The point offered by afidel is relatively accurate. DNA damage happens, for the most part, at a pretty level rate. Damage from oxidative free radicals from metabolic functions... damage from environmental mutagens... etc. It's all pretty much a function of number of lesions per region of DNA that can be induced. Now if those factors are going to remain pretty much even, you stand a better chance of a lesion striking important DNA if that's all you have...
Someone mentioned bacteria have very little junk. Heck, along that line, viruses have the least. In fact, those little bastards jam more genes into a span of DNA that they make everything else look bad (like coding genes on BOTH strands of the double helix, not just one). But, one needs to remember simple organisms actually thrive on high rates of mutation. HIV is particularly virulent because of mutant. Bacteria strains become better suited for harsh environments during parasitic invasion through mutation. Mutation happens through damage. Sure, a bunch die when they get lethal mutations.. but considering the numbers of bacteria or viruses produced, it's worth it if a stronger variant can arise. Hence why bacteria still retain very low fidelity DNA replication. complex organisms on the other hand, evolve slower and can't risk drastic change because of our limited ability for offspring. Keep in mind, in your mouth right now you have more bacteria than people that have ever lived. Since we can't just take pot shots at evolution like bacteria can, we've evolved to be very stringent about the condition of our DNA.
--
On to other uses for 'junk' DNA. A lot of it seems to hold structural functions. Even gross deletions of noncoding DNA can be deleterious. Chromosomes fold and bundle, exposing certain regions for expression... this is a function of structural gene segments. One poorly understood section is the X-control region. Originally found in mice, this determines which of the two X chromosomes in females in inactivated. Recently found a similar region in humans and it's still poorly understood but it doesn't appear to code for anything, but it is involved in important epigenetic regulation.
hey.. there's the R word. Regulation. Huge spans of DNA upstream of genes, sometimes even downstream of genes, and often right smack dab in the middle of genes, are important in regulation. Binding sites for transcription factors.. Regions possibly involved in transcription stability.. etc. The bits of DNA that are cut out before translation are even believed to help in stability and transport.
Stuff we just don't know yet. Yep, that's a vague answer... but almost ANYTHING someone can sit there and dream up, evolution has already come up with. Half the time that person dreaming stuff up will be considered a crackpot.. but given enough time, money and resources, chances are you'll find the crackpot is right. That was the case with prions (replicative proteins that never go through a nucleotide intermediate... cause mad cow disease). Or catalytic RNA. Etc etc.. there's so many possibilities, it's really impossible to discount *anything*.
So, that's what I have to offer. Geneticist, signing out.
There are several agricultural products in which plants and even animals have been altered with genes from other organisms. Most interestingly, there's a genetically altered salmon that grows exceedingly fast thanks to genes from another organism(s). I don't remember the details off my head, but it should be hard to research.
but it's true. biology and biochemistry are obscenely complex. It takes a lot of work even to have a pot shot at understanding even the simplest genetics and protein chemistry...
The pathology of diabetes is complex. First, one has two recognize there's two types of diabetes. Type 1, called juvenile or insulin-dependent, diabetes and type 2, or non-insulin-dependent, diabetes.
Type 1 is most definitely genetic. While it doesn't have 100% concordance between identical twins, developmental factors can come into play, there is a genetic predisposition. Several genes have been linked with type I diabetes. The primary pathology of this disease is that it is an autoimmune disease. The immune system of the diabetic attacks the cells of the pancreas, depleting the organ of its ability to produce insulin.
Type 2 is a far more complex disorder. The pathology of this disease is that the pancreas is able to produce insulin, albeit not as much as normal people. The significant issue is insulin resistance. The body starts to ignore the metabolic signals of insulin, which causes a feedback loop that ultimately taxes the pancreas and leads to depletion of the pancreatic insulin function (it peters out over time). Due to its complexity and the generalization that it is a disease of obesity, it was considered more of a behavioral disorder (at least more so than type 1). Research, however, is showing there are genetic predispositions to type 2 diabetes (some of this is not even in the genome of the diabetic, but int the small chromosome of the mitochondria, the energy producing organelle in the cells). Also, studies are finding there also seems to be some autoimmunity involved in type 2 diabetes. Lastly, there appears to be a trigger event, believed to possibly be viral.
