Download Resources15 Reading resources

Warning on linking genes and human behaviour
Report highlights dangers in diagnosing social traits
Tim Radford, science editor, Wednesday October 2, 2002
The Guardian
Parents should not be allowed to
choose, or even know about the
intelligence, sexual orientation
or personality traits of their
future children, according to
advice to the government today.
The technique of preimplantation
genetic diagnosis - used only to
identify
serious
inherited
disorders
should
not
be
extended to genes that might
affect behaviour. Abortion of a
foetus
on
the
basis
of
information
about
"normal"
behavioural
traits
would
be
morally
unacceptable,
new
guidelines say.
"This
is
potentially
an
explosive area, and the first
question we asked was whether
such research should be carried
out at all," said Bob Hepple,
chairman of a Nuffield Bioethics
Council report on research into
genes and behaviour.
"We concluded that it can be
justified because it has the
potential
to
advance
our
understanding
of
human
behaviour.
However,
it
is
important to create safeguards."
Some
inherited
conditions
cystic
fibrosis,
muscular
dystrophy and so on - can be
identified
by
changes
in
a
single
gene.
Some
potential
illnesses
cancer,
heart
disease, diabetes - depend on
the
interaction
of
the
environment and whole suites of
not-yet-identified
genes.
But
the working party looked at the
thorniest
topic
of
all:
the
genes
that
might
dispose
to
alcoholism
or
gambling
addiction,
eccentricity
or
absent-mindedness,
thrillseeking
behaviour
or
acute
shyness, aggression, depression
and so on.
Such research raises grim re
minders of eugenic policies in
the US, some European countries
and Nazi Germany more than 60
years ago. It raises the danger
that genes might be used as glib
explanations
for
complicated
human responses. It raises a
worrying possibility that some
behaviour now seen as within the
range of the normal could be
turned into a "medical" problem.
"It
is
common
to
hear
of
research that claims to identify
a gene for aggression or a gene
for homosexuality. But how could
our genes cause us to act in a
particular
way?"
the
report
asks. "The connection between
genes and diseases is far from
straightforward,
and
the
relationship between genes and
behaviour
is
even
more
complicated."
The team argues that researchers
and the media have a duty to
report genetic findings in a
responsible
manner.
It
also
calls
for
the
Department
of
Health to create a new agency to
monitor and even control the use
of
future
drugs
designed
to
modify behaviour in people "who
would not necessarily be thought
of
as
exhibiting
behavioural
traits
outside
the
normal
range".
It calls for guidelines ahead of
any research into gene therapy
for normal behavioural traits,
along with stringent monitoring
of any such genetic tests that
might be made available to the
public. It also stresses that
genetic
information
about
behaviour does not absolve an
individual
from
responsibility
for an offence. It was unlikely
that the science of genes and
behaviour would ever be accurate
enough to make predictions about
behaviour, it says.
hospital,
in
London,
said
research into the genetics of
behaviour had profound social
and ethical implications. "If I
know I have a high genetic
loading for schizophrenia I can
take care not to smoke cannabis,
improve my coping skills and
avoid severe stress. It is often
environmental
factors
that
decide
whether
genes
get
expressed or not."
"Where a person has not yet
committed a crime, we do not
feel that it is justifiable to
try to predict behaviour with a
view
to
detaining
that
individual," said Prof Hepple.
"This applies equally whether
the
information
is
based
on
genetic
or
nongenetic
influences."
Missing links
George Radda, chief of Britain's
medical research council, said
the research needed to be guided
by ethical debate, but it should
nonetheless be part of modern
psychological research.
"Poor
mental
health,
serious
behavioural disorders and mild
learning
difficulties
can
present significant problems for
medical, educational and social
services, and can cause a great
deal of suffering for the people
affected, and their families.
Research
into
behavioural
genetics can provide pieces of
the scientific jigsaw which have
been unavailable until now."
And Raj Persaud, a consultant
psychiatrist
at
the
Maudsley
· Male homosexuality Inherited
from
the
mother;
claim
not
substantiated
·
Schizophrenia
connection;
genes
identify
Family
hard
to
· Violence and aggression The
evidence from one Dutch family
group is disputed
·
Ability
to
carry
a
tune
Identical
twins
share
the
talent, non-identical twins do
not
·
Surviving
childhood
abuse
Based on a 20 year study of New
Zealand children born in one
year
· Grammar Many members of one UK
family cannot apply rules for
tense and number
· Intelligence Based on extrasmart
genetically
engineered
mouse
A clone writes
Sharing your DNA with someone does not make you the same
person, says Lowri Turner
Friday January 10, 2003
The Guardian
I am a clone. Even writing that
feels odd. I might as well say I
am a tomato, or a VW Beetle, or
a leather three-piece suite with
free footstool from DFS for all
the resonance the word "clone"
has for me. I don't feel like a
clone. I don't think I look like
a
clone.
And
yet,
strictly
speaking, I am one. I am an
identical twin. I am an exact
genetic copy of someone else, or
they are a copy of me, depending
on your point of view. As the
younger twin - my sister Catrin
and I were born by Caesarean, so
it was more of a queueing system
and I was at the back - I tend
to accept that it is I who am
the copy and my sister who is
the original. But then, when
you've
spent
your
childhood
being given a dead arm for
daring to corral Sindy's pony
for exclusive personal use, you
tend
to
acquiesce
easily
to
sibling bullying.
