Gene ethics
When ethics gets in the way of genetics
When Stephen Hsu, a theoretical physicist from the University of Oregon (USA), and his colleagues from the BGI Institute in China launched a project in 2010 to identify the genetic foundations of intelligence, they could not even imagine how violent a reaction this would cause. The researchers were going to read the DNA of two thousand people, most of whom had an IQ above 150: the data obtained were supposed to show how dependent (if dependent) intellectual abilities from the genetic portrait of a person.
As soon as it started, the project was severely criticized. For example, psychologist Geoffrey Miller from New York University (USA) generally accused the Chinese that they are going to "filter" people at the embryo stage, selecting those whose genes allow for high mental development. According to other comments, it turned out that researchers almost want to revive eugenics, with all the ensuing segregation and discriminatory consequences.
Genes, of course, affect the work of the nervous system, the behavior of humans and animals, but there are a great many genes related to this, and individually their effect may not be noticeable at all. It is possible to analyze the entire genetic mass at once only in very large-scale studies, and scale now almost always means publicity, and after publicity, such projects are accused almost of fascism. This is largely due to the fact that the gene is still considered the embodiment of fate, that a certain amount of genes is believed to be able to determine human behavior, regardless of any external conditions. Geneticists themselves have not thought so for a long time; in the end, it is enough to remember that the environment, with the help of epigenetic mechanisms, can turn off or turn on some gene. But even if we do not turn to science, does not such a fear of "intellectual–genetic" research mean a pre-formed conviction that genes really uniquely form a mental portrait (and therefore "let's not reveal this connection in order to prevent segregation and discrimination")? Isn't it a paradox that society came to the conclusion much earlier than geneticists that there is an unambiguous connection between intelligence and genes?
There are several taboo topics in modern genetics; researchers are "dissuaded" in every possible way to deal with them, sometimes using purely economic tools. Since scientists do not print money for themselves, some areas of science remain "white spots". One of the most powerful taboos lies, of course, on the genetics of intelligence. Since Francis Galton coined the term "eugenics", systematized the ideas related to it, and considered it in the aspect of evolutionary teaching, a variety of countries have had time to practice sterilization and isolation from society of the "mentally underdeveloped" (they included not only people with obvious disorders of higher nervous activity, but also and those who, for some reason, were at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, as well as national minorities). Fascist Germany immediately comes to mind, but administratively forced eugenics took place in the USA, Canada, and Sweden.
Strictly speaking, today intelligence tests cannot separate the innate and acquired parts of it, although it seems obvious that some aspects of intelligence can be developed by training. Nevertheless, it is believed that about half of intelligence can be attributed to genes. At the same time, not a single gene that would have found a strong connection with intellectual development has yet been found, and those cases where it was possible to find at least something between the gene and intelligence need to be rechecked.
Last year, Christopher Chabris from Union College (USA), together with a large international team of researchers, published an article in Psychological Science in which he drew some conclusions about the relationship of three genes with school success. Although on the basis of such data, it would be possible, for example, to concentrate pedagogical efforts on those to whom learning is not so easy, the authors of the work were accused of a standard list of eugenic sins, which was crowned with the accusation of immorality. However, all this blasphemy can be returned to the accusers themselves: are they, therefore, sure in advance that "inferior" students will be harassed at school?
Steven Xu's project is still working, although Mr. Xu himself has added fuel to the fire by inadvertently saying that he is confident in the predictive power of future results. This, of course, is wrong: why discuss the results that have not yet been obtained? However, his colleagues agree that the work will help to understand a lot in the formation of intelligence, and what conclusions society will draw from it, humanistic or vice versa, depends on him.
Almost more taboo than on the genetics of intelligence lies on the genetic research of human races. The historical background here is almost the same: racial differences, including in mental organization, served in the past as a reason for the suppression, humiliation and extermination of entire ethnic groups. Today, anyone who wants to study the genetics of races will attract suspicious glances: for what purpose?!
It is now generally accepted that there are much fewer racial differences between people than, say, between two people of the same race, and a racial trait in genetics can hardly be useful for anything. According to scientists, the inter-population differences reflect rather the geographical "fate", the history of population migrations and the history of marriages in it (not to say the history of reproduction).