So, while type 2 diabetes is indeed exacerbated by obesity, one cannot call it a disease of diet.
--
On the topic of obesity, research is showing that there are more factors involved than 'being lazy and eating crap'. On the whole, 'being lazy and eating crap' is bad for your health and its true that our society is progressively leading less healthier lifestyles... but one should note some people can eat crap and not exercise and be perfectly svelte and healthy. Then there are people like one of my colleagues who is a world-class longcourse triathelete, exercises more than anyone I know, eats an exceptionally healthy diet, and can count the number of times she's been sick in the last decade on one hand.. yet she her body mass index puts her in the obese category.
Increasingly, research is showing that adipose (fat) tissue should be considered an organ of the endocrine system. The complex events of endocrine singaling are what regulate resting metabolic rate, glucose and insulin levels, fat metabolism and deposition, caloric intake, response to diet, etc. It is a very complex system that has a lot of factors, including genetic ones.. as well as ones which may be environmental or behavioral but have very definite and difficult to reverse pathologies.
The value of genetics research, pharmacogenetics and pharmacology should not be shrugged off. Yep, put down the donut is good advice, but let's not ignore complexicity because a simple answer sounds nice.
I have the map of the full genome from it's publication not too long ago. It's about 4 feet tall and 3 feet wide and took me quite some time to fold back up after I unfurled the sucker.
I work at the National Cancer Institute and figured I'd give my personal scientific view (not official, since I'd get flayed for doing that).
While the research *is* interesting there are a lot of caveats. The article specified that this technique has been successful in treating a broad range of cancers. In culture. This means there's cells in a flask with medium and they add the agent to the medium. This means the cancers are definitely coming in contact. In a human system, this may not be the case. An intravenous injection may not service tumors embedded in tissues. Especially brain tumors because of the blood-brain barrier.
Another caveat. Nearly every system of targetted therapeutics involving antibodies has failed in humans, despite any remarkable results in mice. Several other wildly successful therapeutics in mice (angiogenesis inhibitors for example) are only modestly successful in humans.
Models, be they mouse or cell culture, do not carry over terrifically well to 'in the wild' cancers in humans. Entirely possible that these treatments will have some benefit for certain cases. On the whole, this isn't the "smart bomb" or "cure for cancer" the media portrays. Unfortunately, the AP doesn't report the caveats. Also, as of yesterday, I wasn't able to find any reference to this study in medical literature. I suspect that the moment the journal it was submitted to accepted the paper, a publicist was on the phone with the press. Accordingly, the media story is in the hands of the public before the peer reviewed article is.
Just another case of wait and see. I hope for the best, but don't expect it (sorry guys).
It's illegal, even if bearing proper permits, to carry a firearm onto government property. I don't have the exact reference, but in one of the regular 'Security Updates' we get at the NIH, they specifically mentioned that.
As for being at Ground Zero in a war. I'd like to remind you that so far, all anthax letters have been sent to media and politicians. I'm neither. Presently, I do not perceive a threat to my health or wellbeing, from planes, bombs, gunfire, or bioterrorism. No more than I did two months ago.
First and foremost, long before the events of Sept. 11th, I had given plenty of thought to the resources available for agents of destruction. Kind of a side hobby since I enjoy medical thriller fiction and macguyver =). The fact remains that if I were inclined to engage in 1) taking things from my lab or 2) bringing a weapon of mass destruction to the NIH, I can tell you right now not a single security precaution operating at the NIH (to my knowledge) would stop me from doing so. The security checkpoints, which abound, are staffed almost exclusively by hired security, not trained, capable individuals. I'm 100% certain I could carry an overt weapon, such as a gun, into high security areas. I've more than 100% certain I could do the same with a chemical/biological weapon (CBW). The state of security does not at all impart me with any sense of heightened protection except from all but the most incompetent persons.
