* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Resources15 Reading resources
Pharmacogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Non-coding DNA wikipedia , lookup
Vectors in gene therapy wikipedia , lookup
Human genome wikipedia , lookup
Essential gene wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of neurodegenerative diseases wikipedia , lookup
Gene therapy wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression programming wikipedia , lookup
Pathogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Population genetics wikipedia , lookup
Nutriepigenomics wikipedia , lookup
Genetic testing wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
Medical genetics wikipedia , lookup
Genomic imprinting wikipedia , lookup
Ridge (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Genome evolution wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of human development wikipedia , lookup
Human genetic variation wikipedia , lookup
Minimal genome wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression profiling wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Quantitative trait locus wikipedia , lookup
Irving Gottesman wikipedia , lookup
Genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Heritability of IQ wikipedia , lookup
Public health genomics wikipedia , lookup
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
Designer baby wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
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