Will Genomics Prove that We’re All Basically the Same and Lead to a more Just
Society?
Last week,
scientists announced that the human genome has about 30,000 genes, less than
half the expected number. From this,
some have rashly suggested that humans are not much different from each other,
or even from mice or yeast, which have roughly as many genes as we do.
I’m not buying
it. Yeast can’t write powerful
poems. Yeats could.
Little
differences often make big differences.
The profound
effects of small differences should be especially apparent in the realm of
science.
Chlorophyll
and hemoglobin molecules are chemically very similar except that chlorophyll
has a magnesium atom at its center instead of hemoglobin’s iron. Substitute hemoglobin for chlorophyll and you
have a dead plant.
Substitute chlorophyll for hemoglobin and you’ll keel over faster than
the plant did.
Hexavalent chromium is a
potent carcinogen which precipitates multi-million dollar cleanups and
lawsuits. Trivalent chromium is nutritional
supplement praised by holistic physicians for
its ability to regulate blood sugar.
Break out a
little grain alcohol and you give rise to a party. Break out a little wood alcohol, with its
extra carbon and two extra hydrogen atoms, and you give rise to a funeral.
And so
on. The biochemical realm is replete
with such examples.
Consider the
biotic world. If a sequoia weren’t
genetically built to be huge, it would resemble a bonsai. If a rose were not programmed to flower, it
would be pesky
brier. If a watermelon didn’t make
sugar, it would be a worthless, heavy bag of water. If pigs had wings...
And
now, humans. If Julia Roberts had a genetic
tendency toward small teeth, you might still see her at the movies-- behind the
snack bar. If Michael Jordan never grew taller than six
feet, he probably would not have played beyond high school. If Bill Clinton had been born black, he might
have been killed in
How much genetic difference is necessary
to cause each physical difference? Most
people incorrectly assume that all traits are single gene traits, i.e., that
every trait can be linked to one gene. As a corollary of
this notion, many also think that, like an assembly line, one gene can be
substituted for another that that only one trait will be affected. But, as Brian Tokar,
the biophysicist
and author of Redesigning Life? notes, this is a gross
misimpression. “A single gene can
influence many traits. Simultaneously, numerous genes may
be required for the expression of one trait.
It’s many to one, and one to many.”
Anyone who has studied mathematical permutations knows that the number
of possible combinations multiplies rapidly with even a small number of
elements. Increase the number of genetic
and proteomic factors to “mere” thousands and the effect of relatively small number of differences
grows, perhaps beyond comprehension.
Geneticists presently maintain that
we’re all like because to so state is politically correct and , therefore,
pleases the media and funding public.
But this notion requires one to turn a blind eye to reality. Do these scientists really think we are all
intellectually equal at birth? Can we
all carry tunes or dance equally well?
Is the ability to run fast or to do a handspring developed, or
innate?
If scientists haven’t found genetic influences on the countless traits
which render us different, it might be that they just don’t know where to look
yet. In the meanwhile, it seems
unscientific to conclude
we’re the same before much is really known.
Accurate and
de-politicized genetic interpretations, to the extent they become possible, are
as likely to be unpalatable as they are to be palatable. Will unbiased genetic research yield information
about genetic advantages and disadvantages that we don’t collectively need and
may not like? Will the genticists abandon their egalitarian facade once their
research is paid for?
What human and social costs will arise from
future jumps to genetic conclusions?
Will we write people off-- or, as we already do, abort them, as
fetuses-- because we suspect they are genetically inferior? Will we use gene therapy to purge mutations
that are “bad” in some respects but good in some other, unrecognized way?
Scientists are
neither omniscient nor intrinsically benevolent. Nor do they often acknowledge this misuses
that can be made of their work.
Don’t believe the hype. It’s not all good.
.