However, some are not averse to testing this taboo for strength: for example, in 2005, geneticist Bruce Lahn from the University of Illinois at Chicago (USA) announced that two genes related to brain development (and probably to the development of intelligence) evolved differently in ethnic Europeans and ethnic Africans. It's easy to imagine what started here. Two years later, Bruce Lan and his colleagues published a new article stating that the different evolutionary development of these genes is not related to the level of intelligence. However, almost no attention was paid to her – because they continued to discuss the previous "immoral". It is curious that many reproaches were reduced to the fact that scientists did not realize the consequences of their research. In other words, society here itself readily accepts the role of a cruel and not very intelligent child, whose possible pranks should be taken care of by gentlemen scientists.
Mr. Lan himself has already moved away from research on the genetics of races, but calls on those who want to engage in it to be more open and dialogue with society. However, sometimes in his words there is a recommendation to conduct such work outside the United States, where there are no phantom pains after a racist past and where this past has not turned into an excuse for political clowning, faking a scientific discussion.
Another ethical taboo, although incomparably milder, concerns the research of genes that can determine the propensity to violence. About ten years ago, forensic psychiatrist Tracy Gunter from Indiana University (USA) suggested that a person's propensity for violent actions depends on the gene of the enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA; this enzyme regulates the work of neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin in the brain). By that time it became known about this gene that it helped to overcome the consequences of violence experienced in childhood, and if the gene was inactive, a person was more likely to plunge into crime.
Tracy Hunter tried to develop this topic, but soon came across a certain difficulty: it was impossible to understand exactly what behavior could be considered potentially criminal and how to distinguish between innate and external factors that provoke such behavior. In addition, at the same time, the hypothesis that behavior depends on a multitude of complex small factors, and not on a couple of determining genes, began to gain increasing popularity. In general, Ms. Ganter herself eventually admitted that her initial ideas about the genetic regulation of antisocial behavior were too simplistic.
However, despite all these considerations and despite the fact that some subsequent works refuted the initial results regarding MAOA, this gene has become extremely popular, and some lawyers began to use it (more precisely, its "criminogenic variant") as an argument for commuting the sentence to his clients. However, courts rarely take into account mitigating genetic circumstances, and geneticists agree with them, saying that a gene by itself cannot direct a person along one or another behavioral "rails".
The fact that the action of the gene must be taken into account in combination with the influence of the environment can be seen on the example of the same MAOA: a few years ago it was discovered that its activity is influenced by epigenetic factors, which, in turn, themselves depend on smoking. In this case, speaking of taboos, they mean rather a taboo on unambiguous interpretations of the relationship between the gene and aggressive, antisocial behavior, a taboo on ignoring the influence of the environment. However, the popularity of MAOA, despite all the ambiguities, turned out to be so great that he turned into a real "media person". This sometimes causes extremely angry invectives against him (and those who deal with him).
And finally, another relatively mild taboo is associated with genetic studies of sexuality. In 1993, geneticist Dean Hamer from the National Cancer Institute (USA) incurred a storm of criticism from American Republicans when he reported that a certain area in the X chromosome may be associated with homosexuality. Here, again, everyone was outraged by the fact that non-traditional orientation can be prescribed "by nature". Since then, however, the political wind has changed direction, and geneticists live soul to soul with representatives of sex minorities: research on lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people is in full swing. The taboo on the study of the genetic foundations of sexuality has almost disappeared; it is curious that in this case the genetic "fate" does not cause such a sharp rejection as in the case of the genetics of intelligence.
At the same time, geneticists have no consensus on what factors determine the sexual portrait. Some scientists believe that sexual orientation may depend on epigenetic factors, which are known to sum up a variety of influences, including external ones. If so, it will be an unpleasant surprise for some activists who build their sexual identity on rigid genetic grounds. Given the political influence that sex minorities currently enjoy, it is not difficult to imagine that research on the epigenetics of sexuality may be blocked due to another "political clowning."
All this gives some idea of what difficulties geneticists have to face, convincing others of the need for their research. The way out here, obviously, is to constantly explain that the white spots in the current science slow down the development of science as a whole.
It is easy to notice that almost all taboos come from several common reasons: this is the axiom of the equality of all people, magically transferred to biology, this is the fear of "fate", which comes from a misunderstanding of the relationship between the gene and the environment, this is the fear of the negative consequences of scientific research, which has turned into a mantra about the "social responsibility of a scientist to society".
Not to say that geneticists were the first to face this: after all, physicists were also accused of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in general, everyone who was involved in the study of the atom was accused, not just the creators of the bomb. Well, in this case, it is probably necessary to anathematize Archimedes – after all, without his famous law, imperialist aircraft carriers would not be plowing the peaceful waters of the ocean now.
Prepared based on the materials of Nature News – Ethics: Taboo genetics.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru04.10.2013