Why should I have anything to worry about being searched?
Aside from feeling that I'm having my rights violated, I don't have a reason. That's why it wasn't an issue until I finally got fed up. What am I carrying? Notes, journals, text books. Here's the funny bit, it's also 100% standard to carry hazardous chemical and biological agents from building to building. Heck, that's how things get around. If I wanted to walk into the Clinical Center (one of the more high profile buildings on campus) with tubes of Bacillus anthracis, Yersinia pestis, or Clostridium botulinum, I could. I would simply put them in a cooler, on ice, slap a biohazard sticker on it and walk right over with my lab coat and id. Fact of the matter is, I've carried biologicals straight through checkpoints without an issue. But, when I carry a backpack, they want to search that. Should my CDs and notes be of national security?
More importantly, that question is possibly the worst question to ask in a 4th ammendment issue. From cryptography to random street searches, it's foolish to ask why someone has something to hide.
"Wake up! You should be *happy* they are doing these searches. They are protecting you."
See the above responses. I'm 1) definitely not being protected and 2) that's the same thing the Justice Department has to say about other indiscriminate search efforts.
You have a right to refuse. You also have a right to be fired
OK. This is the part where the real legal advice factors in. Either way the law falls, I'm still bitter about this principle. I have a lot of rights. I also have a lot of reasons to depend on the Federal Government or my employer (which, lo and behold, are one and the same). We have a lot of privacy protections. The same protections that hold insurance companies accountable for screening people for genetic predispositions to diseases and charing them accordingly. It's their right to choose whether they insure you or for what price, but it's not their right to do so based on your genetic code. It's not AT&T's right to listen in on my long distance phone calls, even though it's their right to choose whether or not to provide me with LD service. It's a teenager's right to go to high schol. It is not the high school's right to ask the student if he/she has HIV and separate them from their classmates based on that. More directly related to employment, it's not the employer's right to involve themselves in your medical issues, unless your work specifically requires that. In my case, since I work with human clinical samples, specimens, and pathogens, it is in my best interest to be tested for infectious diseases and be properly vaccinated before starting work. This is not necessary for a secretary and I think people would find it extreme to require the same level of medical exam that I endured be given to non-lab personnel. It's not their right to ask me if I'm homosexual. It's not their right to ask me if I voted republican. And I contend it's not their right to search me, my car, or my personal effects without probable cause.
Your privacy rights should not be contingent on your participation in society. They are contingent on probable cause and a warrant. Anecdotally, there are obviously examples in which this does not hold true. But I would like to cling tenaciously to every right to privacy I can and not give them up willingly.
IANAL
I was somewhat hoping some with legal experience in 4th ammendment rights issues (considering this is not the first time a privacy issue has been raised on/.) might be able to chime in. Unfortunately, trolling for free legal advice didn't pan out and I'll have to resort to my own devices. When/if I get more info, I'll report back in.
Thanks to everyone for responding. Regrettably, I haven't been able to read as many as I'd like, and I'll try to get to more and respond more directly to comments. I appreciate your thoughts, particularly those of you supporting my idealism.
Personally, I'm more worried about them tracking me down singing in the shower than the cost of the royalties...
Of course, with my singing voice, it would probably not be copyright infringement on the grounds that it would be a parody of the proper tune.
Ciao,
Chico
No doubt, proteomics is an important and not-to-be-underestimated field. But to slander genomics and epidemiology, especially their role in understanding disease, is bogus. Even proteomics is still dependent on genomics. IF you were to find a protein or complex that is implicated in disease, you can, thanks to the HGP, find the source gene for that protein and begin cloning and studying. In fact, that's what I've been doing this week with a new gene, BACH1.
