Consequences of the Human Genome Project

[Confused]

In the Feb 2007 issue of National Geographic, an article was written about a conversation between Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome project, author of "The Language of God", and a Christian) and John Horgan (Science writer and author of "The End of Science" and "Rational Mysticism", and an Agnostic). One issue posed went like this:

Horgan: Some scientists have predicted that genetic engineering may give us superhuman intelligence and greatly extended life spans, perhaps even immortality. These are all possible long term consequences of the Human Genome Project and other lines of research. If these thing happen, what do you think would be the consequences for religious traditions?

Collins: That outcome would trouble me. But we're so far away from that reality that it's hard to spend a lot of time worrying about it, when you consider all the truly benevolent things we could do in the near term.

Is this not what Einstein might have thought when he learned what his famous contributions to science led to?

http://www.answers.com/topic/albert-einstein
Einstein played a key role (1939) in mobilizing the resources necessary to construct the atomic bomb by signing a famous letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt which had been drafted by Leo Szilard and E.P. Wigner. When Einstein's famous equation E mc2 was finally demonstrated in the most awesome and terrifying way by using the bomb to destroy Hiroshima in 1945, Einstein, the pacifist and humanitarian, was deeply shocked and distressed; for a long time he could only utter "Horrible, horrible." On April 18, 1955, Einstein died in Princeton.

For debate:
In the explosion of genetic research now being done, the immediate and future ramifications of such research, is it justifiable to think that the position Collins takes in that the immediate benefits are what is important, not the possible future disasters that could result, such as with Einstein?

If genetic engineering does reach the potentials that some scientists currently believe it could, what would be the ramifications for religious ideology? If science can find a way to alter genetics that may be found to play roles in behavior so as to eliminate the negative traits and enhance the positive traits, it would illustrate the effects of morality as physiological as opposed to theological thereby negating religious morality. Would faith disappear into the night, or would we still find a way to evolve God/religion to fit this new issue to still make Him the reason for it?

[Confused]

A few facts that seem relevant to the discussion:

1) Francis Collins does not just blow off the possibility of negative consequences of the Human Genome Project. On the contrary, the National Human Genome Research Institute (which is the organization he heads) has devoted and continues to devote substantial resources to considering the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of genetic research. Sometimes, in fact, the ELSI people have been so cautious that they have driven the research scientists nuts. Collins believes that we should study the issues carefully before they arise, rather than just letting stuff happen. The dangers of genetic engineering really are decades off, however, and in the meantime millions of people are getting sick and dying of diseases that genetics could help treat.

I am very familiar with Collins and his work. So I am unsure what you are getting at here. I also never said he "blew off anything". I am referring only to some of the statements made in the interview, as presented in the OP.

2) Discrimination on the basis of genetic information, including discrimination by insurance companies and by employers, is legal in the United States. Such discrimination is not a remote possible outcome of genetics, but a very real and pressing danger, and one that is a concern to many geneticists. There has been an effort for quite a few years to get legislation passed that would outlaw it, but it still hasn't passed. (You might note that Francis Collins has been an outspoken advocate of the legislation. When I last heard him speak, a month or so ago, he was shortly to give testimony before congress in favor of it.)

It is legal in the US? Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not now illegal to deny one health insurance because of a pre-existing condition? Granted, I think the current statute is one that says an insurance company can withhold coverage for the first year, but after that, if one should say come out of remission from cancer or suffer a heart attack after stent placements over a year ago, or develop complications from a genetic anomaly that was dormant for greater than a year, the insurance company must provide coverage. Once again, I am unsure about the specifics here, I only work in healthcare so I have minimal to do with insurance. Perhaps you can clarify it for me.

3) The physicists who first split atoms knew perfectly well that their work was going to lead to nuclear weapons. That's why they were doing it.

Care to provide sources for this?

[sfs]

I am very familiar with Collins and his work. So I am unsure what you are getting at here. I also never said he "blew off anything". I am referring only to some of the statements made in the interview, as presented in the OP.

You wrote, "This is one of the few times I have totally disagreed with Collins. It is hard to not advance technology because of what it may be used for in the future, but Collins essentially blew it off as saying that the negative uses of his project are so far in the future he doesn't consider the factors of them now." That sure sounded like you were saying that Collins was blowing off certain concerns.

It is legal in the US? Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not now illegal to deny one health insurance because of a pre-existing condition? Granted, I think the current statute is one that says an insurance company can withhold coverage for the first year, but after that, if one should say come out of remission from cancer or suffer a heart attack after stent placements over a year ago, or develop complications from a genetic anomaly that was dormant for greater than a year, the insurance company must provide coverage. Once again, I am unsure about the specifics here, I only work in healthcare so I have minimal to do with insurance. Perhaps you can clarify it for me.

It varies. Many states provide greater protection (including protection against discrimination in employment) than provided by the federal government. Federal law prohibits use of genetic information to exclude individuals from group coverage and from charging them higher fees. It does not prohibit charging groups with genetically risky members higher premiums, and does not prohibit discrimination in individual and Medicare supplemental insurance markets, nor does it prohibit employment discrimination. So, overall there is currently both substantial protection and substantial vulnerability -- hence the push for a comprehensive law.

3) The physicists who first split atoms knew perfectly well that their work was going to lead to nuclear weapons. That's why they were doing it.

Care to provide sources for this?

My statement was inaccurate -- I was thinking of the physicists (led by Fermi) who built the first reactor (1942), who were working as part of the Manhattan Project specifically on weapons development. The actual first demonstration (by Hahn, Strassman and Meitner) that uranium could be split was reported in 1939, at which point the possibility of a chain reaction was quickly understood. (The possibility had actually been raised in a general way in the early 30s.) But the first investigators were not pursing weapons.