Cloning and Genetic Information Yet to be Discovered

Sarah Franklin in “Kinship, Genes, and Cloning,” explains the different types of value the viability of Dolly, the first cloned sheep, held for its scientists and in general for society. Having produced a sheep that can naturally reproduce and has the same abilities as any other sheep proves to be very precious according to Franklin. Being able to create animals by cloning is firstly financially valuable. Companies were willing to pay large sums for the insight into this biotechnology. Therefore, the method for cloning was worth a lot of money not only for the scientists who discovered the technology, but also for the companies who would later buy it, and further for society through the chain of the market. Secondly, the cloning of Dolly is valuable because of the technology and the ability it provides to be able to clone other animals and beings. Thus, the intellectual property rights for the nuclear transfer technology proved to worth a great sum.
The ability to clone animals and humans leads to the destruction of natural selection and instead favorable traits are chosen to be cloned. In the case that the gene for alcoholism was to be discovered, people who have that coding may be excluded when choosing whom to reproduce. With the even more advanced technology to be able to pick and choose which genes to create the new being with, being able to omit the gene for alcohol vulnerability would be beneficial for society. Technologies like cloning and choosing genes and creating a new being are very controversial and can have drastically positive or negative impacts on society if they become widespread. There are still many genes that are predicted to exist like the aforementioned gene for alcoholism. Before any alterations, or creations of new beings through these methods occur, there is work to be completed in order to fully decode the existing genetic information.

Middlesex

Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides encompasses many themes that are against today’s social norms. Marrying a sibling as Desdemona and Lefty did is not considered to be acceptable not only socially, but because it has been proven that it has many genetic risks as we have seen in Middlesex in Cal’s situation. Although transgender people are becoming more apparent, most people still accept that there are only two genders male and female. Most people do not even consider those who are genetically born as hermaphrodites.
In addition to being stuck between the two cultures of America and Greece, having been born a hermaphrodite Cal suffered identity crisis around the time of puberty. Being raised as a little girl and then becoming more masculine must be a very shocking and disturbing situation. Does the person have a choice about which gender he/she will choose? As there are still debates today on whether a gay/lesbian person chooses to be gay or straight, this theme is also portrayed through Lina. Although she was married and had children she was considered to be a lesbian. Lina’s identity crisis led the way into the situation Callie was born with and put in.
People who are born as hermaphrodites have less of a choice of their situation than those who are born with the assumed gene for alcoholism. If there truly is a gene for alcohol vulnerability, those people who are born with it have more of a choice of being able to stay away from the effects of it than people who are born with both genders. Hermaphrodites somewhat have a choice of which gender they develop into but this is also debatable as is being born gay or choosing to be gay. However, since being a hermaphrodite has been genetically proven, it is more accepted as a biological creation in comparison to alcoholism or sexual orientation.

Debate Regarding Differences in Ethnicity

Several of the articles we have read touched on how genetic makeup is related to certain phenotypic traits such as intelligence and the differences in this DNA coding among races and ethnicities. In “Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ groups,” Joanna Mountain and Neil Risch explore the same topic.
The authors explain that it can argued that differences in race have no biological basis or meaning, as well as attributing racial differences to genetic information. “The controversy stems, at least in part, from the possibility that attitudes are influenced by whether people believe ‘race’ as biological or social.” (Mountain) Both arguments can however be rooted in one another.
A biological phenomenon of people similar to one another reproducing over a long period of time has complied similar genes resulting in groups of people looking alike. This genetic similarity among groups causing people to have similar phenotypes might have later evolved into a social phenomenon. Since people tend to trust others who are most like them as seen through the idea of homosocial reproduction. Rosabeth Moss Kanter explains in Men and Women of the Corporation, that the reason most CEO’s are white Christian older men who are married and spend their spare time playing golf and tennis is because people feel more comfortable working with people who are most similar to themselves to reduce the amount of risk of mistake. Most people trust themselves the most, and if they have to trust another person, someone who is most like them is the person with the least risk. With the idea of homosocial reproduction, naturally people also realized that there are other groups that are different than them and prejudices and yearning to seek the reasons for those differences arose.
The search for the reason behind our differences continues and various explanations still stand. No single theory is accepted as universally sound. Whether our differences are due to our DNA sequencing or to the way we were brought up and our social surroundings is still up for debate.

