The title of his presentation summarized this development and engaged the well-known book Not in our Genes by Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose and Leo Kamin: "Genetics and Beyond: Yes, Virginia, there is a Genetic Component to almost everything in life...."
Gregor Mendel was off to a lucky start by experimenting on peas and not, for example, on tobacco plants. Since in peas characters like tallness or shortness of stalk are controlled by single genes which renders their effects clearly visible. The demonstrable influence of single genes on characters underwrites the central idea of genetic control according to which genetic "information" is uni-directionally transcribed into the phenotype. That many characters are controlled by multiple genes (in polygenic systems) and that the genes themselves are working in a physical environment (of enzymes etc.) adds dimensions of complexity to the paradigm case of uni-directional transcription as observed in monogenic systems. While these complexities are better and better appreciated and understood, the popular imagination and the most dramatic confirmation of the central idea of genetic control issue from the case of characters or behaviors controlled by single genes: Huntington's Disease may be a perfect case in point. According to Nawin Mishra, the search for the genetic basis of homosexuality is inconclusive as of yet, while intelligence and certain types of aggressive behavior can safely be referred to an established genetic basis, which explains why we are seeing such a pronounced interest in "the (single) gene" which may control obesity or intelligence or...
Nawin Mishra carefully acknowledges the various concerns or fears associated with this type of research. These fears, he argues (somewhat along the lines of Lee Silvers in his Remaking Eden), pertain to our ability to keep up - mentally, socially, and morally - with the advances of genetics. He cites misguided immigration laws based on misunderstood genetics as an example of this. Once properly understood and appropriately qualified, however, only good can come from any advance of knowledge. Certain behaviors or diseases were considered "taboo" until one could place them in the rational context of their natural basis in our genes while, at the same time, options to "cure" or change them have come into view. This accrual of rational control should be welcome and liberating, Mishra argues. In the meantime, the world-historical influence and pervasiveness of genetics has already proved unstoppable: Bad Soviet genetics (under the spell of its political philosophy) brought the Cold War to an end as the Soviet Union found itself with inferior harvests; genetically altered foods are here to stay; genetic engineering is beginning to take shape in the form of cures and enhancements; and it is only a matter of time until we will have 48 chromosomes...
This short course in genetics thus issued in a guarded optimism that leaves many questions open.
Our discussion only began to explore some of these. Here is just one that relates especially to the
relationship of science, society, and philosophy: While it serves the advance of science to take
the "easy/straightforward" case of monogenically controlled characters and behaviors as the
paradigm case and to work from there to more complicated interactions, has the popular
orientation toward that same paradigm served society ill by unduely simplifying how we think
about ourselves, the causes of characters and actions, freedom and responsibility, etc.? Can we
ever teach and grasp sufficiently well the concept of probability, for example, in order to undo
the damage of oversimplified conceptions of "genetic determinism" that are taking hold of our
social imagination?
Alfred Nordmann
| Membership Directory | General Information | Topics and Issues | Calendar |
This page last updated February 15th, 2000. It is maintained by the Philosophy Department. © 1997 by the Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina. Credits.