
A scientist makes the case for the power of DNA - jkuria
https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2018/11/08/a-scientist-makes-the-case-for-the-power-of-dna
======
aluren
It seems that "genetics" is increasingly becoming the essentialism of the 21st
century. Because you now sound silly if you use words like 'soul' or 'energy',
people increasingly rely on 'genetics' or 'biology' to prove all sorts of
political points or argue for public policies. As someone whose job is
literally staring at and manipulating fasta files [1][2] all day, I find this
newly found fascination people have with their own DNA (and others') deeply
unsettling. People want it to be our 'source code', our 'blueprint', our video
game character starting stats, any kind of proxy for one's soul, but there's
_so much more_ to the self than a dumb fasta file, we're only barely beginning
to uncover it. And I'm not talking about the environment either (and by the
way, the genetics/environment false dichotomy has been outdated for a while;
whenever I hear things like 'nature/nurture' it makes me cringe). Epigenetics,
microbiota, DNA spatial structure, all sorts of developmental stuff... these
all contribute too, and have little to do with one's 'upgringing' or
'nurturing' as most people understand it.

It's all the more pervasive because some of the talking points are _sort of_
true, but then people _immediately_ jump to conclusions regarding social
issues. Which in my view shows that people are not really interested in the
science itself but are more looking into a way to map their mental model onto
it so as to provide a socially acceptable justification of their opinions.
This has been done for hundreds of years (from racialist theories to
Lyssenkism to all kinds of foodstuffs lobbies) and I would very much like it
if there weren't a resurgence of this kind of thinking in the current
political climate.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FASTA_format](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FASTA_format)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FASTQ_format](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FASTQ_format)

------
jernfrost
I think there is an enormous danger in abuse of this knowledge. People simply
don't understand the concepts and statistics very well.

The part about how heritability varies between countries is very important
observation. A country successful at creating great opportunities for the
majority of the population will measure very high heritability values because
naturally most differences seen will be genetic if the environment is mostly
optimal.

This hides the significance of the environment. E.g. height has a heritability
of 90%, yet that is easy to misinterpret. Height in various populations have
varied dramatically over time and that can primarily be explained by changes
in the environment: health care and nutrition.

------
yholio
> Instead he advocates the use of such scores when choosing between candidates
> for a job.

What a ridiculous and offensive suggestion, widespread genetic discrimination.
You don't have to be a scientist to understand why that's bad. Even if (or
precisely if) some skills and proclivities are mostly inherited, that should
not prevent people that managed to overcome their native shortcomings to find
a fair place in society according to their actual, developed skills.

We already know for a fact that males are more aggressive, females have lower
orientation skills and Asian kids are less agitated. The genetic markers are
so strong there you can read them on the person's face, yet, discrimination on
any of those gender or race characteristics should be repulsive to anyone.

~~~
SpanishConf
This.

Eugenics is all fun and games until they come after you and your family.

~~~
imglorp
It's not only ethically wrong and offensive, it may actually be factually
wrong also. How much of a person--and their suitability for some role--is
genetic predisposition, and how much is their nurture and experiences?

Furthermore, if you did identify the "ideal" person for that role, then you'd
want more of them: so you'd want clone factories, eg Kamino.

No, we have genetic diversity for a reason.

~~~
pojzon
Genetic Diversity is rather an outcome of a fact that mixing genes helped us
evolve (mutations - vs diseases, environment changes etc)

Now or rather soon, when human species will be able to takr control over
evolution process, genetic diversity will make no sense because you will be
highly immune to anything and environment will be no different.

I know its hard to admit even now some families are highly superior to other
when it comes to genes inheritage, but thats how it is.

Some may say that Eugenics sucks because for example it would not allow
mentally ill people reproduce and they have such ppl in family, but overall
majority of population has no such issues and mby they would like to have
those genes out of the genes pool. All depends on how you look at that,
collective vs single entity etc.

~~~
thefounder
Just because you have a bad gene doesn't make you a bad/inferior person so
yeah when humans take control over their source code they may put some genes
on sleep.

You also forget that there are always trade offs. You can't be "perfect"
because there is no such thing.

Back to real world, we all pay taxes and live in this world so I believe we
should demand and receive equal opportunities.

~~~
imglorp
> a bad gene doesn't make you a bad/inferior person

In fact, we don't always understand the interplay between, say Asbergers and
savant skills, or schizophrenia and intense creativity. We might need to live
with some of these to retain the whole spectrum of humanity.

My personal feeling, no facts here, is we should look at low hanging fruit
that we all agree is isolated and can bring no benefits, such as Tay Sachs or
Huntingtons. Those will not be missed and we well gain experience with the
harder problem of evaluating the harder choices.

------
jvanderbot
There may be generic markers and genetic predisposition, but it's not because
a person comes from a "long race of X" or "long family of Y". Even if that's
true in fact it's wrong in policy. It's dangerous to consider some better than
others.

Changes to family traits may be slow, but can be cultivated! We should
encourage and help all families and communities to improve their environment
to bring about positive changes in their lives and children's lives.

From TFA:

"These are problems of emphasis rather than accuracy. But in a field as
ethically fraught as genetics, even that can be troubling. For instance, as Mr
Plomin notes, the size of the genetic component of a particular trait—its
“heritability”—varies between different populations. The heritability of
educational attainment in Norway has increased since the second world war as
the country widened access to health care and schools, flattening out
environmental effects. That trend seems, worryingly, to have reversed in
America in the 21st century. The irony is that the heritability of many traits
rises if states do more to provide for all their citizens equally."

------
katzgrau
> Instead he advocates the use of such scores when choosing between candidates
> for a job.

I'm struggling to understand how this doesn't wind up being a proxy for
racism/sexism and the other things we abhor when considering equal
opportunity.

~~~
nabla9
> being a proxy for racism/sexism

Genetic variation inside races is much larger than between them. I don't think
that that genetic screening is a good idea, but if it would be rigorously and
blindly applied, it would probably break up many race and gender barriers.

We already do ad hoc screening based on phenotypes determined by genes.

* taller men have higher wages than shorter men.

* beautiful women get jobs more easily than ugly women.

* facial asymmetries and other small deviations from the norm affect the prospects of many people.

~~~
fromthestart
>Genetic variation inside races is much larger than between them

Do you have a source for this? It sounds suspiciously like feel good
propaganda.

~~~
chillwaves
Do you have a source that states "races" are determined by genetics?

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-
social-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-
construct-scientists-argue/)

[https://www.americanscientist.org/article/is-race-
real](https://www.americanscientist.org/article/is-race-real)

[https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/genetics-
history...](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/genetics-history-race-
neanderthal-rutherford/)

Those are literally the first three results from the google search "is race
real from science point of view".

------
tshanmu
Gattaca here we come !! (We are already in 1984)..

------
jvanderbot
Blueprint is the wrong analogy. Recipe book is more appropriate.