Pragmatist vs Naturalist Views of Race

In “Genetic Genealogy Testing and the Pursuit of African Ancestry,” Alondra Nelson explains the two opposing views of the epistemology of race, naturalism and pragmatism, through an examination of genetic genealogy testing. The naturalist view of race is that biological differences are more important in the differences that are seen among races, where as the pragmatic approach is that 99.9% of all human biology is the same and social factors are the ones that play a larger role in diversifying the human race.
The research that has been completed and is currently being conducted on finding the gene for alcoholism and alcohol vulnerability has also been related to the idea of race. Thus, people who believe the naturalist view of race would argue that the differences among some races being more vulnerable to the substance than others is part of their genetic make up. On the other hand, those people who believe the pragmatist view would argue that the way people are brought up, their environmental conditions, and their social surroundings are more likely to affect whether people become alcoholics. However, a naturalist may ask why some races are more likely to become addicted to alcohol than others if it is due to social and environmental factors. Pragmatists would respond that often times people of the same race live in same neighborhoods and near one another so being the same race and having the same social settings is the same thing.
Thus, certain factors such as black communities having on average a lower income creates a snowball effect of reasons why alcoholism may be higher than a wealthier white community. For example, in a poorer community more arguments may arise due to financial issues, which may cause stress within the family and could pressure family members to relieve the stress with alcohol. According to pragmatists this would be an example of a social situation that may cause similarities among races rather than the biological view of the naturalists.

Figure 1.  NHSDA Website

Metaphors for DNA Identification

Wagner quotes the ICMP in To Know Where He Lays, “Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the blueprint of life.” After the mass killings of the Bosnians there were many missing persons who might have been laying in a mass grave, or surviving out in the woods, or run off to another county but they’re families could not be sure of the person’s fate. The government therefore came up with a method of identifying remains taken from the mass graves and compared them with pictures, clothing, and other memorabilia provided by the families. This however, took a very long time and did not provide a large number of results, not to mention correct identifications. With international financial backing, they were able to incorporate identification using DNA testing into their methodology.
At first, due to small resources, DNA testing was only used in cases where the scientists and researchers were nearly certain that they found a match. However, since this method was still laborious, with addition funding from international sources like the United States of America, the government was able to expand its DNA testing. As the ICMP uses the metaphor that DNA is the blueprint of life, it is clear that it is aware that DNA is the key to the success of their project, and this metaphor is its way to make public this new action.
As we have studied in several other articles relating science to society, metaphors prove to be a very important bridge. In this particular case using a metaphor as such proved to be vital when presenting the new technology and idea to the families of the missing persons. Groups such as the Women of Srebrenica in Tuzla held meetings where the ICMP made announcements about the DNA-based system. Using such metaphors was also crucial when speaking to the parents, spouses and children of the missing persons to enable their understanding and willingness to provide their own DNA to help detect their loved ones. With the consent and agreement of the families many more dead bodies were identified and the project achieved much more success than in the previously used method. Thus, with the backing of international sources and the tactful presentation of the ICMP, the missing persons identification project was able to improve its numbers significantly.

Biobanks

In Kaiser’s article, “Population Databases Boom, from Iceland to the U.S.”, she explains the pros and cons and methods of biobanking to be able to find the sources of certain sicknesses and health related issues. The largest funding was provided for the research done in Iceland, which took DNA samples from everyone living in the country minus those who opted to not participate. Kaiser remarks that there are many ethical issues that go along with tracking DNA to specific people, which could potentially break privacy rights. The plan for the biobank in UK was to instead survey volunteers for their habits and health and come up with results in this way. However, both methods are flawed and have much room for error.
As Kaiser highlights, collecting DNA samples from the participants carries with it several ethical issues that may outweigh the benefits of the program. Moreover, scanning the body for markers is an extremely expensive process and, according to Metspalu, is nor worth the investment quite yet. Also, since all of the participants are from the same country the diversity of the genes is not very wide and may not provide enough variance to be able to make definitive conclusions. When taking into consideration the UK method of surveying and keeping tabs on the participants for the following 10 years, there also seems to be many factors making it unreliable and unsuccessful. Aside from the ethical issues that may also arise using this method, participants may feel pressured to bend the truth in their answers, which would affect the outcome. Some people may provide answers that they assume the researchers want to hear, or may be embarrassed with their condition and make it seem less severe than reality, or even may not be able to voice habits or lifestyle choices.
This type of research may be a good supplement to the ongoing research on the gene for alcohol vulnerability and alcoholism from the aspect of those who are for biobanking. Looking at a large sample would provide a lot of information regarding people’s familial background in correspondence with alcoholism. This information may lead to linkage with a gene, however, the current method of DNA research is more likely to find the gene if it exists than the surveys.