As well, you can't diminish the importance of DNA polymorphisms in the cellular dysfunction and disease. To say that protein or DNA is the be all and end all of molecular biology is shortsighted. Both have their place and a good research team will not ignore either.
Bethell should not be robbing from Peter to pay Paul. If we're truely going to make great progress in improving the human condition, we need to push for more funding, research, manpower and computer power in every field of science.
I will preface this with a bit of an introduction. I'm a geneticist at the National Cancer Insitute at the National Institutes of Heatlh. As a professional in the field, I find this article to be sensationalist and based on ignorance.
First, I will put to rest the notion of "one gene, one protein" as so heavily asserted by the author. In the scientific community, it was known that this is not the case in every situation. Viruses, which have the smallest genomes out there, not only encode their genes on one strand of the double helix, but both. Their genes overlap, so one stretch at first glance appears to have one gene, encodes more. Then there's always the issue of alternate splicing patterns. As was mentioned, there's non-coding regions of DNA, much of which is inserted in genes. On the road to protein, this is cut out. One gene can be spliced in multiple fashions, giving rise to multiple proteins. All of these motiffs have been documented for some time. These motiffs have also been seen in higher organisms (including humans). However, without the full map of the genome, it would be very difficult to ascertain if these motiffs are frequently used or if the genome behaves in a simpler fashion more frequently.
Second, the author, Tom Bethell, joins the ignorant bandwagon of people that believe gene therapy has its place in science fiction and not science. These beliefs have their place in fiction. Numerous clinical trials have shown direct benefit in the patients as a result of introducing or altering genes. I know several such people who would be dead right now rather than healthier than they have been in years had it not been for gene therapy protocols. To write this off so soon when it's potential is so great is as great a tragedy as arguing against the advent of planting your own crops rather than gathering what grows in the wild.
Third, the assertion that the information of the human genome is trivial and of little scientific value... is about as blatantly wrong as saying the sun rises in the west. The growing database of the genome, which has been public in draft form for some time, has been of immense help in the field of human genetics. I assure that many of the advances in cancer research, and indeed successful cancer treatment, have stemmed from information in the human genome. A day doesn't pass that I'm not using the information in my research on breast and ovarian cancer.
Which leads me to my last gripe. The author slanders the field of epidemiology (without naming it, I wonder if he is even familiar with the word). I work in the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. A big portion of our research is in studying and discovering those genes that predispose people to cancer. Perhaps if Bethell believes it more voodoo than science, maybe he should consider the Ashkenazi Jewish population which has a disproportionately high rate of three specific mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, two genes associated with the majority of breast cancer. Any one of those three mutations may not be a guarantee of breast cancer, but if you look at family histories, you'll see a lot of women dying of breast cancer at an early age. Maybe since Bethell believes this to be supposition and not science, we should stop those studies. Maybe we should not bother testing women in high risk families to see if they should consider preventative measures.
Maybe because Bethell feels that he should be the sensationalist bell-ringer, drawing attention to the waste of human genetics... we should stop the research, stop the treatments. Let people die of cancer. Maybe because it won't be easy and it won't be simple, we shouldn't try.
I resent the article and Bethell's attitude, which is unfortunately becoming more popular.
I believe that mp3s raise the bar on musicians. Rather than spend money on a mediocre CD and then turn it back around and sell it to a pawn shop, I can download mp3s to see what I want. Frequently, when I like a CD, I go out and buy it. I believe that with many people following this model, the pressure is on for musicians to put together a good CD, not just a good single and wrap it up with another half dozen mediocre tracks. Do you believe it is essential to maintan the standard of exposing your best material into luring purchasers or would you be willing to accept the challenge of producing a good, full length CD knowing that people would buy it? And lastly, are you so hard up for money that you need to confront your fans and take it by force?
Slashdot Mirror
First, on the subject of DNA damage...
