This week's BioNews reports on the UK government's plan to include genetics in its manifesto for this year's general election. Meanwhile, DNA pioneer James Watson, has set out his own stall, arguing that 'fixing' human embryos with faulty genes should be the next goal for genetic science (see Recommends).
What distinguishes these public statements froms one another is to be found not so much in what they say, but in the way that they say it. James Watson is an enthusiast - an evangelist, even - for genetic science and medicine. He hopes for, and expects, great developments from science and seems impatient for its benefits. For him, the problem with genetic science is its current limitations, not its potential excesses.
By contrast, the message coming from government sources seems much more downbeat. Although, at the time of writing, health secretary Alan Milburn is still to make his speech, leaks to the media of its content suggest a preoccupation with controls and limits on genetic and reproductive science. An explicit ban on created cloned babies will be introduced and the insurance industry will probably be curtailed in its access to customers' genetic test results.
We do need societal limits on some aspects of human genetics. No-one wants to see genetic information used in a discriminatory fashion. But we are running the risk of dwelling on the negative aspects of genetic information to the exclusion of the positive. When the word 'public' is used in the context of genetics, for instance, it is almost invariably coupled with 'concern' or 'disquiet'. And yet, the results of a public attitudes survey, published recently by the Human Genetics Commission, show that 88 percent of those questioned agree that new genetic developments will bring cures for many diseases. And in a Wellcome Trust survey on attitudes towards science, 68 percent said they are amazed by the achievements of science.
Politicians are often guilty of spending so much of their energies explaining what they oppose, that they forget to tell us what they support. The result of such negativity on the electorate must surely be stultification, rather than inspiration. Scientists and science communicators must avoid falling into the same trap. As Robert Winston observed in this weekend's Observer (see Recommends), we need to employ honesty and modesty about the promise of genetic science. But we also need enthusiasm and excitement and optimism about what science offers. The worst outcome would not be a future of genetic underclasses or designer babies, but one where genetic science has failed to develop because of our fear of how it might be abused.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.