 Beckwith, J. (2001). On the social responsibility of scientists. ANNALI-ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITA, 37(2), 189-194. The author outlines the history of genetics in the United States, looking at all the social and political implications of it, too often underestimated by the geneticists themselves. In contrast to physicists, who were forced to recognize the consequences of their role in the development of the atomic bomb and who openly carried a historical burden from their past, geneticists had no historical memory and were essentially ignorant of their own "atomic" history: the Eugenics movement in the first half of 20th century, which significantly affected social policy in the United State and Europe. Few geneticists, in fact, until recently, were aware of the Eugenics movement itself. It was only with the extreme misuse of genetics by German scientists and the Nazi Government that some English and US geneticists began to speak out more openly. The author sees in this lack of awareness the major responsibility of geneticists for the misrepresentation and misuse of science and also calls for a better interaction between scientists and those who work in other social fields; a communication gap between the two cultures holds dangers for us all.We stand at the threshold of a new century, with the whole human genome
stretched out before us. Messages from science, the popular media, and
the stock market suggest a world of seemingly limitless opportunities to
improve human health and productivity. But at the turn of the last
century, science and society faced a similar rush to exploit human
genetics. The story of eugenics--humankind's first venture into a 'gene
age'--holds a cautionary lesson for our current preoccupation with
genes.
Gray, P. (1999). Cursed by eugenics. Time, 153(1), 84-85. At a time when science promises such dazzling advances in the practice of medicine, it may be prudent to cast a glance over the shoulder, back to an earlier era when scientists--or people who thought they were doing science--stirred hopes that better days were only a generation or so away. The rise and fall of the theory known as eugenics is in every respect a cautionary tale. The early eugenicists were usually well- meaning and progressive types. They had imbibed their Darwin and decided that the process of natural selection would improve if it were guided by human intelligence. They did not know they were shaping a rationale for atrocities.
Lovgren, S. (2005). One-Fifth of Human Genes Have Been Patented. Study Reveals for National Geographic News. Behar, D. M., Rosset, S.,
Blue-Smith, J., Balanovsky, O., Tzur, S., Comas, D., ... &
Genographic Consortium. (2007). The Genographic Project public
participation mitochondrial DNA database. PLoS Genetics, 3(6), e104. Darnovsky, M. (2005). Human Rights in a Post-human Future. biopoliticaltimes.org Most people are well aware that efforts to “improve the human gene pool” and “breed better people,” notoriously widespread from the end of the nineteenth century through the middle of the twentieth century, led to some of the most extreme violations of civil, political, and human rights in recent history. Nonetheless, five or six decades ago—before the structure of DNA had been deduced, before the modern environmental movement—most of the provisions of the Genetic Bill of Rights would have seemed nonsensical.
Even twenty-five years ago—before the development of genetic manipulation at the molecular level, legal doctrines that allow governments to grant patents on life, and DNA databases; before the advent and commercialization of in vitro fertilization and the screening of in vitro embryos; before the appearance of advertisements for social sex selection in mainstream U.S. publications—the document would have been widely considered an unwarranted over-reaction based on dystopian fantasy.
But here we are, at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Plants and animals are routinely genetically modified, patented, and brought to market by corporate enterprises. Genetic technologies are increasingly applied to human beings for forensic and medical purposes.
Nelkin, D., & Andrews, L. (1999). DNA identification and surveillance creep. Sociology of Health & Illness, 21(5), 689-706. The use of DNA fingerprinting as a means of identification is expanding. The technology appeals to military, law enforcement, and other government authorities: those seeking evidence to establish the identity of a dead body, a missing person, a relative, or the perpetrator of a crime. The increased use of DNA identification and the development of DNA banking systems have intensified concerns about surveillance and privacy. More than just a source of identification, DNA databanks are also subject to abuse for political or economic ends. This article describes the expansion of mandatory genetic testing focusing on disputes that have occured when those required to provide DNA samples raise concerns about psychological harm and discrimination based on the information revealed by their DNA. We use these disputes to analyse the problems of ‘surveillance creep’ as growing numbers of people have their DNA on file.
Editorial. (1988). Life Industrialized. New York Times.
Life is special, and humans even more so, but biological machines are still machines that now can be altered, cloned and patented. The consequences will be profound, but taken a step at a time, they can be managed.
|