The point offered by afidel is relatively accurate. DNA damage happens, for the most part, at a pretty level rate. Damage from oxidative free radicals from metabolic functions... damage from environmental mutagens... etc. It's all pretty much a function of number of lesions per region of DNA that can be induced. Now if those factors are going to remain pretty much even, you stand a better chance of a lesion striking important DNA if that's all you have...
Someone mentioned bacteria have very little junk. Heck, along that line, viruses have the least. In fact, those little bastards jam more genes into a span of DNA that they make everything else look bad (like coding genes on BOTH strands of the double helix, not just one). But, one needs to remember simple organisms actually thrive on high rates of mutation. HIV is particularly virulent because of mutant. Bacteria strains become better suited for harsh environments during parasitic invasion through mutation. Mutation happens through damage. Sure, a bunch die when they get lethal mutations.. but considering the numbers of bacteria or viruses produced, it's worth it if a stronger variant can arise. Hence why bacteria still retain very low fidelity DNA replication. complex organisms on the other hand, evolve slower and can't risk drastic change because of our limited ability for offspring. Keep in mind, in your mouth right now you have more bacteria than people that have ever lived. Since we can't just take pot shots at evolution like bacteria can, we've evolved to be very stringent about the condition of our DNA.
--
On to other uses for 'junk' DNA. A lot of it seems to hold structural functions. Even gross deletions of noncoding DNA can be deleterious. Chromosomes fold and bundle, exposing certain regions for expression... this is a function of structural gene segments. One poorly understood section is the X-control region. Originally found in mice, this determines which of the two X chromosomes in females in inactivated. Recently found a similar region in humans and it's still poorly understood but it doesn't appear to code for anything, but it is involved in important epigenetic regulation.
hey.. there's the R word. Regulation. Huge spans of DNA upstream of genes, sometimes even downstream of genes, and often right smack dab in the middle of genes, are important in regulation. Binding sites for transcription factors.. Regions possibly involved in transcription stability.. etc. The bits of DNA that are cut out before translation are even believed to help in stability and transport.
Stuff we just don't know yet. Yep, that's a vague answer... but almost ANYTHING someone can sit there and dream up, evolution has already come up with. Half the time that person dreaming stuff up will be considered a crackpot.. but given enough time, money and resources, chances are you'll find the crackpot is right. That was the case with prions (replicative proteins that never go through a nucleotide intermediate... cause mad cow disease). Or catalytic RNA. Etc etc.. there's so many possibilities, it's really impossible to discount *anything*.
So, that's what I have to offer. Geneticist, signing out.
Ciao, C.Sc.
There are several agricultural products in which plants and even animals have been altered with genes from other organisms. Most interestingly, there's a genetically altered salmon that grows exceedingly fast thanks to genes from another organism(s). I don't remember the details off my head, but it should be hard to research.
but it's true. biology and biochemistry are obscenely complex. It takes a lot of work even to have a pot shot at understanding even the simplest genetics and protein chemistry...
I think I can shed some light on the subject...
The pathology of diabetes is complex. First, one has two recognize there's two types of diabetes. Type 1, called juvenile or insulin-dependent, diabetes and type 2, or non-insulin-dependent, diabetes.
Type 1 is most definitely genetic. While it doesn't have 100% concordance between identical twins, developmental factors can come into play, there is a genetic predisposition. Several genes have been linked with type I diabetes. The primary pathology of this disease is that it is an autoimmune disease. The immune system of the diabetic attacks the cells of the pancreas, depleting the organ of its ability to produce insulin.
Type 2 is a far more complex disorder. The pathology of this disease is that the pancreas is able to produce insulin, albeit not as much as normal people. The significant issue is insulin resistance. The body starts to ignore the metabolic signals of insulin, which causes a feedback loop that ultimately taxes the pancreas and leads to depletion of the pancreatic insulin function (it peters out over time). Due to its complexity and the generalization that it is a disease of obesity, it was considered more of a behavioral disorder (at least more so than type 1). Research, however, is showing there are genetic predispositions to type 2 diabetes (some of this is not even in the genome of the diabetic, but int the small chromosome of the mitochondria, the energy producing organelle in the cells). Also, studies are finding there also seems to be some autoimmunity involved in type 2 diabetes. Lastly, there appears to be a trigger event, believed to possibly be viral.
