One of the most productive and controversial areas of scientific research today involves the study of the genetic code of humans, other animals, and plants. The field of genetics is exciting and fascinating, producing both compelling possibilities for health and commerce, as well as moral and ethical dilemmas that must be considered carefully. In the four articles that were selected from The New York Times, science journalists Broad, Chang, Pollack, and Wade address distinct applications of genetic technologies and suggest how they are relevant not only to the ivory tower of science, but also for the general public. If used appropriately and ethically, the kinds of discoveries that are being made by the scientists whose work is explained in these four articles can potentially be used to improve the health and resilience of people, animals, and crops; expand agricultural production in poor and ecologically vulnerable locations; and even offer the hope of curing diseases by accelerating the gene identification and research processes.
Genetic research involves looking forward towards potential applications of knowledge and techniques to alter the genetic code, but it also looks back, and this is the subject of Chang’s article. Chang, writing about the “archaeology of genes” (para. 2), explains how scientists are examining the genetic composition of ancient proteins to determine how the function of genes and the proteins themselves have evolved over the course of hundreds, thousands, and even millions of years. Proteins, once they change shape, have difficulty performing their assigned functions, and as a result, an “evolutionary cul-de-sac” is created, rendering the protein obsolete (para. 6). Because proteins are a basic building block of life, learning more about how they have changed over time offers insight into the very mechanics of the evolutionary process.
As this fund of knowledge about the mechanics of evolution and genetic coding and functioning grows, so do the possibilities of using this information in new ways, and that is the subject of Broad’s article. Broad describes how a little known process called radiation breeding is used by geneticists to force spontaneous mutations upon certain crops, thereby resulting in increased genetic diversity and, in the best cases, in crop resilience, a benefit that is particularly promising for developing nations that rely upon monoculture for their subsistence economies. Though not as controversial as genetically modified foods, radiation breeding still raises some concerns, mainly that the process used is not “natural.” The scientist interviewed by Broad dismisses these concerns, however, saying that the work he and his colleagues do merely mimics the natural selection process; it simply does so in an accelerated time frame.
Pollack’s article also involves an examination of human intervention in genetic processes, this time in the very production of genes themselves. Pollack explains that the convergence of advanced technology and increased demand has made it possible for technicians to manufacture strands ofDNAfor the purpose of research. While there is concern that this process may lead to questionable applications of the technology, including selective breeding of people, current and anticipated use ofDNAstrand production holds out promise for the possibility of advancing the speed and efficacy of epidemiological research exponentially.
Finally, Wade reports on an issue that concerns most Americans: the role that genes play in determining our weight. Wade looks back and forward at the same time, examining how past generations’ behaviors and eating habits have influenced our current genetic make-up, including the genetic propensity for obesity. Brushing aside the fad-diet assumptions about the relative evil of carbohydrates versus fats versus sugars, Wade presents scientific evidence that seems to substantiate the claim that the introduction of starch to the human diet resulted in the accelerated production of the amylase gene, which, in turn, converts starch to sugar and sugar, of course, into weight. According to Wade’s interpretation of the research, this phenomenon helps explain some of the branching off among the species—especially between primates and humans—that has occurred over the course of evolutionary history.
The four articles are not only related to one another thematically in their treatment of the subject of genetic technologies and current research, but they are also related to one another in terms of their social relevance; the issues that the journalists present to the reader affect us all. First, the persistent arguments between people who believe in evolution and those who do not, for example, are challenged by the information and knowledge that is emerging through the kinds of research described here. The process of scientific experimentation is producing irrefutable information that supports an evolutionary model, irrespective of religious beliefs and philosophical preferences. The polemical debates between intelligent design advocates and evolutionists, then, must necessarily be tempered by the facts that science has brought to light. Indeed, there are new debates that genetic research raises, and this is also a matter that affects us all.
The discoveries that scientists are making require thoughtful engagement of the public regarding ethical, moral, and legal considerations about the limits of genetic technologies and modifications. As a society, we will eventually be called upon to decide how far we are willing to let science go to change natural evolutionary processes. Such decisions will be challenging, as the technologies that are evolving hold out promise and danger in equal measure. On the one hand, genetic modifications can improve our understanding of disease and of health, and can potentially diminish those variables that contribute to disease. The discoveries, particularly those described by Broad, also offer particular benefits to people living in developing countries and whose dependence upon agricultural production as a means of economic sustenance can become less vulnerable to the unpredictable forces of nature, many of which—such as climate—are caused by humans. On the other hand, the ethical implications of making disease-resistant people, animals, and plants may upset the balance of natural selection that genetics not adapted or interfered with by humans has traditionally been able to maintain. While scientists argue they are merely accelerating natural processes, they often fail to address what the negative or deleterious effects of such acceleration might be.
The discoveries described by all four authors are important because they represent the cutting edge of contemporary genetic research, and explain, in clear and accessible terms, how these discoveries affect all people. The shared premise among the researchers whose work is described in these articles is that if scientists can exert greater control over the outcomes of the “dice roll” that is genetic selection and evolution, humans will experience greater benefits and more predictability in many areas of their lives. The kinds of work that the researchers are conducting are still really only in their nascent stages, and there is a great deal more research that will need to be conducted in the future in order to understand the panorama of potential implications of the kinds of modifications that are being made, as well as discoveries that are shedding light on ancient genetic processes. As a media-consuming public, we have the responsibility to read articles such as those by Broad, Chang, Pollack, and Wade as critically and as objectively as possible. Setting aside our own personal beliefs about the evolutionary process, we must examine the assumptions, findings, and the applications that researchers report, as well as those that are implied but not stated in the research findings and in their analysis. Only then can we become thoughtful readers who can arrive at an understanding of the ways in which the kinds of research described in these articles affects us now and how it might affect us in the future.
References
Broad, W.J. (2007, August 28). Useful mutants, bred with radiation. The New York Times. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved on October 29, 2007 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html?emc=eta1
Chang, K. (2007, August 21). Ancient protein tells the story of changing functions. The New York Times. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved on October 29, 2007 fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/science/21prot.html?_r=1&emc=eta1&oref=slogin
Pollack, A. (2007, September 12). How do you like your genes? Biofabs take orders. The New York Times. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved on October 29, 2007 fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/technology/techspecial/12gene.html?emc=eta1
Wade, N. (2007, September 10). Study finds evidence of genetic response to diet. The New York Times. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved on October 29, 2007 fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/science/10starch.html?emc=eta1
