Friday, February 22, 2008

Genetic Fatalism



Since writing the "Religiously Scientific" entry I have been thinking about several of the points I raised. I think for the next few submissions I will branch off from that first article in various directions.

In my first draft of the "Religiously Scientific" essay, I went on a lengthy genomics tangent, elaborating on the recent trend to link everything to our genome. As I previously mentioned there is no doubt in my mind that most facets of our health are in fact linked to our genes such as predisposition to heart problems, cancer, Alzheimer’s, etc. My problem is with over-reliance on genes or any other branch of science to explain or predict everything. In my opinion genomics is the successor to psychology as the reason for all of society’s ills. Instead of saying "he was abused as a child" we are on path to saying “he had the psycho gene"!

This whole topic reminded me of a concept I learned about in a high school philosophy class: fatalism. Fatalism is defined (by wikipedia) as a “philosophical doctrine emphasizing the subjugation of all events or actions to fate or inevitable predetermination”. In other words, all events are inevitable. What’s for diner next week? It doesn’t matter if you haven’t got a clue or want to decide last minute, if you are a fatalist you believe that choice is an illusion and the future has already been written. Although we appear to choose one option over another, a fatalist will tell you that our choice was predetermined.

Doesn’t fatalism sound eerily similar to genetic predisposition? Doesn’t it seem that having a “psycho gene” or having a traumatizing childhood limits one’s fate? Presently, several companies are offering personalized genetic testing: a service which screens the customer’s entire genome to determine what diseases he or she is susceptible to (link provided below). Is this same as a crystal ball for a fatalist? Would you want to know what’s waiting for you in your old age? Imagine this tool being used to screen for future rapists, psychos or pedophiles! Would it be fair to imprison someone for crimes they are “predisposed to commit”? Is it acceptable to be scared for potential genetic diseases?

If you read the article (link provided below), they criticize the genetic screen because nobody can predict how many gene mutations are actually required for eventual onset of a given disorder. Genetics is typically a study of correlation (i.e. 70% of people with breast cancer have a mutation in gene X). Therefore I doubt a DNA test will ever be used to imprison potential criminals. Similarly, I doubt that recently discovered “obesity”, “alcoholism”, “anger” and “depression” genes can condemn a baby to a terrible future. My fear is that these genes will be used in the future to remove accountability for one’s actions (i.e. “its not my fault I am lazy, I have the lazy gene!”).

The problem with fatalism is it leads to reckless abandon. If our choices don’t matter then why should we put in any effort into our lives, we can’t change our prewritten destinies. What happens if you find out you have the so-called “anger gene”? Do you yell excessively because you know that ultimately you will be an angry bastard/bitch? Do you try to bottle it up inside and develop a stress disorder? Do you take happy pills? Do you do nothing and live your life ignoring the fact that you have “anger” in your DNA?


I believe in choice. No pre-written destinies. No pre-established diseases. In science there are usually two factors to most diseases: genetics and environment. Even though you are at risk for an illness or obesity or alcoholism, it’s not necessarily a guarantee. With the right diet, lifestyle, support and possibly preventative medicine you may get lucky and beat the odds. Similarly, growing up in a shitty neighborhood predisposes you to plenty of terrible things but some people make it out and beat the odds!


http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250288

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Religiously Scientific


Science has itself become a kind of religion." –Carl Sagan


I stumbled across this quote and thought it would be a great first topic. These words really describe what I have been feeling for a long time. For those who don't know me, I obtained my Bachelors and Masters of Science a few years ago in Microbiology & Immunology, thus my "official background" is science. The reason I chose to focus on this quote is the current overwhelming reliance on scientific research to answer and justify EVERYTHING.


One example is genetics. Why are some people overweight? Fat gene. Why are there alcoholics? Alcoholism gene. If you survey headlines in the last 10 years you will find reports on a so-called "anger gene", "depression gene", etc. Next time you are staring at a Google search page type in any random affliction and the word "gene". My guess is 50% of the time you will come across a published study!


