Ruthie Cohen
Professor Johns
Seminar in Composition
15 October 2014
The Human Genome
Project: A Step in the Right Direction
Throughout the
first few chapters of Lewontin’s Biology
as Ideology, he is a harsh critic of modern science, arguing that
specifically the Human Genome Project offers false hope for those affected by
cancer and similar research is corrupt with poor intentions. Validly pointing
out some of the major flaws in modern scientific research practices, especially
the logic involved in the Human Genome Project, Lewontin’s criticism of modern
science—discernable from that of an “anti-science” advocate—offers a bleak,
pessimistic, and impractical approach to a constantly progressing society. If
scientific possibilities are not explored in an effort to boycott exploitation and
avoid failure, the functionalities of the institutions that might, one day,
cure cancer have no fighting chance.
Although Lewontin
is correct in his depiction of modern science as a sometimes selfish and
corrupt venture, the possible outcomes of this research deem such a claim
insignificant. He notes, “and I sometimes suspect that the claimed significance
of the genome sequencing project for human health is an elaborate cover story
for an interest in the hermeneutics of biological scripture.” Accusing scientists
and doctors alike of using endless funding in order to simply appease curiosity
despite whether a cure is actually attainable, Lewontin suggests that the Human
Genome Project is not directly benefitting those it is supposed to serve. What
Lewontin neglects to address, however, is the overwhelming evidence of progress
and the promise of success. According to the National Human Genome Research
Institute, results of the Human Genome Project are already aiding doctors in
the ongoing battle against cancer. For example, specific knowledge gained from
research has led to a more accurate diagnosis of certain cancers, paving the
way for more effective treatments. In particular, patients carrying a mutation
with metastatic melanoma have responded well to a treatment option that only
works for that mutation. In another case, a set of twins in California suffering
from “life-threatening neuromuscular symptoms” benefitted from research
conducted at the Human Genome Sequencing Center at the Baylor College of Medicine.
Upon discovery of a rare mutation present in the twins’ sepiapterin reductase gene, one
that would not have been discovered if not for intensive genetic research,
doctors were able to effectively treat and save the lives of these children.
Lewontin’s caution of “the failure to turn knowledge into therapeutic power”
(69), while it may be compelling in a general aspect, does not acknowledge albeit
small successes, yet ultimately ones that matter and may lead to larger ones.
Lewontin
presses, “Why, then, do so many powerful, famous, successful, and extremely
intelligent scientists want to sequence the human genome?” (Lewontin 51). The
answer, Lewontin believes, is in the promises of this work. Although not quite
there yet, scientists are seeing through to the end of the tunnel—“Nobel
prizes…honorary degrees…important professorships…huge laboratory facilities”
(Lewontin 51). Additionally, at the conclusion of “Causes and Their Effects,”
Lewontin claims, “what appears to us in the mystical guise of pure science and
objective knowledge about nature turns out, underneath, to be political,
economic, and social ideology.” (Lewontin 57). Lewontin’s argument suggests
that such scientists are nothing but false, self-made martyrs seeking out the
possible gains of a cure to cancer only to further their own careers. However,
evil in the form of corruption and ill intentions exists in all aspects of
life; an attempt to avoid such evil demonstrates ignorance and naivety. Rather,
a hard look at the past successes and future rewards of continuing with
research like the Human Genome Project puts the negatives in perspective. Recognized
specifically by Lewontin, James Watson’s “lobbying effort…aimed at capturing
very large amounts of public funds and directing the flow of those funds into
an immense cooperative research program” (60) is certainly worthwhile.
James D. Watson’s
article The Human Genome Project: Past,
Present and Future provides the optimistic yet realistic future outcomes of
genetic research. As is needed to justify
the amount of money, time, and effort put into the Human Genome Project, an
exploration of past breakthroughs offers hope for future ambitions. The
founding of the double helical structure of DNA in 1953, a seemingly
“undreamable scientific objective,” gave scientists the ability to isolate
bacterial genes, allowing for later discoveries in the late twentieth century.
Although this research has only involved the sequencing of several bacteria,
and much more time would be put into sequencing the human genome, results will
“not only help us understand how we function as healthy human beings, but will
also explain, at the chemical level, the role of genetic factors in a multitude
of diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and schizophrenia, that diminish
the individual lives of so many millions of people.” Often mental illnesses
such as schizophrenia become heavy burdens on society, the prevalence of which
increases crime rate, expenses for institutions, and homelessness. While
costly, research of the human genome is beneficial not only for inflicted patients,
but for society as a whole.
Similar
to Lewontin, Watson acknowledges the setbacks of a project such as the Human
Genome Project. These are issues not ignored by Watson, but rather taken into account
by himself and other competent scientists measuring the pros as they outnumber
the cons. Watson discusses an NRC (National Resource Council) meeting in which
the launching of the Human Genome Project was debated. Those opposed expressed
“fear that the project would be divorced from the main currents of biological
research.” Additionally, there were “strong reservations about any project in
which the ultimate control of resources lay in the hands of administrators, as
opposed to control by the scientific community itself.” This concern is
reminiscent of Lewontin’s argument that certain information may not be used
with the best interests of those the project benefits in mind. This is yet
another example of Lewontin too heavily criticizing the evils inherent in many
systems and institutions.
Another important
aspect of implementing such research is the ethical dilemma it poses, an issue
briefly touched upon by Lewontin. The groundbreaking knowledge of genetics
coming out of the Human Genome Project could cause havoc if released to the
public. If differences in genetics are found among, say, different races,
ethnicities, sexual orientations, etc. it could be the basis of genetic discrimination.