When you are part of a multiple
birth - I have another non-
identical
triplet
sister
to
confuse matters further - you
are used to being a curiosity.
As
a
child,
people
stared,
teachers got confused and my
identical
sister
and
I
were
asked to be bridesmaids a lot.
During the mid-70s, when big
old-fashioned
cinemas
had
a
habit of converting to three
smaller screens, my two sisters
and I had a lucrative sideline
touring north London posing on a
three-wheeled bicycle for local
papers. As an adult, twindom
elicits more peculiar reactions.
I have lost count of the number
of men who have asked, nudge,
nudge, wink, wink, whether we
ever go out with the same bloke.
The answer, by the way, is no.
Then there are those who enquire
if
my
sister
and
I
are
telepathic. Again, no.
Still, up to now, I may have
been a freak, but I was regarded
as a benevolent one. Now, thanks
to a mad doctor working for an
even madder religious cult, the
term clone has entered everyday
use. Suddenly, being part of a
matching set has taken on a much
more threatening edge. My worry
now is that I will be seen not
so much as a genetic accident as
part of some Bond-style plot to
people
the
world
with
an
identikit master race.
Well, perhaps it's time for a
clone
to
put
the
record
straight. First, clones are not
duplicates.
Any
self-obsessed
millionaire who thinks he can
knock up a "mini-me" in a test
tube
to
ensure
his
own
immortality
is
going
to
be
disappointed. Twins may start
out
identical,
but
from
the
moment the original egg divides,
the
two
halves
are
set
on
different
paths
in
life.
My
mother insists that my sister
and I felt different from the
first
moment
she
held
us.
Certainly,
my
sister
was
bolshier. She kicked whoever sat
beside her, a trait she has only
recently reined in.
Physically, my twin and I are
different. I admit I have walked
up to mirrors and said hello and
I can and do confuse childhood
pictures of myself and Catrin.
The only clue to our identity is
often the colour we are wearing.
Still, if you look closely, she
has a longer nose, a slimmer
face and one ear sticking out.
She has also grown up to be half
an inch taller.
Twins' personalities are also
different. I remember one father
of twins telling me his sixmonth-old
daughters
were
"beginning to develop their own
personalities". Our parents were
at pains to encourage us to
express our individuality. We
were perplexed: we always knew
we
were
individuals.
It
was
everyone else who bracketed us
together.
The truth is that clones are
different. Is this nature or
nurture? Who knows? For every
study of separated twins that
points
to
strikingly
similar
life choices, there are pairs of
twins who have been brought up
together who have made radically
different decisions. In my own
case, I think my sister and I
deliberately
cultivated
different talents so as not to
be continually compared. When
you are treated like a buy-oneget-one-free pack of toothpaste,
you need your own territory.
But none of this addresses the
issue of why cloning scares the
pants off most people. This is
because it seems so unnatural,
so artificial. It reeks of a
smoking test tube and a luminous
petri dish. And yet my sister
and I are living proof that
cloning is a naturally occurring
phenomenon. Long before Messrs
Antinori and Boisselier hit the
headlines, cloning was as run of
the mill as curly red hair or
freckles - although an entire
generation
of
Annies
would,
admittedly, be a pretty scary
prospect.
A cure for stupidity? It’s all in the
genes, says DNA pioneer
Leigh Dayton Science writer
He has a sharp brain, a Nobel Prize and a
penchant for rattling cages. Now James Watson
is at it again. Stupidity is an inherited “disease”
like cystic fibrosis or colon cancer, he says and
science must find a cure.
Along with Cambridge University colleague
Francis Crick, he revealed the double helix
structure of DNA 50 years ago next April. He
also pioneered the Human Genome Project, the
worldwide effort that mapped the genes packed
into the cells of every human being.
Dr Watson has long argued that insights gained
by decoding our genetic blueprint must be used
to redress – through prenatal screening or gene
therapy – the “genetic injustice” created by
inherited conditions that may shorten or impede
life. In a twist of fate, Dr Watson’s son suffers
from a cognitive disorder, which is similar to
autism. This experience helped shape his views,
reported yesterday in The Times of London.
“It seems unfair that some people don’t get the
same opportunity. Once you have a way in
which you can improve your children, no one can
stop it,” said Dr Watson, now president of Cold
Spring Harbour Laboratory in New York state.
Dr Watson’s comments left Australian experts
bemused. “Stupidity is not a disease to be cured
with a little genetic tinkering,” said Helga Kuhse,
a bioethicist with Monash University and the
University of Melbourne. Philosopher Simon
Longstaff, executive director of Sydney’s St
James Ethics Centre, also questioned Dr Watson
definition of “stupidity”.
“I
assume he’s making a distinction between
instances of stupidity and some state of being
which he describes as essentially stupid,” he
said. Practicalities aside, Dr Kuhse and Dr
Longstaff point to ethical hurdles of cranking up
humanity’s IQ. “Intelligence” must be defined.
Access to enhancing technology must be
universal, and such qualities as emotional and
physical ability must not be denigrated.
Still, Dr Kuhse muses: “Perhaps the world would
be a better place if we were all a bit smarter.
Editorial – Page 20
Its getting the genes
to fit
Editorial
When scientists James Watson and
Frances Crick identified the
structure of DNA, the genetic
blueprint that makes every human
being unique, 50 years ago this
Both articles: The Weekend Australian
March 1-2,2003