Comments
by JT Michcock...
One
of the most profound projects in the history of science is about to be
completed. I am speaking of the Human
Genome Project, being conducted by the original group of governmental
agencies and pharmaceutical companies as well as Celera Genomics.
The effect of the completion of the project will not only affect the world
of medicine, but also create social changes as the modifications take hold.
The net result will be a world-wide society with more clearly defined concepts
of male and female.
UNLOCKING THE GENOME
Humans and all living creatures
save the lowliest viruses are filled with a substance called deoxyribose
nucleic acid (DNA). DNA consists of a sugar molecule and an attached
phosphate group. DNA has four nitrogenous bases: two purines (adenine
and guanine) and two pyrimidines (cytosine and thymine).
Those familiar with
computer binary codes know that there are two possible code entries, 1
or 0. In DNA,
the potential codes are 4, A, G, C and T, making it more complex.
Movie goers might recognize these letters from the recent motion picture
GATTACA whose dominant theme had to do with genetic engineering.
There are literally trillions
of these base pairs within every cell. What do they do? On
a very basic level, they code for proteins. These proteins then combine
to create structures and regulate the growth and maintenance of the organism.
In human beings, there are some 80,000 to 100,000 genes that code for all
aspects of our physical being, including height, eye color and other familiar
features.
Also being coded for, and
only recently discovered, are various aspects of our behavior, intelligence
and temperament. It is sometimes a difficult prospect to grasp, but
you are largely not a product of how you were raised but how you were born.
Language acquisition, for example, is a skill that is built into a person,
including the development of neural pathways to allow children to build
grammatical structures even when they have never heard the words used before.
D. Cohen, Strangers in the Nest, 77-80 (Wiley 1999).
There are also genes that
determine how adventurous a person you may be, with the "thrill-seeking"
gene being discovered in the mid 1990s as well as variables that promote
anxiety.
The reason Robbie Knieval
followed in his father's footsteps has a lot to do with his genetic heritage
as well as learned behaviors.
What the Human Genome Project
seeks is a general road map of what genes exist in the human equation.
It is not entirely dissimilar to the computer programmer who reads lines
of binary code to figure out the functions these instructions perform.
Once the road map is known, knowledge of function will follow quickly as
different persons' genetic information is compared to the baseline.
With the advent of the Human
Genome Project's completion, thoughts are already focused on how this knowledge
will be used in the form of therapies. Many technical obstacles need
to be surmounted, but modification of behavior through genetic
therapy is close enough to generate much discussion in the popular
media.
GENDER & GENETICS
One surprising absence from
discussions is how gene therapy, once it does arrive, will shake out when
it comes to the gender of the patient. Quite simply, will the
gender of the person make a difference between whether a person (or his
parent) requests therapy? A common sense analysis argues strongly
that gender-based selection will be commonplace. In a very real sense,
this will make the existing differences between male and female all the
greater.
In the physical arena, height
is one such difference that already exists. Men are, on average,
taller than women. Short guys have a hard time of it. A recent
Australian
study revealed that shorter boys are more likely to fail in school
than their taller classmates. Interestingly, there is no like correlation
with girls, their passage rates are unaffected by height.
Envision a genetic surgeon
coming into the room after a mother has given birth to meet with the parents.
With him is a chart that provides a read out of the child's genome with
certain physical and behavioral estimates. Meeting with the parents,
he notes a strong likelihood that the child will develop colon cancer later
in life. The parents nod their approval at the doctor's suggestion
that genetic therapy be used to lessen the cancer risk.
In discussing the child's
other genetic properties, it emerges that the child is also likely grow
to be between 5'6" to 5'8". The child's temperament will also be
introverted and passive. The doctor wants to know if there are any
additional modifications that should be made with the administration of
the colon cancer reduction.
When it comes to these optional
treatments, will the parents make a decision based upon the gender of the
child? Probably. To say otherwise reveals more than a bit of
self-deception.
With extroversion, parents
with a boy will envision an agressive pusher, doing what he can to get
things done. With the same genetic make-up in a young lady, the parents
will envision someone overly extroverted and likely to get into "trouble."
Much has been made lately
about how the genders are becoming more similar. Supposedly, women
can compete in the same arena as men, and girls with boys. I am still
waiting for word that Dennis Rodman is attempting to enter the WNBA.
That should set a few tongues wagging.
Of course they can compete,
but can they win at the highest levels? Not too likely. At
least not in any sort of numbers close to equal. The higher the status,
the more men are attracted to the position. This is not a "cultural"
matter, although the culture provides the status to the position.
