Posted by SLS on July 8, 2000, at 18:23:47
In reply to An thoughtuful meds ethicist on genetic(s) hype..., posted by dj on July 7, 2000, at 21:48:57
Hi dj,
I figured I should exercise my wilting brain a little more today.
I agree with the concerns of Prof. Baird. This may be an exaggeration, but splitting the chromosome might be both as dangerous and as productive as splitting the atom. It will probably require as much responsible regulation and overseeing as does nuclear energy. It will probably even need international agreements and proliferation treaties. Big business the smallest of my concerns.
> To listen to gene merchants tell it, we will soon have our chromosomes read as part of routine medical checkups.
I think that this becomes common practice is quite likely and, in my opinion, very desirable. I'm just not sure how soon "soon" is.
> But scientists do not yet know how to interpret the genome, or its vast stretches of seemingly useless "junk" DNA. Nor are they sure how many genes there are in the genome. Estimates vary from 34,000 to 120,000. And they do not have a clue about what most of the human genes do, or what turns them on and off.
This is what the public has not been properly informed of.
Bye the way, there is more "junk" than there are genes.
> "The blurring of academia with industry means a societal resource -- a body of independent scientists without commercial affiliation -- has been lost,"
This has been one of my greatest fears over the last few years, as I have seen one researcher after another leave critical institutions of learning to enter lucrative careers in the pharmaceutical industry. I want the smart people to keep trying to figure out how to get me well.
> All of which makes the popular notion that genes cause disease more than a little simplistic. Or an "overly naive interpretation," as Baird puts it.
> "If ill health is defined as genetic, innate and simply unfolding, then social supports, good early nurturing, narrowing economic gaps and appropriate workplace organization are less likely to be underwritten by society," she says.
> Only one-third of patients now follow their doctors' directions and at best 50% routinely take medications prescribed for their chronic medical problems. The idea that healthy people will take drugs for years on the basis of a genetic test and a future disease risk is likely to be low, she says. A persistent and irrational element in human nature appears to be stacked against such notions of mass genetic servicing.
I think a great many of the concerns and arguments of Prof. Baird and the author rest upon the presumed persisting ignorance of the public, the government, and even health-care professionals. All are educable - at least to the point of not needing to slow the pace of discovery to accommodate them. One not need know the physics and logistics of building and operating nuclear reactors and distributing their energy to be able to turn on a light and not get electrocuted.
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:39430
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000708/msgs/39831.html