Gene-ius

There seems to have been a lot of talking about genes lately. A programme on TV last week (I can't find any more information about it) was telling us that our capacity for intelligence is genetic. It suggested that in the future we will judge each other not by our background, not our attributes, not even our actions but by our genes.

There is a genetic programme running worldwide which has been running for 15 years to entirely map the genes that make up a human. This information will enable us to identify whether people are carriers for certain conditions such as cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy.

But what will we do with this information? Can we cure these conditions? Can we adapt the genes of people to remove the condition? Could we adapt the genes of unborn children to prevent these conditions from surfacing? Would we become genetically modified people? Would governments prevent people who were carriers from having children to pass on these conditions?

Would society?

Information is power, and information is value. People would pay to find out about potential partners, people would self-govern. Consciously or not.

There is a TV programme called Andromeda, which seems irrelevant, but stick with me. It is set tens of thousands of years in the future. One of the races/lifeforms are genetically modified humans, called 'Nietzscheans'. They follow a strict interpretation of the philosophies of Nietzsche . This is most obviously seen through their dedication to self preservation and life-long seeking of self-improvement, and by default their genes for their future children, seeking the 'best' partners possible to continue the strongest lineage possible.

You might think that this is a bit of a jump from seeking to eradicate degenerative genetic conditions, but in fact I think it's a small step.

In Japan, it is not uncommon for families to get 'background checks' on their children's suitors. These checks are for status, race and situation, but also to check that there are no medical conditions prevalent. It is also a reason that many children in Japan with life-limiting conditions are sent to ''hospitals' where they live, often without contact from their parents. The existence of imperfect children is often seen as a source of shame, but more importantly it is seen as something that will prevent siblings from finding partners in future.

Decoding our genes is something that will benefit mankind, but have we considered the other consequences?

This is where the conflict begins. If we are able, should we ensure that people can live without fear of genetic disease? Shouldn't we rid ourselves of conditions that cause great emotional turmoil, not only for the person living with the condition, but also for their loved ones?

Many people nowadays can live lives full of joy, despite their conditions. You could argue that years ago, many of these people would not have survived to live as in these days, that we have already fought natural selection, won, and this is part of our prize. Thanks to the work of medical professionals, people are able to lead much longer and happier lives than previously. The work of charities such as Sue Ryder Care allow people with conditions like Huntington's Disease to live happier fuller lives. Many people with Huntington's Disease have children, as the onset and visible signs of the conditions don't arise until an individual reaches the age of around 30 or 40.

There is a 50% chance that the condition will have been passed on to children, which means a child could grow up seeing that the effects on their parent of a condition, and knowing that they have a 50:50 chance of also developing it. Very recently, 1999, I believe, we developed the ability to test for the condition in people. This enables us to find out whether or not the gene is present, allowing that individual to make an informed decision about their future, and whether or not to have children.

If a parent has the condition, but a child does not, then it will not reoccur in later generations. But the question is, when a person, has discovered that they will develop the condition, should the decision to have children remain with them? Of course it should, individuals should always have the right to make decisions about their own lives, but couldn't you argue that it benefit society if these genes were removed form the gene pool?

I don't have the answers, I only have questions. And I have more.

I'm not a scientist, or even scientifically minded, but my understanding is that we believe that genes are the building blocks of life. That they are the smallest, most basic part, but didn't we believe that the atom couldn't be split?

What if there's more to this that we haven't found yet? Can we make any decisions to base things upon genes yet?

Secondly, I've been told that people with Huntington's Disease generally don't seem to age the same way as the majority of people. By that I mean they don't physically age as fast. There is also a very, very low incidence rate of other conditions in people with Huntington's Disease, for example, very few develop cancer. Could they be somehow immune?

Now I hate to accept facts on face value, and perhaps this statistic is due to simple factors. The Japanese believed they were immune to cancer in the 50's and 60's, as they had few, if any, recorded cases. However now that life expectancy has leapt there, and although some still do, or believe immunity can be bought they've realised that in fact, they aren't naturally immune. In fact people were simply dying of other factors before they showed signs of cancer.*

But perhaps, it isn't that simple. Perhaps the flipside of what is a truly awful condition is a genetic immunity to something else. Perhaps before we rush out to get rid of genetic conditions, we should first find out what else they may be able to teach us.




*As an aside, many Japanese people don't seem to believe that aids is real, or that Japanese people can contract it. But that's for another day.