ISIS Report - April 25 2001
Chief Scientist Bob May Lambastes Human Genetics Panel
Nick Papadimitriou and Angela Ryan report on the
Welcome Trust Celebration of the Human Genome at the Royal Society 22 March.
Sir Bob May, president of the UK Royal Society, summed up the event when
he rose to his feet and expressed dismay at the “First World
centredness” of the dialogues. The extent to which anthropocentrism had
dominated the proceedings was shocking he said. He was scathing in his
criticism of the panel and said he had expected much more. He pointed out how
close we are genetically to the nematode worm, reminding us of our
interconnectedness to the rest of the living realm. He said we had singularly
failed to grasp the most important implication of the findings of the human
genome project.
This came at the end of a long foray into eugenics, genetic determinism
and social engineering by Sir John Sussman of the Welcome Trust, who said the
genome was like a hieroglyph and that the “gold standard” sequence
would be available within 2 years. He stated there are about 10 million
variations between individuals and everybody is genetically unique. The study
of variations between people must be done in public and with public trust,
“bit by bit”. However, the genome poses many problems and there are
far more questions than answers. We must share in planning around it and he
strongly recommended that a universal declaration should be made over the human
genome, to what end?
The question and answer session revolved around the search for the
intelligence gene, longevity and the engineering of “pleasant
traits”. Sir Chris Evans, a venture capitalist, was careful to manoeuvre
himself away from the genetic-determinist position. “What is
intelligence”? Evans asked in response to a question about the
intelligence gene. The truth is that anybody intent on profiting from the human
genome cannot possibly take any other position at this stage.
The limitations of genetic engineering life and genetic determinism are
becoming increasingly evident. Evans repeatedly gave assurances based not so
much on what he wanted to say but rather on the dismal track record of the
pharmaceutical companies to glean anything useful or meaningful from the
human genome project. “It’ll be ten years before anybody can do
anything sensible with gene therapy,” He said. But that’s in the wake
of a ghastly catalogue of failures rather than some well thought out caution on
the part of the industry.
The audience voiced concerns about human gene patenting. Evans claimed
patents taken out on human gene sequences would not stand up in court.
“These patents will be challenged and there will be battlegrounds,
depending on what country the patent is taken out in,” he said. He assured
the public that industry would probably not keep patents on human genes.
Again and again we heard the panel answer perfectly straight questions
with evasions and half–truths. Sir John claimed that democracy renders the
genome “safe”, but how?
And what “democratic” principle has been adhered to? The
public were not consulted on the human genome project. Neither were they
consulted on the health policies following from it. Hundreds of millions in
public money have already been spent in supporting the project, and billions
more are being poured in to help a biotech industry seriously in trouble.
Publicly-funded biomedical research over the past decade has been
dominated by a genetic determinist understanding of disease and the discredited
doctrine of “one gene, one protein”. One thing the human gene map
does tell us is that there are ten time as many proteins as genes. Prime
sequencer Craig Venter of Celera Genomics said, “one gene leads to many
different proteins that can change dramatically once they are produced.”
Genetic determinism is dead. Dr Robert Beall, president of the Cystic Fibrosis
Foundation told the Wall Street Journal last year, “we’ve had our
gene since 1989 but a cure is still no closer.”
| 
