50 Years of DNA: 50 years of Progress?

A Human Genetics Alert event at SOAS, London

Natasha Hulugalle

Within the first few minutes of this public seminar it became depressingly obvious that it would be an evening of preaching to the converted.

Human Genetics Alert is devoted to campaigning for the democratic control of genetics. Director David King described his organisation as the watchdog that watches the watchdog. The question mark in '50 Years of Progress?' was therefore strategically placed to conjure up the sinister advances in genetic research that are currently spiralling out of all reason and control.

In his introduction, King asserted that for all the celebratory events marking the anniversary of Crick and Watson's discovery, there were not enough critical events taking place. Luckily, this meeting would remedy the situation.

Of course it is perfectly valid to maintain a critical stance over the progress in genetic research, whether for reasons of ethics or economics etc. A balanced discussion is always to be welcomed with a voice of caution to check rampant enthusiasm. However, when the panel of guests, the chairperson and the audience all appear to agree with each other on a fundamental level, why pretend the meeting is a public debate? There may have been the odd mild dissenter, but they probably felt too outnumbered to speak out.

As a consequence, the discussion frequently plunged into conspiracy theory territory. Of the panel, Ian Gibson, chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee for Science and Technology emerged as the most sympathetic and humorous commentator. As a legislator he has real fears about the nefarious or other intentions of biotechnology companies. Clearly this fear was not only for ethical reasons but also as a former microbiologist, he dislikes watching the progress of science reduced to the brash cut and thrust of the marketplace.

Such an attitude could be seen as either romantic or naïve; although it would be hard to accuse Gibson, a wry cynical type himself, of such sentimental behaviour. By claiming that some of the grand scientific establishments in this country are too oligarchic and elitist, Gibson was in fact accused of approaching science from a purely political standpoint. This seemed unfair, as it was evident that his first allegiance was to the rights of science and scientists. Making one of the final points of the evening he concluded that for all the reservations he may have, he would always fight for the rights of scientists to experiment, reminding the audience that such activity can have great and often accidental effects.

One of the drawbacks of the evening was the enormity of the task that HGA had set the audience and the panel. To decide on the assumed progress of 50 years of DNA in a few hours is an overwhelming prospect. It was therefore easiest to listen to Ian Gibson speculate as he spoke of the difficulties in having a responsibility towards several competing but interdependent groups.

The two remaining speakers, Hilary Rose, co-editor of Alas, Poor Darwin: Escaping Evolutionary Psychology and Dr Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, were both determined to colour every aspect of the subject in their own uncomplicated ethical terms. Accusing Gibson of being the consummate politician, they were unaware of their own, frequently ludicrous tunnel visioned interpretation.

Although Hilary Rose began by reciting a classy sociological critique of the progress of genetic research, her overriding instinct can be expressed quite simply: trust no one. Institutions such as the MRC and the Wellcome Trust apparently have nothing to do with improving public health in the long term. According to Rose, they have been 'captured' by scientists for the exclusive purpose of producing Nobel Prize winners.

Neither, unfortunately, can we rely on the bioethicists. Both Rose and Nicholson spoke about bioethics as if it were something indecent ('I am not a bioethicist!' seethed Nicholson after being accused of this unseemly practice by Hilary Rose). In fairness their criticism of this increasingly popular discipline was the most sophisticated aspect of their approach. The problem they have with bioethics is that it is a contradiction in terms. Employed by large biotechnology companies, bioethicists spend their time trying to convince us of the acceptable nature of problems that we never asked for in the first place. All companies employ bioethicists to justify themselves. Bioethics as it is understood today is not radical enough as it is dependent on the industry of genetics.

The problem with Richard Nicholson's argument was that it was not so much an argument, as a shopping list of all the reservations he has about genetic research. This became exhaustively relentless, with little analysis to add any light relief. To list a few of his criticisms: gene therapy is a 'dud', understanding many diseases does not involve looking at DNA, protein structure is more important that DNA, DNA fingerprinting intrudes into our personal lives and as for DNA screening - do we really need to know? etc.

Nicholson's certainty was marred however by his admission that there are several exceptions to the (his) rule, ie individuals with a family history of certain illnesses would probably quite like to know about the potential danger to their health. After a few paranoid observations from the audience ('some things are inexplicable - like bird song', 'I look at the Royal Institution, and I feel deeply afraid') the evening petered out.

Ian Gibson made a final valiant attempt to restore some balance to the discussion but was quickly silenced. '50 Years of DNA: 50 Years of Progress?' rang hollow as a discussion because it was presented as an either or situation. There are many that have mixed feelings about advances in genetic research. Scare tactics do not help people arrive at a conclusion; they provoke feelings of guilt. When commentators such as Rose and Nicholson reduce genetics to the most basic of ethical dilemmas, (yes or no - good and bad - one correct answer) they are choosing the easy option.

Advances in genetic research are part of the endless human quest for knowledge that cannot be halted or ignored. It would be nice to be able to say, 'I condemn gene therapy/reproductive cloning etc therefore I am a good person', but this type of certainty about our future as a species, wherever it is aimed, is too simplistic. We can manage and regulate, but we cannot hope to eliminate genetic research by dismissing it as immoral.

All articles on this site © Culture Wars.