After an
introduction in which the author explains how his fascination with genetics
arose from his being an adopted child and thus not like his adoptive parents,
there are eight chapters each dealing with an aspect of the genetics
revolution. The first chapter is historical and is a potted summary of how
people have regarded heredity, the rise of the science of genetics from Mendel
onwards, the American, British and Nazi eugenic movements, the discovery of the
double helix and the contemporary ability to cut, splice and transfer DNA.
Chapter two is about the transformation of genetics into genomics €“ the
technology of manipulating genetic material. This is an interesting section
relating the computerisation of genetics and in particular the race between the
public sector and Craig Venter’s private Celera Genomics to map the human
genome. The resultant map of the human genome was shocking when it became clear
that humans have only twice as much genetic material as a worm and fewer genes
than some other animals. It was also an unpleasant surprise for would-be
eugenicists that there appears to be a huge genetic diversity within so-called
‘races’, as much if not more diversity in fact than seems to exist between said
‘races’.  In fact the genome project supports the view that we are one species
and not several races. The third chapter pricks several of the myths
surrounding genetics. It covers the relationship between genotype and phenotype
and explains that we are not genetically precisely as we were conceived €“
immune hijacking, amplification and hypermutability all play a role in altering
our original genetic state. This section is also very good in explaining to the
layman all about DNA, RNA and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

Chapter four
starts to get down to the ethical problems with a vengeance.  A federally
funded researcher, Mark Skolnick, discovered a gene linked to a predisposition
to develop breast cancer. He patented his discovery before publishing the data
and set up a company, Myriad, to test for the presence of the breast cancer
gene BRCA-1. However, the real ethical problems for McGee lies in the fact that
women are tested for the presence of BRCA-1 (and subsequently BRCA-2), have
little or no genetic counselling and then have to make a choice as to whether
to undergo radical mastectomy, hysterectomy and oopherectomy.  Further ethical
problems surface when it comes to the use insurance companies may make of
genetic information. The whole area seems fraught with problems but the author
maintains an air of jolly optimism about the possibility that we may all soon
be able to test ourselves for predispositions towards, among other things,
obesity and thus take preventive measures.

Chapter five is
about the fact that gene-therapy and its likely successor, stem-cell research,
are under-regulated and a nightmare of potential ethical problems.  The most
likely way of acquiring stem-cells to avoid any chance of future rejection at
the transplant stage is to clone the patient and then to destroy the embryo at
five days of age so as to be able to ‘harvest’ the relevant cells.  For the
good of the human race, we obviously need to be very careful not to let the
fact that we have the means to do certain things lead us to the assumption that
it is therefore good for us to do them.

Chapter six is
about genetically modified food.  McGee points out that very little food these
days is entirely as unaided nature produced it.  He points out the dangers of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) if the modified content may cause
allergies. He also discusses the environmental problems associated with
modifications crossing the species divide and ending up where they were never
intended to be. He also has a very short section on the ethical issues raised
by a small number of companies holding virtually all the patents in
agricultural biotechnology.

Chapter seven is
about the whole patenting problem €“ the fact that companies are gobbling up the
patents to discoveries about my genes and yours. The disinterestedness,
communalism, freedom and peer-review tradition of science is fast disappearing under
the pressure of the bottom line, the financial bottom line. The author is
concerned about this but, on the whole, he thinks that patenting genetic
discoveries is acceptable, necessary and is a trend that is very unlikely to be
reversed.

The last major
chapter, chapter eight, is all about subfertility, infertility and the enormous
range of solutions available to sort out these problems. The author raises very
interesting questions and asks what sort of human discourse can take place
between ‘parents’ and child that will enable her/him to emotionally grasp
her/his relationship with them and thus carve out a place in the world.

The conclusion is
a reversion to the dizzy optimism that we may soon be able to insert a tiny
amount of our tissue into a testing kit which we then plug into our new
generation laptop and, lo and behold, we have the information at our fingertips
to enable us to plan and organise our lives, avoid potential pitfalls and make
the most of our genetic make-up.

As was implied at
the beginning of this review, the eight chapters appear as semi-independent
units but all dealing with some aspect of genetics.  The author tries to be
meticulously fair to both sides of the ethical arguments and is true to the
rhetorical tradition of being able to argue for either of two opposing points. 
His fascination for gimmicks and especially hugely powerful laptops, however,
shines through and it is the individual’s future ability to use genetic
investigations for her/himself which the author sees as the holy grail of
genomics.

The book will
certainly become a required text on university bio-ethics courses and should be
read as part of the ethics programme in philosophy courses.  However, for this
reviewer there is one area which the book hardly addresses and that is the
whole problem of trust. Surveys have shown that the public generally mistrusts
politicians, journalists and numerous other groups. Doctors, especially General
Practitioners, are still widely trusted and respected. Do you, kind reader,
trust Celera Genomics, Myriad, Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow Chemical to
do what is best for you, me and the human race or do you think that they are
governed solely by the profit motive? Until we can trust those bodies dealing
with genetic engineering, my vote on ethical issues is not going to give them
more power over the future of the human race or the world in which we live,
from which we get our food and which we will bequeath to our children’s
children.

© 2004
Kevin Purday

Kevin
Purday is Head of the Cambridge International High
School  in Jordan and is currently a distance-learning student on the
Philosophy & Ethics of Mental Health course in the Philosophy Dept. at the University of Warwick.

Categories: Ethics, Genetics