The Human Genome Project is indeed the most inspiring undertaking by humans in the history of science and techonology, but the potential for abuse is overestimated by the author of this article. Scientists involved in molecular biology and genetics agree there is an amazing amount of unknown elements in genetics. The molecular function and regulation of many processes in simple organisms such Escherchia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast) are understand only a fundamental levels presently. Assuming these processes are understood in Homo sapiens is extremely premature: eukaryotic organisms are notorious for having multiple pathways and mechanisms for gene control and expression. We are decades away from fully understanding the genetics of humans.
A common misunderstanding about the Human Genome Project is connecting the knowledge of the linear sequence of DNA to the function of that DNA and those genes. Knowing the arrangement of A's, C's, G's and T's does not equate to knowledge of how that gene is expressed, how it functions, how it is regulated, and how it produces phenotypes. The entire 22nd chromosome of the human genome was recently sequenced, but this certainly does not mean we understand what all the genes on chromosome 22 do. To assume the completion of the Human Genome Project in a few years marks the beginning of some kind of "Brave New World" is very presumptious. Genetics is decades away from understanding how the sequence of DNA makes a person.
Furthermore, those traits that presumably would be "selected for" by prospective parents, employers and insurance companies combine the effects of dozens (probably more) genes; the combinations are nearly impossible to understand. Traits such as size, IQ, emotional and physical health are determined by an incredible array of genes. Assuming we are close to understanding these processes is not warranted.
As well, scientists agree these traits are affected by environmental stimuli just as much as genetics. Genes confer potential exhibition of these traits, not the actual product. A person may have the ability to become the next Einstein but many environmental factors come together to determine if he/she actually does. Genetics is not a magic wand that determines the expression of characteristics on its own.
In conclusion, it is unwarranted at this time make assumptions about the abuses of the product of the Human Genome Project. The author of the article is correct in lobbying for increased debate surrounding this topic, but very presumptious about the effects. The potential for abuse is certainly there. However at the state of modern genetics, these doomsday scenarios are very improbable. The completion of the Human Genome Project should be viewed with optimism and joy at the completion of such a monumental task, not with apprehension.
I totally agree that all these cases should be given the benefit of analysis using the "scientific method". what you don't realize however is that they already have.
Any credible scientist in the world base their experimental findings on reproducability. No new knowledge is accepted by the scientific community unless it can be repeated by other, unrelated and unbiased scientists. For example, the supposed "discovery" of cold fusion could not be reproduced and so we don't have any Back to the Future-style power generators. Most people believe in life in the universe, but most of those same people acknowledge that: a) The distances between civilizations is so vast the chances of two ever meeting are very small, b) Many factors (from the over-quoted Drake Equation) need to come together for contact to take place (i.e. civilizations need to exist in the same time window, civilizations need to survive post-technological age "adolescence" and not destroy themselves, etc.) The probablilities involved are very slim, c) If life exists on many worlds and Earth isn't special in having the conditions necessary for life, Earth isn't special in attracting civilizations either. Why travel light-years to come to our planet with such a lowly, unevolved society such as our own?
Just because Stanton Frieman is a nuclear physicist does not mean he represents the world's scientific community. Most of us would vehemently disagree with his claims. You insult scientific objectivity and the scientific community in general by believing his work.
We can all hope for claims such as that of "Starchildren" to be true, but the fact remains they haven't been reproduced and the scientific community has not jumped on the "aliens bandwagon" since we don't see anything to be concerned about. Keep on dreaming, but please remain objective and critical of any such claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Slashdot Mirror
A common misunderstanding about the Human Genome Project is connecting the knowledge of the linear sequence of DNA to the function of that DNA and those genes. Knowing the arrangement of A's, C's, G's and T's does not equate to knowledge of how that gene is expressed, how it functions, how it is regulated, and how it produces phenotypes. The entire 22nd chromosome of the human genome was recently sequenced, but this certainly does not mean we understand what all the genes on chromosome 22 do. To assume the completion of the Human Genome Project in a few years marks the beginning of some kind of "Brave New World" is very presumptious. Genetics is decades away from understanding how the sequence of DNA makes a person.
Furthermore, those traits that presumably would be "selected for" by prospective parents, employers and insurance companies combine the effects of dozens (probably more) genes; the combinations are nearly impossible to understand. Traits such as size, IQ, emotional and physical health are determined by an incredible array of genes. Assuming we are close to understanding these processes is not warranted.
As well, scientists agree these traits are affected by environmental stimuli just as much as genetics. Genes confer potential exhibition of these traits, not the actual product. A person may have the ability to become the next Einstein but many environmental factors come together to determine if he/she actually does. Genetics is not a magic wand that determines the expression of characteristics on its own.
In conclusion, it is unwarranted at this time make assumptions about the abuses of the product of the Human Genome Project. The author of the article is correct in lobbying for increased debate surrounding this topic, but very presumptious about the effects. The potential for abuse is certainly there. However at the state of modern genetics, these doomsday scenarios are very improbable. The completion of the Human Genome Project should be viewed with optimism and joy at the completion of such a monumental task, not with apprehension.
Any credible scientist in the world base their experimental findings on reproducability. No new knowledge is accepted by the scientific community unless it can be repeated by other, unrelated and unbiased scientists. For example, the supposed "discovery" of cold fusion could not be reproduced and so we don't have any Back to the Future-style power generators. Most people believe in life in the universe, but most of those same people acknowledge that: a) The distances between civilizations is so vast the chances of two ever meeting are very small, b) Many factors (from the over-quoted Drake Equation) need to come together for contact to take place (i.e. civilizations need to exist in the same time window, civilizations need to survive post-technological age "adolescence" and not destroy themselves, etc.) The probablilities involved are very slim, c) If life exists on many worlds and Earth isn't special in having the conditions necessary for life, Earth isn't special in attracting civilizations either. Why travel light-years to come to our planet with such a lowly, unevolved society such as our own?
Just because Stanton Frieman is a nuclear physicist does not mean he represents the world's scientific community. Most of us would vehemently disagree with his claims. You insult scientific objectivity and the scientific community in general by believing his work.
We can all hope for claims such as that of "Starchildren" to be true, but the fact remains they haven't been reproduced and the scientific community has not jumped on the "aliens bandwagon" since we don't see anything to be concerned about. Keep on dreaming, but please remain objective and critical of any such claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."