Free–or not–there’s a lot to think about!

Welcome back to the discussion after the 3rd event in the Future Perfect series. Last night we continued the exploration of genetics by looking at the question, “How free are we?” with a psychologist, a bioethicist, and a novelist. Dr. Eric Turkheimer, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia raised some challenging questions through his discussion of twin studies. By studying the behavior, personality, and even physical health of both identical and non-identical (also called fraternal) twins, researchers thought we would begin to see which traits or characteristics are genetic and which are not. The surprise to all involved is that everything studied during decades of twin analysis, from mental illness to marital status, is more closely correlated in identical twins who share the same DNA than in non-identical twins who are simply siblings born at the same time. Does this mean that genetics explain everything?

Not really, reminds both Turkheimer and Laurie Zoloth, professor of bioethics at Northwestern University. Behavior, especially complex behavior, is something that is influenced by not just one gene but a collection of genes plus the influences of environment. Philosophers have debated the question of free will for centuries, but in the process of asking and discussing this question, do we not arrive at some conclusions about humanity and our desire to think that we operate as independent beings?

And perhaps nothing draws such weighty philosophical questions together quite like a good book. Rounding out the panel from yesterday, Kevin Guilfoile shared some thoughts and passages from his novel, Cast of Shadows. The book centers around a dilemma that forces us to consider Dr. Zoloth’s philosophical questions of not only what it means to be human but also what it means to be free. In the novel, one of the main characters is a fertility expert who uses DNA from the crime scene at which his daughter was violently attacked and murdered to clone the killer in attempts to identify him from the physical resemblance of the clone. And if that makes your head spin, it should: although a fictional scenario, what can the physician protagonist say when confronted by the now 15-year old clone who has discovered the secret of his genes?

The Q&A session started addressing some of the issues this month’s topic in genetics challenges us to consider, but there is so much more left to think about, discuss, and question. Whether you were able to attend yesterday’s event or not, let’s keep the discussion going. Here’s an opportunity to ask the questions that weren’t answered yesterday or share some new ones. To kick things off, although the theoretical concepts of free will are fascinating in themselves, I can’t help wondering about what happens when we reach a practical application of the results. If you were sitting on a jury and heard a defense attorney claim that his client wasn’t responsible for the crime because, “his genes programmed him to pull the trigger,” would you accept that defense…or not?

Amanda
IHC facilitator

What the Chicago Reader is saying…

The Future Perfect series–and last week’s event on GMOs in particular–has been blogged by a reporter for the Chicago Reader. Here’s what Harold Henderson has to say (and his site can be accessed at:
http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/daily-harold/2006/11/02/peek-gene-factory/)

“”The history of genetically modified foods doesn’t feature a history of testing appropriate to their innovative character.” That’s Vivian Weil, longtime head of the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions at the Illinois Institute of Technology. She and University of Chicago geneticist Jocelyn Malamy did a thorough job of setting the table at the Illinois Humanities Council’s genetics program last Saturday, identifying and distinguishing the issues around genetically modified foods, but that didn’t leave the audience much time to eat. (IHC has an associated blog with some discussion.)

Malamy’s key point is that not all GM plants pose the same questions. “Round-Up Ready” transgenic plants are resistant to herbicide, so that farmers can control weeds by spraying more and cultivating less. They pose questions of environmental damage from added chemical use. “Bt” transgenic plants have a bacterial gene inserted that makes them toxic to European corn borers; the issue is whether they might poison desirable insects or cause Bt-resistant borers to evolve over time.

Malamy also ran down questions (and her answers) that apply to both current GM plants and future ones:

Is the process of adding or altering genes harmful to consumers? (No.)

Could specific transgenes be toxic? (Maybe.)

Can transgenic pollen spread to other crops or wild relatives? (Yes.)

Could specific transgenic plants be detrimental to the environment? (Potentially.)

Other food issues don’t apply specifically to GM crops but are problems with industrial farming in general: the use of pesticides, growing monocultures of the same crop, hybrid seeds that farmers can’t save, and agribusinesses’ aggressive enforcement of their patent claims.

Both GM plants and GM foods should be tested for safety, said Malamy. “I would advocate activism to make sure agencies are in place” to do this job properly, she added.

The panelists even had a little philosophical dust-up about how to put GM in context. Moderator Bruce Kraig of Roosevelt University and the Culinary Historians of Chicago began the day by saying, “Genetic manipulation began millennia ago,” implying that GM foods are not significantly different from strains of cattle selectively bred over generations for milk or beef production. Malamy qualified this, saying, “There are limits to breeding. You can’t breed for resistance to the corn borer, because no such trait exists in the plant to start with. But other plants have it.” And Weil was equally hesitant: “This is an innovation in breeding. There is a break — now we have the ability to bring genes from sources not previously available.”

In a sentence: genetic modification isn’t the end of the world, but it’s definitely not business as usual, and so far the government hasn’t regulated it well.”

This question of government regulation is a challenging one! Any thoughts on what the government could or should do? Let’s keep the discussion from last Saturday moving–feel free to comment whether you were able to attend or not.

Amanda
IHC Blog Facilitator

Genetically-modified Food

Welcome back to the conversation!

This morning we had an intensely exciting and informative panel discussion about the facts, risks, rewards, and misconceptions about genetics and food. Genetics, as we heard, has the potential to revolutionize the way we think of food. Genetic engineering may be able to make our food better: more nutritious, easier to grow, resistant to bacteria, viruses, and pests. However, as with all applications of science, we must remain wary – the power of genetics brings the potential for harm, as well.