So, while type 2 diabetes is indeed exacerbated by obesity, one cannot call it a disease of diet.
--
On the topic of obesity, research is showing that there are more factors involved than 'being lazy and eating crap'. On the whole, 'being lazy and eating crap' is bad for your health and its true that our society is progressively leading less healthier lifestyles... but one should note some people can eat crap and not exercise and be perfectly svelte and healthy. Then there are people like one of my colleagues who is a world-class longcourse triathelete, exercises more than anyone I know, eats an exceptionally healthy diet, and can count the number of times she's been sick in the last decade on one hand.. yet she her body mass index puts her in the obese category.
Increasingly, research is showing that adipose (fat) tissue should be considered an organ of the endocrine system. The complex events of endocrine singaling are what regulate resting metabolic rate, glucose and insulin levels, fat metabolism and deposition, caloric intake, response to diet, etc. It is a very complex system that has a lot of factors, including genetic ones.. as well as ones which may be environmental or behavioral but have very definite and difficult to reverse pathologies.
The value of genetics research, pharmacogenetics and pharmacology should not be shrugged off. Yep, put down the donut is good advice, but let's not ignore complexicity because a simple answer sounds nice.
--
Ciao, C.Sc.
I have the map of the full genome from it's publication not too long ago. It's about 4 feet tall and 3 feet wide and took me quite some time to fold back up after I unfurled the sucker.
I work at the National Cancer Institute and figured I'd give my personal scientific view (not official, since I'd get flayed for doing that).
While the research *is* interesting there are a lot of caveats. The article specified that this technique has been successful in treating a broad range of cancers. In culture. This means there's cells in a flask with medium and they add the agent to the medium. This means the cancers are definitely coming in contact. In a human system, this may not be the case. An intravenous injection may not service tumors embedded in tissues. Especially brain tumors because of the blood-brain barrier.
Another caveat. Nearly every system of targetted therapeutics involving antibodies has failed in humans, despite any remarkable results in mice. Several other wildly successful therapeutics in mice (angiogenesis inhibitors for example) are only modestly successful in humans.
Models, be they mouse or cell culture, do not carry over terrifically well to 'in the wild' cancers in humans. Entirely possible that these treatments will have some benefit for certain cases. On the whole, this isn't the "smart bomb" or "cure for cancer" the media portrays. Unfortunately, the AP doesn't report the caveats. Also, as of yesterday, I wasn't able to find any reference to this study in medical literature. I suspect that the moment the journal it was submitted to accepted the paper, a publicist was on the phone with the press. Accordingly, the media story is in the hands of the public before the peer reviewed article is.
Just another case of wait and see. I hope for the best, but don't expect it (sorry guys).
Ciao, C.Sc.
It's illegal, even if bearing proper permits, to carry a firearm onto government property. I don't have the exact reference, but in one of the regular 'Security Updates' we get at the NIH, they specifically mentioned that.
As for being at Ground Zero in a war. I'd like to remind you that so far, all anthax letters have been sent to media and politicians. I'm neither. Presently, I do not perceive a threat to my health or wellbeing, from planes, bombs, gunfire, or bioterrorism. No more than I did two months ago.
Working a government lab during an anthrax scare
/.) might be able to chime in. Unfortunately, trolling for free legal advice didn't pan out and I'll have to resort to my own devices. When/if I get more info, I'll report back in.
