Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA17024 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:43:08 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458FA@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Genome is not a map to the human self Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:41:03 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Did any of our US contributors catch CBS' coverage of either the genome
project (which didn't mention British involvement at any stage in its
reporting- not even in the discovery of DNA), or its attack on the UK as a
more violent society than the US?
I wonder what's up with Dan Rather- did he have a bad holiday here once?!
More generally how was the genome coverage? In the UK a couple of
newspapers put in on the front page, but many preferred stories about
royalty and soap stars.
When will science ever be covered properly by the news media!
> ----------
> From: Wade T.Smith
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2000 4:48 pm
> To: SKEPTIC-L; Memetics Discussion List
> Subject: Fwd: Genome is not a map to the human self
>
> Genome is not a map to the human self
>
> http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/186/science/Genome_is_not_a_map_to_the_h
> u
> 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 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 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 12:43:52 BST