the real life implications of genetic research

The idea of “molecularization”, brought to the table by Raman and Tutton seems to permeate all the readings this week. When science is brought to its smallest bits and pieces we can get to the personal and introspective aspect of what is often considered big picture science. The study of genetic diseases, reproductive possibilities and stem cell research are all large overarching topics, but once they become “molecularized” into the more base or simple science we see the personal impact. It is important to remember the personal side of clinical science, because people are ultimately being affected by new genetic research. I like to think of molecularization as the process of taking a theoretical idea and applying it to a more tangible, human issue.

Callahan, in his discussion of communitarianism, concludes that biological advances need to be looked at through a new lens. He recommends taking into account human nature, the private and public spheres, the welfare of the whole and human rights when discussing new ethical problems in science. In this way he is asking us to break down, or “molecularize” broad bioethical issues, such as the ones Robertson asks.

In Robertson’s piece the big question: “why reproduction is important and valued?” is followed by the question of a legal framework to protect new advances in reproductive technology. His argument follows that much has been done to protect the termination of a pregnancy, and much will need to be done to protect the desire to reverse infertility and engage in genetic screening and altering of embryos. This is where laws may need to come into place to protect women choosing gene-altering therapies. Again, we see the idea of broad questions having human implications.

When the big picture science is broken down (“molecularized”) we see the advancement of this technology lies in the hands of the people. Or differently said, the power resides in the hands of those for whom the science directly affects. This is what Foucault meant in his exploration of biopower, and the discussion of power from “below”—or us, the people who experience the human implications of scientific theory.

Science and Money

I am not a person guided by financial motivation, nor am I the type of person who thinks in terms of the “entrepreneurial” spirit of capitalism, but when reading about genomics and the race towards technical advancements with genetic modification I can’t keep from thinking about money. The financial imperative keeps catching my eye in the readings. Before knowing what “genomics” meant I though the term was a play on the word “economics.” Although this turned out to be a false assumption, the financial world cannot be left out of the conversation over genetic understanding and advancement.

In the case of genomics, money plays an important role in the progress of data collection and research. According to our in class model of the inter-connectedness of the scientific field and the rest of the world, finances play a part in the “making alliances” section of our science wheel. The strong connection between money and science is most certainly never spoken about in traditional science classes. The large public organizations and private investors that support science are often overlooked, but they are a major player in “messy science.”

First, in Fortun’s “Promising Genomics” the financial incentive begins on page two with the press release from Roche promising $200 million pumped into the project of collecting, analyzing and “de-coding” the DNA of the Icelandic people. I’m pretty sure this initial investment of money was expected to be paid off later when the DNA could be patented and sold to pharmaceutical companies who in turn would use the information to make billions of dollars from drugs to cure the previously incurable.

The financial theme also shows up from Sulstan’s biography in Zwart’s article. Given that Sulstan focuses on the moral aspect of science, he argues that the datasets resulting from the genomic research need to be available to the science community and the public and not kept for private profit. The main idea I see illustrated here is that science has two sides: the public and the private, the former being the more ethical aspect. When science goes private it only benefits those who have money and thus access.

The financial side of biotechnology also has social justice implications. The future of biotech will rest in the hands of those who have the money to use the new advances in science in their own lives. For example, the idea that people could use this new science to determine genetic characteristics in their offspring implies a broadening divide between the “have” and “have nots.” I believe it is necessary for science to be public and accessible for all- this is the freedom of technology that Sulstan argues for.

first blog

here I am ready to write about DNA and politics and ethics.