First and foremost, long before the events of Sept. 11th, I had given plenty of thought to the resources available for agents of destruction. Kind of a side hobby since I enjoy medical thriller fiction and macguyver =). The fact remains that if I were inclined to engage in 1) taking things from my lab or 2) bringing a weapon of mass destruction to the NIH, I can tell you right now not a single security precaution operating at the NIH (to my knowledge) would stop me from doing so. The security checkpoints, which abound, are staffed almost exclusively by hired security, not trained, capable individuals. I'm 100% certain I could carry an overt weapon, such as a gun, into high security areas. I've more than 100% certain I could do the same with a chemical/biological weapon (CBW). The state of security does not at all impart me with any sense of heightened protection except from all but the most incompetent persons.
Why should I have anything to worry about being searched?
Aside from feeling that I'm having my rights violated, I don't have a reason. That's why it wasn't an issue until I finally got fed up. What am I carrying? Notes, journals, text books. Here's the funny bit, it's also 100% standard to carry hazardous chemical and biological agents from building to building. Heck, that's how things get around. If I wanted to walk into the Clinical Center (one of the more high profile buildings on campus) with tubes of Bacillus anthracis, Yersinia pestis, or Clostridium botulinum, I could. I would simply put them in a cooler, on ice, slap a biohazard sticker on it and walk right over with my lab coat and id. Fact of the matter is, I've carried biologicals straight through checkpoints without an issue. But, when I carry a backpack, they want to search that. Should my CDs and notes be of national security?
More importantly, that question is possibly the worst question to ask in a 4th ammendment issue. From cryptography to random street searches, it's foolish to ask why someone has something to hide.
"Wake up! You should be *happy* they are doing these searches. They are protecting you."
See the above responses. I'm 1) definitely not being protected and 2) that's the same thing the Justice Department has to say about other indiscriminate search efforts.
You have a right to refuse. You also have a right to be fired
OK. This is the part where the real legal advice factors in. Either way the law falls, I'm still bitter about this principle. I have a lot of rights. I also have a lot of reasons to depend on the Federal Government or my employer (which, lo and behold, are one and the same). We have a lot of privacy protections. The same protections that hold insurance companies accountable for screening people for genetic predispositions to diseases and charing them accordingly. It's their right to choose whether they insure you or for what price, but it's not their right to do so based on your genetic code. It's not AT&T's right to listen in on my long distance phone calls, even though it's their right to choose whether or not to provide me with LD service. It's a teenager's right to go to high schol. It is not the high school's right to ask the student if he/she has HIV and separate them from their classmates based on that. More directly related to employment, it's not the employer's right to involve themselves in your medical issues, unless your work specifically requires that. In my case, since I work with human clinical samples, specimens, and pathogens, it is in my best interest to be tested for infectious diseases and be properly vaccinated before starting work. This is not necessary for a secretary and I think people would find it extreme to require the same level of medical exam that I endured be given to non-lab personnel. It's not their right to ask me if I'm homosexual. It's not their right to ask me if I voted republican. And I contend it's not their right to search me, my car, or my personal effects without probable cause.
Your privacy rights should not be contingent on your participation in society. They are contingent on probable cause and a warrant. Anecdotally, there are obviously examples in which this does not hold true. But I would like to cling tenaciously to every right to privacy I can and not give them up willingly.
IANAL
I was somewhat hoping some with legal experience in 4th ammendment rights issues (considering this is not the first time a privacy issue has been raised on
Thanks to everyone for responding. Regrettably, I haven't been able to read as many as I'd like, and I'll try to get to more and respond more directly to comments. I appreciate your thoughts, particularly those of you supporting my idealism.
Ciao, C.Sc.
Personally, I'm more worried about them tracking me down singing in the shower than the cost of the royalties... Of course, with my singing voice, it would probably not be copyright infringement on the grounds that it would be a parody of the proper tune. Ciao, Chico
No doubt, proteomics is an important and not-to-be-underestimated field. But to slander genomics and epidemiology, especially their role in understanding disease, is bogus. Even proteomics is still dependent on genomics. IF you were to find a protein or complex that is implicated in disease, you can, thanks to the HGP, find the source gene for that protein and begin cloning and studying. In fact, that's what I've been doing this week with a new gene, BACH1.
