Understanding genetics

Genetic engineering – a daunting phrase in itself – has not only confounded the public with the intricacies of its current and future use, but has raised ethical questions about its application. With this summer’s completion of the race to map the genome, huge leaps in technology place before society startling possibilities in the emerging science of biotechnology. They also place before it the very old discussion of ethics and the proper understanding and use of this powerful knowledge.

Genetically altered agriculture is probably the public’s most direct encounter with this technology, and if this encounter is typical, the debate over the use of this new information will continue to be long and hot. Even before the effects of GE foods are fully known, there are great promises of another green revolution from some scientists and great fears from others.

Concerns over genetic engineering extend well beyond corn and soybeans. Genetic screening for potential illnesses such as cancer is extremely useful in medicine. Patients can learn their risk of contracting a disease and proceed to take preventative measures. Hospitals in Maine and nearly every other state routinely screen newborns for seven or eight serious genetic conditions, including hypothyroidism and PKU (an inherited metabolic disorder that leads to mental retardation if treatment is not started within the first weeks of life) but concerns are growing that insurance companies may use this as an opportunity to discriminate against high-risk clients. Such concerns have a foundation in reality: In the United Kingdom, test subjects who released their genetic history when applying for insurance had a much more difficult time in receiving policies than did the general population, which did not divulge such information.

Yet another concern presented by GE is the potential ability to manipulate and select favorable genes in offspring, a possibility that creates a whole new universe of ethical quandaries, from the elimination of so-called “undesirable” traits to the manufacture of the ideal child. While these scenarios may seem far-fetched, there already have been several highly publicized egg-donor searches by wealthy couples interested in providing heirs with a genetic “advantage.” As this science develops, so will the argument over whether genes should be altered only in cases of medical necessity, or if personal choice – even parental whim – should be considered.

Federal legislation is attempting to regulate some of the negative effects of genetic engineering. The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act, which requires such food to be clearly labeled for consumers, is currently in committee in Congress. Sen. Olympia Snowe led the fight against insurance discrimination in the Senate with the introduction and passage of the GOP Patient’s Bill of Rights. Both of these measures may counteract the unpleasant repercussions of GE, allowing society to concentrate on the more positive applications of the science.

Regional scientists are also doing their part to inform people about the issue. Michael Vayda, assistant director of biotechnology research at the University of Maine in Orono, has helped orchestrate the Biotechnology “White Papers” Series, publications available through the university that help inform the public on the issues relating to GE in society. In addition, his department has implemented a federally funded program to bring GE education to K-12 classrooms. Doug Johnson, executive director of the nonprofit Maine Biotechnology Bureau, is also actively informing the public of GE through press releases to the media, commentary in newspapers and upcoming public seminars.

These are difficult issues, made more so by the field’s dense jargon and shifting goals as new discoveries arise. How can the public and, perhaps especially, lawmakers take part in a conversation with scientists about how these discoveries will be used? On today’s op-ed page, Professor Vayda offers some perspective on the promise and some concerns about this emerging science. His comments may spur further thoughts on ways to hold this important discussion.