Two timely issues call into question our use of genetics, both in science and popular usage: CRISPR technology used in the pre-natal state to genetically edit-out/repair potentially fatal genes, and the Google controversy.

CRISPR Clustered Regularly Interspersed Short Palindromic Repeats technology, discovered by scientists at UC Berkeley and modified by those at MIT, will almost certainly result in a Nobel Prize. Berkeley scientists discovered that these repeats were used by bacteria to protect themselves against viral infections. Between the repeats, they found pieces of the viral DNA that had previously attacked the bacterium. If, and when, the same virus again attacked, the intruder viral DNA would be compared to the DNA stored between the repeats. If it is recognized as a repeat offender, the bacterium sends in proteins to destroy the viral DNA. They additionally noted that in non-virally infected bacteria, CRISPR could be used to delete some bacterial genes and replace them with others.

Our use of this technology in human cells allows injection of the DNA-modifying proteins into a human egg while it is being fertilized in a test-tube. Fatal genetic conditions identified in the mother or father in the recent report this was a cardiac abnormality, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy can potentially be corrected pre-natally and, after the correction, the fertilized egg implanted into the mother. An incredibly promising technology, it may allow, as with this cardiac abnormality, children at-risk for sudden death to grow old.

Of course, there are ethical concerns related to this technology. Will it be used to create perfect people, eliminating the diversity that makes us better and stronger? That is up to us. A head-in-the-sand refusal to engage with this is not the answer.

The scientific use of genetics and the concept of diversity, above, is tied to its non-scientific use in the Googles James Damore controversy.

Damore spent 3,400 words to say three things: Women and ethnic minorities are genetically different than (select) men; Those genetic differences are why there are more men than women (and minorities) in positions of power; Refusing to acknowledge this creates all sorts of difficulties and controversy, and is bad for business.

Google, he argues, doesnt allow ideas such as his from being discussed, as people are shamed into silence.

The differences between men and women in the workplace are due to inherent, genetic differences, he claims. What?

There are differences between men and women phenotypic (hair color, eye color) and genotypic (a slight variation in genes coding for gender) for which I am always pleased. Do these explain workplace differences? Pay differences? IQ? No. What we term Intelligence Quotient is heavily influenced by surroundings and upbringing, including social class. Not that inherent ability is meaningless, but environment matters. It is not nurture versus nature, it is nurture and nature.

There is a thoughtful part of Damores thesis, meriting consideration. Diversity is right because it makes us better and stronger; we should welcome diverse voices. He muddles this logical point by claiming women are paid less than men for the same job because they spend more money and, somehow, this is genetic; so much for diversity.

Genetics both does and does not make us who we are. Yes, there are genetic elements within us that make us phenotypically what we are: Brown eyes rather than green; black hair rather than blond. But brilliance? Thoughtfulness? Humanity? Empathy? The ability to work together to solve a problem? To work on a problem day after day until the solution appears?

If there is a genetics to this, it is the ability of multiple genes to be turned on by stimulation in a young person. These on-switches are flipped by parents and a society that loves and provides for the child, allows the child to explore and ask questions. A society that takes the child seriously. A society that does not think of the child, the sum of her phenotype, what she looks like.

The danger from CRISPR technology is it could be used to create the perfect human, eliminating the diversity that makes us better, and our world more beautiful. Damores paper, without using such technology, does just that. He turns women and ethnic minorities into caricatures of themselves, while asserting that it is he who is not appreciated or valued.

Peoples opinions vary, but facts suggest we are surrounded by conservative voices, of which I am a multi-faceted one.

CRISPR technology has downsides; we need international guardrails for its use. But the misuse of genetics to explain our societys flaws is an error of the highest magnitude. Much more dangerous than the CRISPR tool-set, we see it in action every day. In papers such as Mr. Damores, and in the way we think of, and treat, our children, boys and girls.

Our world view, ideology, is like the air we breathe: invisible, almost indescribable. It is this ideological view that allows Damore and sometimes us to simultaneously argue for diversity, while doing all in our power to eliminate it.

Follow Dr. A. Joseph Layon on Twitter @ajlayon or on his health blog, also titled Notes from the Southern Heartland (ajlayon.com). Letters may be sent to: LettersNFTSH@gmail.com.

Read the original:
Does genetics make me what I am? - Sunbury Daily Item