We learned the difference between organically/inorganically grown foods and GM (genetically-modified) foods – and important distinction it is. Dr. Malamy, a geneticist, explained that the problems many people have with GMOs (Genetically-modified organisms) are not inherent to genetically modified food in general, but issues with specific modified foods. She argued that we should have strict testing of each individual genetically modified food because they are all quite different. Additionally (and more importantly) the problems many people have with GMO, she argued, are problems with techniques in agriculture which include “intensivised” farming with large amounts of fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides.  There was a strong response to some of her points – including questions about the safety of recently developed GM foods and the lack of research in organic farming techniques.
Dr. Weil, an ethicist, reinforced that the key to establishing guidelines and policy for genetically modified food is to have an informed public. There are a variety of controversial issues surrounding genetics and food – scientific, economic, and religious – that we can educate ourselves about, and discuss with friends and family.

During the Q & A session, we were unable to address a large number of questions and hope to be able to discuss some of those here, so please feel free to post any questions, opinions, or ideas you may have about genetics and food (whether or not you were at the event!).

We look forward to hearing from you and continuing the conversation!

Parth,

IHC Facilitator

The complexity of genetics

As a medical student, I am currently in the process of learning a lot more about genetics than I had ever thought existed. The sheer complexity and volume of information we are being taught (and we’re barely scratching the surface) is almost enough to make me give up on ever really understanding genetics. There is so much knowledge to gain on the subject – and the rate at which more knowledge is being added to the pool is astounding – that it may seem to be too much.

How can I attempt to understand this large pool of information with clarity and confidence enough to form an opinion about the use of genetic technology? Furthermore, I am required to try and learn this information because, as a student, it is all I really have to do; almost all of my time is spent in this learning. How can people with a basic working knowledge of the sciences, but also with families, hobbies, and jobs of their own, really take the time to understand the complex and ever-changing world of genetics?

There is a seemingly insurmountable mountain of information to learn, and yet, we must climb this mountain to become informed enough to know about genetics, think about genetics, and become active in our society with respect to genetic issues. How should we approach this? How can we frame it so that even those with little time can have the opportunity and motivation to learn at least a little about this growing field which will (and already has) affected us all?

Parth, IHC Facilitator

Kickoff!

Tonight’s presentation was a great start to the Future Perfect program series. The panelists and audience raised a number of important questions that simply cannot be resolved in just a two-hour production. This blog exists to continue that discussion in an interactive community based format. After every event, a facilitator will post a brief summary for anyone who missed the event or wants a quick reminder. While the facilitator will then suggest several possible topics of discussion, please use this space to discuss anything related to genetics. Attendance at the event is certainly not a requirement for posting – the genetics revolution will affect us all, and we should all have something to say about it.

Jon Miller of Michigan State University described a growing body of technical knowledge that citizen’s will be expected to know to partake in the democratic process. The American democratic tradition allows us, citizens, to influence public policy and the government will need to set and change many policies to account for the scientific advances of the genetic revolution. There is a substantial discrepancy between the technical needs of the average 18^th century farmer and the modern 21^st century city-dweller. Are we up to the challenge of educating ourselves and others? And how are we to do it? What happens to a democracy if citizens do not know enough to elect or censure our officials?

Rex Chisholm of Northwestern University presented a bit of the technical side of the issue. Differences in an individual’s genes can cause disease, prevent disease, and influence the effectiveness of medical treatment. Modern medicine has just begun to tap into the ability to tailor treatment regimens for each individual patient, but where should we stop? Or should we? Treating patients more effectively will save lives, but there are issues of privacy – what if your boss knew you were at high risk for a heart attack, what if your insurance knew? What if you could pick the gender of your children? Would you?

Liz Lerman, a choreographer and performer, brought to light some of the humane aspects of the genetic revolution. The debate about genetics should not be relegated to public policy, it’s bigger than that and more complicated. It will touch our daily lives and may change the way we think about each other and about those ‘big questions’ of free will and destiny. Art might be able to help us achieve harmony with the perplexing aspects of science, it may allow us to internalize it on a more personal level. Can art do this, can it help resolve some of the personal and social turmoil which might result from genetic science? Can it bring genetics to a broad public audience?

Feel free to respond to these or any other thoughts or concerns raised by the program tonight or genetics in general. If you would like more information about some part of the science, address a facilitator and we’ll be happy to help.

 To Post:  While it may be a bit confusing, you can post easily by clicking below on the blue word ‘comment’.

Eric

Facilitator

 

Welcome!

Hi! Thanks for visiting IHC’s Future Perfect Blog. We are looking forward to an exciting year of dialogue about the genetics revolution and where it’s taking us.

This blog will be open to all discussion about genetics but will focus especially on the themes presented during the Future Perfect series. For more information on the series schedule, go to www.prairie.org/genetics. But please don’t hesitate to contribute even if you did not attend the event. Everyone is welcome to comment.

The first program in the series, “Why Should We Care About Genetics?” took place Tuesday September 26, 2006 at the Museum of Contemporary Art Theatre. Presented as a town hall meeting, the program featured:

Rex Chisholm, Ph.D., Director, Center for Genetic Medicine, Northwestern University

Liz Lerman, Founding Artistic Director, Liz Lerman Dance Exchange

Jon Miller, Ph.D., John A. Hannah Professor of Integrative Studies, Michigan State University

We look forward to an engaging and dynamic discussion on this and other programs ahead.

Amanda, Eric, Parth

Future Perfect Blog Facilitators