As well, you can't diminish the importance of DNA polymorphisms in the cellular dysfunction and disease. To say that protein or DNA is the be all and end all of molecular biology is shortsighted. Both have their place and a good research team will not ignore either.
Bethell should not be robbing from Peter to pay Paul. If we're truely going to make great progress in improving the human condition, we need to push for more funding, research, manpower and computer power in every field of science.
--Chico Science
I will preface this with a bit of an introduction. I'm a geneticist at the National Cancer Insitute at the National Institutes of Heatlh. As a professional in the field, I find this article to be sensationalist and based on ignorance.
First, I will put to rest the notion of "one gene, one protein" as so heavily asserted by the author. In the scientific community, it was known that this is not the case in every situation. Viruses, which have the smallest genomes out there, not only encode their genes on one strand of the double helix, but both. Their genes overlap, so one stretch at first glance appears to have one gene, encodes more. Then there's always the issue of alternate splicing patterns. As was mentioned, there's non-coding regions of DNA, much of which is inserted in genes. On the road to protein, this is cut out. One gene can be spliced in multiple fashions, giving rise to multiple proteins. All of these motiffs have been documented for some time. These motiffs have also been seen in higher organisms (including humans). However, without the full map of the genome, it would be very difficult to ascertain if these motiffs are frequently used or if the genome behaves in a simpler fashion more frequently.
Second, the author, Tom Bethell, joins the ignorant bandwagon of people that believe gene therapy has its place in science fiction and not science. These beliefs have their place in fiction. Numerous clinical trials have shown direct benefit in the patients as a result of introducing or altering genes. I know several such people who would be dead right now rather than healthier than they have been in years had it not been for gene therapy protocols. To write this off so soon when it's potential is so great is as great a tragedy as arguing against the advent of planting your own crops rather than gathering what grows in the wild.
Third, the assertion that the information of the human genome is trivial and of little scientific value... is about as blatantly wrong as saying the sun rises in the west. The growing database of the genome, which has been public in draft form for some time, has been of immense help in the field of human genetics. I assure that many of the advances in cancer research, and indeed successful cancer treatment, have stemmed from information in the human genome. A day doesn't pass that I'm not using the information in my research on breast and ovarian cancer.
Which leads me to my last gripe. The author slanders the field of epidemiology (without naming it, I wonder if he is even familiar with the word). I work in the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. A big portion of our research is in studying and discovering those genes that predispose people to cancer. Perhaps if Bethell believes it more voodoo than science, maybe he should consider the Ashkenazi Jewish population which has a disproportionately high rate of three specific mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, two genes associated with the majority of breast cancer. Any one of those three mutations may not be a guarantee of breast cancer, but if you look at family histories, you'll see a lot of women dying of breast cancer at an early age. Maybe since Bethell believes this to be supposition and not science, we should stop those studies. Maybe we should not bother testing women in high risk families to see if they should consider preventative measures.
Maybe because Bethell feels that he should be the sensationalist bell-ringer, drawing attention to the waste of human genetics... we should stop the research, stop the treatments. Let people die of cancer. Maybe because it won't be easy and it won't be simple, we shouldn't try.
I resent the article and Bethell's attitude, which is unfortunately becoming more popular.
--Chico Science >
I believe that mp3s raise the bar on musicians. Rather than spend money on a mediocre CD and then turn it back around and sell it to a pawn shop, I can download mp3s to see what I want. Frequently, when I like a CD, I go out and buy it. I believe that with many people following this model, the pressure is on for musicians to put together a good CD, not just a good single and wrap it up with another half dozen mediocre tracks. Do you believe it is essential to maintan the standard of exposing your best material into luring purchasers or would you be willing to accept the challenge of producing a good, full length CD knowing that people would buy it? And lastly, are you so hard up for money that you need to confront your fans and take it by force?