "side projects". But, it can only happen with rational and directed thought about what is possible and practical, not with scare tactics and politicking about what is feared.
Slashdot Mirror
And what can really be had from the sequence? Most people talk about genes, which, yes, are very important, but the entire genome is not packed into these nice little packages. Many regions of the genome are simply not expressed at all and some serve only a regulatory function. And it probably wont be known which are which for a long time. I would like to note that while all of the Escherichia coli genome has been sequenced, probably at least a third (if not more) of the regions that could be genes are unknown in function! And it is still not known what exactly makes 0157:H7 virulent over the E. coli we carry around in our own guts. Bacteria are much easier to study, and many people are putting in many man hours to answer these questions. My point is that, while we may know what the sequence is, it will take a huge amount of resources to make any sense of it, before it could even be used for the things people fear it could be used for.
Mammals are harder to experiment with, and much more complex than bacteria. There are many practical limitations to the speed with which discoveries can be made in human genetics. Just knowing three billion base pairs of code do not a cloned child, or an engineered perfect child, make. (The practicality of such a venture is hard for me to see at this point.) I think time and money will be the limiting factor in the advance of the horrors spoken of in this article.
And, since mammals are so much harder to work with, they take more time and more MONEY. Ultimately, yes, it will be up to the people with the money to decide just what future advances are made in the wake of such a potentially enormous amount of information. Only the people who can afford to do the work will do it; they will get their money from the people who have it and decide to give that money to said people to have the work done.
I do think there needs to be international discussion on the subject, but within reasonable boundaries. Instead of focusing on the bad things that "could" happen, the people with the power to influence the money should be talking about what SHOULD be done. Then, if the resources are directly applied to those experiments and scientific ventures deemed valuable by the whole, there will be little left for any other "side projects". But, it can only happen with rational and directed thought about what is possible and practical, not with scare tactics and politicking about what is feared.