|
© All columns copyrighted
Columns must not be
reprinted in any form without the author's express permission.
|
|
Melvin's blog
Nshima & Curry
Melvin's Blog
Nshima & Curry
| |
GENETIC ADVANCES HAVE SOME
DRAWBACKS
Remember Gregor Mendel? In the 19th
century, the Austrian monk used pea plants
to discover the basic laws of genetics,
explaining, for example, why some plants
are tall and some are short. Mendel’s work
was largely ignored during his lifetime,
partly because Mendel, being a typical
monk, neglected to hire a publicist. He could
have signed a million-dollar book deal and
become a hero not only to monks and
scientists, but also to pea farmers
everywhere.
If Mendel lived today and announced his
findings to the world, things would be
considerably different. Rather than being
ignored, he would become instantly famous,
as the subject of hundreds -- perhaps
thousands -- of jokes. Yes, poor Gregor
would be ridiculed all the way back to his
monastery.
Newspaper editor: "So what award-winning
story are you going to write today?"
Science reporter: "I don’t know. There are
two major press conferences to cover. In the
first, two teams of scientists are announcing
that they’ve unveiled the human genome,
identifying every letter of the genetic code. In
the second, an Austrian monk is announcing
that he knows why some pea plants are
short."
Editor: "I’m not too smart, but I think you
should write about the human genome. Let
Jay Leno handle the monk. Perhaps I’ll also
tell our cartoonist about him. With Elian
gone, he’s running out of material."
The human race has certainly come a long
way since Gregor’s days. We’re not only
cloning animals and using DNA to catch
crooks, we’ve now identified all 3.1 billion
molecular "letters" of DNA found in every
human being, even Ross Perot. Like other
observers, I applaud the latest achievement
and wish to send this message to the
scientists: "Congratulations! Keep up the
good work. And whatever you do, please
stay away from my DNA."
There’s no denying the potential benefits of
the decoded human genome. It could help
us predict whether a person is susceptible
to a specific disease, whether certain
genetic defects are likely to be transferred
to offspring, whether it's wise to allow
Chelsea Clinton to have an intern.
It could also help us determine whether
humans evolved from apes. Although I don’t
believe in evolution, I’ve often wondered --
especially in hot weather -- why I’m so darn
hairy. And why I like to eat nuts and berries.
But I’m afraid that DNA readings will tell us
more than we want to know about ourselves
and our children.
Doctor to excited parents of newborn baby:
"I just got the results of your son’s DNA
analysis. The good news is that he has a
nice set of acting genes and could be
successful in either Hollywood or Congress.
The bad news is that he has litigious genes
and could become a lawyer. Would you like
to put him up for adoption?"
In the wrong hands, a person’s DNA
analysis could be harmful. By "wrong hands,"
I’m of course talking about the government.
But private companies can be just as
intrusive.
Assistant manager: "Why didn’t you hire that
candidate? She has a great resume."
Manager (taking a puff of his cigarette): "Yes,
she’s a bright woman, she interviewed well
and has lots of experience. But I just don’t
like her DNA. Our health insurance bill will hit
the roof if we hire someone who’s likely to
get cancer."
| |
|
