Montgomery Fellow John Fletcher described the ethical and social controversies surrounding modern genetics before a standing-room-only crowd in 105 Dartmouth Hall Wednesday afternoon.
Fletcher's speech, titled "Where in the World are We Going with the New Genetics?" used both simple cartoons and survey results to emphasize problems and questions resulting from new genetic technologies.
He began his speech by defining the "new genetics," which are epitomized in the Human Genome Project, scheduled for completion by the year 2005.
The difference between old and new genetics involves the amount of detail available for study, Fletcher said.
The Human Genome Project will give an incredible amount of information on how to combat inherited disorders through DNA diagnosis, gene therapy and designer drug therapy, he said.
But these new techniques, such as gene therapy, have been over-hyped by the media, Fletcher warned. Diagnosis of a genetic disorder does not mean a treatment is readily available.
Some of the various ethical and social questions raised by the rise of genetic technologies include "tampering with nature," "genetic discrimination" and "human embryo research," Fletcher said.
For example, Fletcher said, today there are 39 ways for a couple to have a baby, a number which he called "mind-boggling."
"When I was growing up, there were only three" ways to have a child, he said.
Fletcher said he disapproved of the current U.S. ban on human embryo research because it made subsequent gene therapy on patients a "shot in the dark" instead of a "scientifically informed process from start to finish."
But people in the U.S. are wary of discrimination through genetics and should remain so, Fletcher said.
"We have a sad history of socially enforced and socially sanctioned eugenics," he said. Although eugenics in the U.S. were never at the level of socialist Germany, there is rightful concern over such practices, Fletcher said.
Fletcher then showed the audience a number of cartoons, which reiterated the popular belief that "science is always outstripping ethics."
An international survey tested geneticists in various nations on biases in genetic counseling. It found the U.S. and other English-speaking western countries were the most unbiased in terms of counseling for disorders, whereas in South America -- where abortion is illegal -- and the near East and Asia, counseling was very biased.
The survey also posed an ethical question about sex selection. According to Fletcher, the U.S. public did not support fetus sex typing, but most geneticists were willing to at least refer someone wanting sex selection to another doctor.
Fletcher said such questions were "worrisome to those who want genetics to be focused on disease" instead of personal and cultural questions unrelated to health.
He said the aim of genetics should be to cure diseases, not handle cultural preferences. He asked what would happen after the Human Genome Project was completed and every characteristic could be mapped to each gene.
Characterizing what disorders were serious enough for abortion to be considered viable is difficult, Fletcher said. A survey of doctors and geneticists found almost no consensus on what should be considered abortion-worthy diseases.
As an example, he mentioned a case where a pair of deaf parents want to ensure their child is also deaf and will abort a fetus if its hearing seems normal.
Fletcher concluded his speech by talking about discrimination in work, insurance coverage and schooling. He said although genetic discrimination certainly exists, there is no empirical evidence it exists to the extent people fear it does.
