Saturday, February 24, 2001
So, We've Got the Genome Map. Now,
What to Do With It?
The map of the human genome is out — and while many swoon
over its medical possibilities, others cringe at the thought
of untold ethical quandaries
BY JESSICA
REAVES
For an eternity now, it seems, people have counted on various
and sundry external forces to bring us closer together as a
species. Love, tolerance, peace, understanding, et cetera, et
cetera. And now, after years of all that new-agey stuff, it
turns out that all we needed was a bunch of research scientists
and some pipettes.
Monday, the first description of the human genome was
published, revealing a previously unimagined wealth of genetic
information — including the fact that surface variances in
humans (including skin color, hair color and eye color) hinge
upon such infinitesimal genetic differences as to be almost
imperceptible. In other words, we're all made from nearly
identical building blocks.
A bad day indeed for racists and xenophobes, as France's
minister of research, Roger-Gerard Schwartzenberg, triumphantly
declared at a Monday press conference in Paris. He was
celebrating the participation of French scientists in the Human
Genome Project; other consortiums hailed from the U.S., the
United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and Japan. P> At Celera
Genomics, Craig Venter's private company in Rockville, Md., and
at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the publicly funded
Human Genome Project, release of the groundbreaking information
yielded joy tempered by a teeth-baring spirit of competition.
Since last June, when scientists unveiled a preliminary sketch
of the human genome, both teams have been working feverishly to
publish their outlines of the genetic "map" that
defines human beings — and which may shed light on deadly
illnesses. After months of bickering, they finally decided to
release their papers at the same time.
It was worth the wait: Beyond the expected developments,
there were also a few surprises in the dueling teams' new
studies — which are scheduled to be published later this week,
appropriately enough, in dueling science journals
("Nature" and "Science," respectively). It
turns out that men's genes, for example, are twice as likely as
women's to develop inheritable mutations — which means that
men are both a greater force of change in human evolution and
more likely to pass disease on to their children.
It's also come to light that humans have far fewer genes than
was previously thought. In fact, in spite of our sense of
evolutionary preeminence and structural complexity, the human
body only has twice as many genes as a common fruit fly. Not
exactly awe-inspiring, is it?
What is pretty spectacular, on the other hand, are the
seemingly boundless medical possibilities inherent in this
discovery. If a cancer specialist can use this map to accelerate
her search for the genetic anomaly that leads to breast cancer,
we might find a cure — or a means of prevention. And if the
root of a chronic illness lies buried in our DNA, the genome map
could eventually lead us to a usable therapy. Of course, despite
all this tantalizing promise, treatments, not to mention cures,
are years, possibly decades away. Scientists involved in the
mapping stress that while the latest descriptions are critical
to an eventual understanding of our genetic makeup, we are still
far from anything resembling a comprehensive grasp of human DNA.
That's just fine with some outside the scientific community,
who fear the downside of genetic mapping may overshadow its
benefits. If we're determined to unravel the mystery of genetic
coding, aren't we opening a Pandora's box of ethical conundrums?
If we know which genes lead to eye color, will we choose our
children's appearance? Will insurance companies deny coverage to
those with a genetic flaw? If we're capable of eliminating the
genetic malfunctions that cause cystic fibrosis, for example,
but only the richest among us can afford the procedure, are we
paving the way for genetic bigotry, or worse, for a "master
race" mentality?
|