If taken advantage of, such information could be detrimental to society. In an
article titled Ethics, Business and the
Human Genome Project, Tim Symanietz expands on Lewontin’s worry regarding
ethics and the Human Genome Project. With more information available regarding
genetics, people will one day be able to learn that they will have a certain
disease but may not be able to do anything about it. This creates even more
problems, such as whether the doctor should be required to inform the patient
of red flags or whether this decision should be left up to the patient. Even if
the ailment is preventable, an individual may lead a very different life
knowing a possibly grim future awaits. Symanietz lists “other ethical concerns”
including “human cloning, gene
modification for treatment of diseases and manipulation of genes to produce
superior traits.” On the other hand, if scientists who have the
capability and the means to possibly cure cancer do not follow through, is this
an even worse ethic violation? Personally, I believe that the latter. The Human
Genome Project, underneath the robotic aspects of science, becomes an issue of
personal opinion. Are these lives worth saving at any cost? Advocates of the
Human Genome Project may take into account the criticisms of Lewontin, yet are
convinced that indeed lives are priceless and worthy of any endeavor.
Finally, Lewontin
questions the time and money put into the Human Genome Project, an effort that
“might take thirty years and occupy tens or even hundreds of billions of
dollars” (48-49). This major setback of the project, seemingly deeming it a
failed business venture, is put in perspective by economic benefits. So far,
the project has generated “800 billion dollars and has also employed just under
4 million people in such a short period of time,” not to mention the money made
from new drugs and methods of treatment aiding newly diagnosed patients.
Lewontin’s
Ideology as Biology: The Doctrine of DNA
is built on the largely accepted theory that our biology is influenced by both
genetic and environmental factors. Lewontin’s less vehement points about the
Human Genome Project, including misguided funding, inaccurate scientific
claims, among other reasons, are ultimately in support of a larger argument. Criticizing
those in favor of genetic determinism—the belief that genes and genes alone are
responsible for one’s composition—Lewontin argues that the Human Genome Project
does not account for environmental factors and therefore is not effective in
finding a cure for cancer. Recognizing
the significance genetics have in the cause and treatment of cancer, Lewontin
puts it simply: “we get cancer because our genes are not doing their business,”
(41) however insisting that more care should be taken to include “environmental
insult theories of the causes of cancer” (41). These ideas are explored in
depth in the chapter Causes and Their
Effects, in which Lewontin discusses the causes and effects of our
surroundings on our health and the consequences of ignoring them. It is true
that in the modern sense, tragedies such as “alcoholism, criminality, drug
addiction, and mental disorders” (46) are thrust under the genetic umbrella.
Society blames genes for a variety of issues that have strong environmental
influences. Perhaps the Human Genome Project, described by Lewontin as “the
current manifestation of that belief in the importance of our inheritance in
determining health and disease,” (46) could use a supplemental investigation of
environmental factors that may lead to cancer or rather a method that
incorporates both. While Lewontin is no doubt a harsh critic of modern science,
particularly the Human Genome Project, its discontinuation is not necessarily
in support of the arguments made in Biology
as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA or in the best interests of those
1,665,540 individuals diagnosed with cancer in 2014 and the many more to come.
It
is apparent that Lewontin is not against the Human Genome Project for the sake
of cancer research nor for the sake of modern scientific research at all,
rather he is opposed to the corrupt nature of its administrative forces and the
misunderstandings among glorification of the project. Therefore, instead of dismissing
important genetic research for it’s subliminal support of genetic determinism, methods
that address the environmental influences of cancer as a third perspective is
worth considering. Of course, it is now common knowledge that smoking
cigarettes often leads to lung cancer and careless exposure to radiation from
sunlight can cause skin cancer such as melanoma; harmful toxins like asbestos
and lead paint are also generally known to cause health problems, many of which
lead to cancer. As is the case with most criticisms, Lewontin points out many
problems with The Human Genome Project, which is no spectacle given the
inherent uncertainty and experimentation that goes hand in had with
breakthrough scientific research. Only some kind of representation of genetic
factors in addition to the continuation of research like the Human Genome
Project will appease critics like Lewontin while minimizing the public’s risk
of cancer. If the environmental impacts on cancer as well as genetics are not
addressed, the two forces can not both be accounted for. As I have expressed in
my defense of the Human Genome Project, I believe that philosophically and
ethically—and to a certain degree intellectually—it is necessary to support
such research. In order to keep this project in full swing, and in consideration
of Lewontin’s claims, I agree some representation of environmental factors
needs to be accounted for.
Lewontin
and other critics of the Human Genome Project have a point—perhaps efforts made
by the project have not been entirely successful and pose many ethical and
intellectual problems. Morally, there remain issues regarding privacy and genetic
discrimination, however, the moral implications of delaying a process with
potential that we are capable of starting now are much more drastic. The
research involved in the Human Genome Project represents a step in the right
direction, a trial-and-error process that may very well end in error. Still,
there remains a small glimmer of hope in the form of small successes that give
scientists a reason to think that this is a cause worth pursuing.
Works Cited
Collins, Francis
S., MD, PhD, and Victor A. McKusick, MD. "Implications of the Human Genome
Project for Medical Science." JAMA Network. The Journal of the
American Medical Association, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
"Human
Genome Project Pros and Cons - HRF." HRF.
Healthresearchfunding.org, 17 Feb. 2014. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
Lewontin, R.C. Biology
as Ideology. New York: HarperCollins Publishers; 1991. Print.
Symanietz, Tim.
"Ethics, Business and the Human Genome Project." Ethics, Business
and the Human Genome Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.