The male advantage exists regardless of the culture and this is entirely
physiologically based. In other words, patriarchy is in our genes.
I wrote above about computer
programmers and the similarity between binary and DNA code. This
is coincidentally a good starting point to discuss how status attracts
men.
Here are some figures
to contemplate. In 1976, women comprised some 45.9% of the bachelor
degree recipients in computer science programs. Now that professions
in computer sciences have developed a certain cachet, women were only 28.5%
of those graduates in 1994.
Men and women both seek status.
The difference is that men will pursue that status with more determination
and sacrifice more readily their health and safety to achieve. The
numbers tell it all. One 1994 MIT
survey found that a lot of women were dissuaded from entering computer
science programs was because it was "too competitive."
FUTURE BODIES
In the future, the abilities
of men and women will grow greater as genetic manipulation becomes commonplace.
With genetic engineering being introduced on a wide scale in the upcoming
years, these innate differences will become more disparate.
Will there be groups that
disavow gender based genetic discrimination? Certainly. For
a while, groups may be able to impose certain restrictions at the outset,
but that is not likely to last very long. Even now, arguments are
being raised about genetic "enhancements" in various scholarly
publications. Medical organizations such as National Society
of Genetic Counselors are opposed to cloning and genetic testing for sex
selection. These "enhancements" are differentiated from "corrective"
measures.
This raises the question:
who the hell are the National Society of Genetic Counselors? Since
when does *any* organized group have the right to dictate what parents
should determine are "corrective" measures versus those that are "enhancements."
In a world where modifying a child's eyesight from 20/40 to 20/20 is a
prohibited enhancement while changing it from 20/100 to 20/40 is an appropriate
corrective measure, the distinction becomes arbitrary and meaningless.
It is profoundly upsetting
to see groups and organizations trying to enforce by legal mandate to parents
how their children should be raised. One has to question what business
these people have meddling in the first place. Are they really so
omniscient and wise that their choices for our children's futures be entrusted
to their dictatorial embrace?
Governmentally enforced eugenics
policies were once the rage of the Third Reich. A governmental policy
that seeks to enforce rules controlling individual genetic choices is no
different regardless of the stated motivations for the controls.
PARENTS AND CHILDREN
There is going to be a battle
ahead with respect to what sort of genetic engineering will be done on
human beings. The intellectuals who attend seminars and debate these
topics ad nauseam will continue to do so. But the people who will
have to live with these decisions, namely the parents, are the ones who
will ultimately be asked to make the call.
It is a safe bet that where
children are concerned, it is not likely that parents will be reluctant
to introduce wide scale changes. After all, they are parents and
for the most part seek to do the best by their children. Anyone looking
for The Island of Doctor Moreau to pop up in the neighborhood schoolyard
will be disappointed.
Certainly, there will be
exceptions to the general rule. Some parents will want aggressive
girls and more sensitive boys. There will also be parents who name
their kids "Rumer" and "Scout." Fortunately, this is not most people.
Most of these exceptions
will likely emerge from the western liberal intelligentsia. One thing
to recall when discussing genetic modifications is that the Caucasian population
in post-industrial nations is only a small portion of the world.
Even here, the sophisticated, brie-loving urban dwellers are far outnumbered
by the bowling, suburban NASCAR fans (or soccer fans in other nations).
It would be a prescription
for disaster for any nation to try to promote creation of a cowed population
of young men. Sooner or later, these men will be called upon to do
battle with far more aggressive counterparts in the third world.
Such utter stupidity in making these men more "sensitive" will be rewarded
with the destruction of the society making such modifications.
BOTTOM LINE
Parents desire that their
kids be happy. In a world where boys are becoming taller, more muscular
and extroverted while girls are becoming shorter overall, rounder and more
introverted, the numbers will direct that parents go with the flow.
Man is a social animal and needs the approval, attention and interaction
of others. In a sense, Jean-Paul Sarte got it precisely wrong; heaven
is other people.
As social animals, it is
insufficient for people to think of themselves in isolation. While
individuality is a key component to a healthy life, so to is a sense of
belonging. One of the key areas where people require a sense of meaning
is from their gender.
Stereotypes that in past
times existed as to what comprises the "ideals" of male and female
will soon become the norm. In that future, guided by the Human Genome
Project, and the therapies that will become more commonplace, the differences
between male and female will become more apparent, even more so than they
are already.
|