DNA Evidence and the Death Penalty

Shelia Jansoff argues in “Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process” that with the developments in technology and science leaps can be taken in the legal world. With the new ability of DNA identification, criminals can be matched to crime scenes consistently with nearly no doubts. Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, wanted to institute the death penalty once again because of the accurate results of linking crimes to criminals. However, just because the DNA tests are not likely to fail, does not prove for a fact that the evidence found on the crime scene was directly related to the crime all the time.
We have seen in movies and on television shows of people being set up for a crime someone else committed. In a particular case, the knife found on the crime scene in the deceased’s hand had the blood of the person being set up on it. In addition, those who set this man up also put a whip that belonged to the deceased with his blood on it, in the trunk of the man being set up. During the court case the man being set up had no chance of proving he did not do it because of all of the DNA evidence apparent. Even though the DNA did not fail to show whose blood was at the crime scene, the man given the death penalty was innocent.

Medicalization of Alcoholism

According to Peter Conrad in his article, “The Shifting Engines of Medicalization,” medicalization was being pursued and supported more by professionals, movement and claim-makers, rather than by pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Activists worked for medicalization for a variety of illnesses diseases and disorders, among which is alcoholism. As Conrad mentions, alcoholism is a good example of how interests groups and social movements affect the activities in medicalization of a certain issue even though physicians are reluctant and resistant to it. Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is a now commonly known group that was established to help and provide support to those who have an alcoholic disorder.
If a gene for alcoholism was to be detected the process and outlook on medicalization for it would be dramatically affected. Currently, even medical procedures for alcoholism are not as much backed by insurance and pharmaceutical companies since it is looked at not as a genetically passed on disorder, but rather as a poor lifestyle choice. If it were proven that alcoholism was more likely in some people due to genetic composition, then the disorder would be considered more medical and would be supported by more physicians. Groups and organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous would continue to exist and support its members without direct medical treatment, but the disorder would receive more backing from pharmaceutical and insurance companies along with physician care.

“Cripples” and “Alcoholics”

According to Waldschmidt in “Against Selection of Human Life – People with Disabilities Oppose Genetic Counseling,” the “cripples” movement was in Germany where people with varying disabilities opposed the research and efforts being put into preventing and eliminating disabilities, and supportive of equal rights and not being looked at as charity cases, got together to fight for their ideals. These people with disabilities believe that they are a separate social group that deserves respect and equal life chances as any other social group. Merely because they were born with a specific genetic anomaly or went through a tragic accident, they should not be looked down on, or treated differently than those who are “normal.”
In the case that the genes for certain negative attributes were to be found, such as the gene for alcoholism or vulnerability to alcohol, these people may be treated differently or looked down upon by society as the “cripples” currently are. However, the treatment towards the “alcoholics” or potential alcoholics may be much worse than the “cripples” because rather than feelings of pity, alcoholics will most likely be faced with feelings of disapproval and disrespect. Therefore, in the way that people with disabilities are against genetic counseling and the research to prevent disabilities, the people who would be identified with the alcohol gene would most likely prefer to be anonymous and not predetermined.

Power Comes With Truth

In “The Scandal of Ambivalence” in Modernity and Ambivalence, Bauman quotes Descartes, “It is more likely that the truth would have been discovered by few than by many” (Bauman, 22). Next Bauman goes on to explain the burden that comes to those few who know the truth, which is to enforce the laws of reason. In this case Bauman is speaking of philosophers as those few who know the truth and are the ones who legislate the laws of reason, but the concept of those who know the truth having much more power and responsibility is relevant to those who are able to track the gene for alcohol vulnerability.
Those who are able to find a gene for alcoholism, if it truly does exist, will naturally be given the power to choose what they will do with the information. Will they use it for the greater good or evil? How will they present it to the society? Will they present it to the society? These are the types of questions and authorities that come along with being one of the few who know the truth according to Bauman.
People who know the truth are automatically given a certain amount of power and authority over those who just make up theories, but the way in which they use the knowledge and authority is crucial to the outcomes of the truth. For instance, maybe scientists have already discovered the gene for alcoholism somewhere, but chose not to reveal it to the public because of the legal and ethical issues that may come along with their decision. Thus, Bauman’s idea that those who know the truth are the ones with power is valid.