Now I don't want to be misquoted or come off as cynical because I know for a fact a lot of diseases are due to genetic predisposition. I spent 2 years studying the effect of one gene on autoimmune diabetes. My point is that we have reached a point of scientific overindulgence. It's an ego thing if you ask me. One of the hottest topics in science right now is the creation of artificial life. J Craig Venter (who was crucial for the original sequencing of the human genome in 2000) is now trying to cut and paste several bacterial genes to make the most basic yet functional life form. In my opinion it's a classic God complex: trying to "create life" for a second time. Now most people who read the press release (link below) at first glance will be amazed at the limitless possibilities of science. Make them proud at humanity's accomplishments in the last few millennia. But after some scrutinizing, this project is "cheating" quite a bit. They will cut and paste pre-existing genes from an organism and then plant them in a cell which will have been stripped of its original genome.


To make an analogy it's similar to those old cartoons where they perform brain transplants and although the body is the same, the personality of the patient will be dependent on his new brain. The reason neither the genes (brain) nor the hollowed out cell (body) were synthesized from scratch is because we haven't got the faintest clue how!


This synthetic bacterial genome project is a good example of science's "all-knowing" attitude. Truthfully, science in all contexts ends up bringing up more questions that we hadn't even thought about asking in the first place. To quote Carl Sagan again: "Science is like a candle in the dark". Basically, a candle will clearly illuminate one spot of a giant (infinite) room but everything else is pitch black. If we notice a carpet, then we will wonder "how big is it?", "how many are there?", "are they all similar?", "what's the carpet made of?" But before we knew about the carpet we couldn't ask the proper questions. Furthermore, another issue arises: how relevant is that carpet? Is that little bit of information about the room enough for predicting what the rest of the room looks like?


When something is of interest in science the classic approach is to isolate the phenomenon and create a model in vitro (Latin for "within glass", however "within a plastic test tube" is more appropriate!). When the phenomenon is well characterized, the study continues in an animal model and it is at this point that things get tricky. Things are never as logical or "black and white" as within the test tube and this is when many more questions are brought up. It's an exciting albeit frustrating process! but a far cry from the "all knowing" aura science projects these days.


Think of the big answers science has produced in the last hundred years: the Big Bang, the theory of evolution, theory of relativity, black holes, dark matter, genetics, etc. Can we be 110% sure about all of these? I am not a physicist, but in 1000 years can we be sure that we won't be laughed at for concepts such as the Big Bang and dark holes... Will we be laughed at for relying on the subconscious or the genome to define one's personality? Evolution has some very large gaps in what we believe and actual evidence. The whole survival of the fittest would mean that there are some failed prototypes somewhere right? Where are the 2 legged mammals or 1 eyed fish?


Now my point is not that all of these theories are false, simply that they are substantiated theories and not absolute truths. Science's conclusions have garnered a supernatural finality to them that is undeserved. To believe science can answer any question and is the absolute truth takes some blind faith. The same type of blind faith that scientists sneer at when religion is brought up. There was a time when scientists claimed that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Should we laugh at those theories? Back then, they had not seen the metaphorical carpet (in reference to my analogy above). Back then they were limited by their tools. So are we.


Fanaticism is dangerous in religion and in science. Being a fanatic in either will numb you to the complexity and/or the beauty of the world we live in and are apart of. Neither science nor religion has all the answers even though they each claim to. Let me know what you think!




Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Manifesto


This elaborate definition of “critical” includes various context-specific meanings for the word and will serve as a manifesto for this blog.

Statement #1 is the most important goal of this little artistic experiment: stimulate critical thought. In 2008, with information at our fingertips and free of charge (e.g. free internet access at your public library) it pains me to see how many people don’t ever question what they hear. I am not condoning the “doubting Thomas” approach, but we should not take any information for granted. We must explore perspectives.

Statement #2 will require the active dialogue of readers. A good discussion/debate can sometimes cause “a chain reaction” of thoughts leading to an “abrupt change” in opinion.

Statement #3 pertains to the quality of submissions in this blog. I will try to carefully evaluate and judge my words prior to posting them. A quality control of sorts.

Statement #4 reflects my need (and hopefully yours) for grey matter stimulation.

Statements #5 and #6 are representative of life. There is no specific “critical phase” per say in my opinion. Life is a constant sequence of potential “turning points” and “crises” on a personal level. On a larger scale, from evolutionary survival of the fittest to various medical, military and ecological challenges man is constantly “verging on a state of emergency”.

Statement #7 is what I will try my best to stray away from. Although I plan to stimulate some critical thought, I AM NOT A CRITIC nor do I wish to fill my blog with criticism.









And with that said, lets begin...