Fwd: Genome is not a map to the human self

From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 04 2000 - 16:48:27 BST

  • Next message: Chris Lofting: "FW: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Ba"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA14874 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:51:36 +0100
    Subject: Fwd: Genome is not a map to the human self
    Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:48:27 -0400
    x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
    To: "SKEPTIC-L" <skeptic@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu>, "Memetics Discussion List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
    Message-ID: <20000704154826.AAA9302@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.137]>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Genome is not a map to the human self

    http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/186/science/Genome_is_not_a_map_to_the_hu
    man_selfP.shtml

    By Chet Raymo, 7/4/2000

    ''Today we are learning the language in which God created life,'' gushed
    President Bill Clinton.

    ''The first great technological triumph of the 21st century,'' purred
    British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

    Neither world leader was quite correct as they hitched their political
    wagons to the announcement of a first draft of the human genome.

    We have understood the language of the DNA for nearly half a century,
    thanks to the work of James Watson, Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin, and
    a host of other scientists, many long gone.And the technologies used to
    read the 3 billion letters of the human genome, including the PCR method
    of amplifying DNA and powerful, high-speed computers, belong very much to
    the century just past.

    What we had last week was a publicity blitz as much as anything else,
    carefully orchestrated by scientists. Powerful new drugs, cures for
    cancer, the eradication of inherited diseases: To read the media reports
    of the human genome story you'd think we had just witnessed the Second
    Coming.

    There is a story here, a big, big story. But the story is spread out over
    a century or more of scientific investigation, and it will extend far
    into the future in ways we cannot yet imagine. The ability to read and
    modify genes will undoubtedly confer many benefits on humankind. It also
    bears the potential for great mischief.

    Consider the possibility of extended lifetimes - humans living for
    hundreds of years in the prime of life. If the aging process is
    controlled by genes, then there is no reason in principle why the genes
    can't be jiggered to delay senescence. Benefit or mischief?

    These new gene technologies raise ethical issues of staggering
    proportions and muddled complexity. What is urgently required is a
    vigorous public discussion of what it means to be human, informed by
    cutting-edge science and incorporating the wisdom of the past.

    The old notion that the human ''soul'' is an angel-like sprite that flits
    around in the body like a ghost in a machine is as dead as a dodo. But
    the nonsense we heard last week - that the sequencing of the human genome
    ''will lead us to a total understanding of not only human life, but all
    of life'' - is just as mistaken, and perhaps dangerous.

    We may be less than angels, but we are certainly more than genes.The
    human genome is like the score of a great symphony. The music is implicit
    in the score, but the score is not music. Music requires the talents of
    musicians, conductor, instrument makers, concert hall designers, even
    listeners. Music implies history, traditions, understanding, esthetics.

    By analogy, the human self is not the dots on the staff. The human self
    is the expressed sound in all of its glory.

    Genes are nothing until they are expressed in every one of the tens of
    trillions of cells of the human body. How and when they are expressed
    depends upon the totality of the organism and its environment. The
    chemical machinery of the cells is important, as is the unceasing
    exchange of electrochemical signals between cells.

    The connections between brain cells are crucial to defining who we are,
    and none of that is programmed in the DNA. The detailed wiring of the
    brain depends upon experience - the interaction of the organism with the
    environment, including other organisms.

    A human self is a window open to the world, susceptible to
    electromagnetic waves, mechanical vibrations, chemical stimuli, molecular
    forces, all of which have the power to change the internal states of the
    organism.

    In each of the tens of trillions of cells in my body there are two
    complete copies of my DNA on 46 chromosomes - an armspan of double helix,
    3 billion chemical subunits (the ''letters'' of the language of life, A,
    C, G and T), 80,000 genes that code for the proteins that perform life's
    functions. All of this is potentially knowable but, when you know it, you
    won't know me.

    You might know the color of my eyes, my sex, and whether I have a
    propensity for certain kinds of disease. You will certainly know whether
    I am a human or a mouse, and you might even guess my race. But you won't
    know whether I prefer Mozart to Beethoven. You won't know if I'm in love.
    You won't know if I want to live for 80 years or 800.

    Dr. John Sulston, a leader of the British effort at sequencing the human
    genome, last week said: ''We are going to hold in our hands the set of
    instructions to make a human being.'' A human being, perhaps, but not a
    human self.

    What makes a human self - and what makes a human self precious - is not
    the .2 percent of the DNA sequence that differs between individuals, but
    the totality of dynamic interactions between tens of trillions of cells
    and their environment, something you'll never be able to read in the DNA.

    Chet Raymo is a professor of physics at Stonehill College and the author
    of several books on science.

    This story ran on page F2 of the Boston Globe on 7/4/2000. © Copyright
    2000 Globe Newspaper Company.

    ===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 04 2000 - 16:52:20 BST