Presentation: Michael, Sawyer, Madi, Martha
1. In this touted Age of Genomics, what frequently follows the hopeful hype about gene therapy?
2. Steve Jones says we know what of genetics?
3. What was Francis Collins' prediction in 2000? In 2014?
4. What's the best way to engineer a tall person, and what does that tell us about the effects of "Many Assorted Genes..."?
5. "Anonymous" tissue samples can be what?
6. What is Jessica Cussins' practical objection to the results of DTC genetic tests?
7. What more than doubled in illustration of the "Angelina Jolie effect"?
8. There aren't enough what to support population-wide screening for the BRCA genes?
9. The UC-Berkeley DNA project was intended to introduce students to what?
10. How should leading geneticists have responded to loose talk in the early '90s (and still) about "the gay gene," "the violence gene," etc.?
5. "Anonymous" tissue samples can be what?
6. What is Jessica Cussins' practical objection to the results of DTC genetic tests?
7. What more than doubled in illustration of the "Angelina Jolie effect"?
8. There aren't enough what to support population-wide screening for the BRCA genes?
9. The UC-Berkeley DNA project was intended to introduce students to what?
10. How should leading geneticists have responded to loose talk in the early '90s (and still) about "the gay gene," "the violence gene," etc.?
DQ
- Who's responsible for over-hyping the promise of gene therapy?
- Why is the history of genomics so full of unfulfilled promise?
- If short people are discriminated against, is the solution to engineer tall people? Or to oppose discrimination more aggressively?
- Do you agree that we should divert billions from genomic research to behavioral modification? 249
- Why do patients who support genomic research nonetheless "want to be informed..."? 251
- Is there any reason in principle why 23andMe's algorithm could not be corrected to detect and distinguish gene mutations that are and are not life-threatening? 253
- Is there anything ethically wrong with women electing for prophylactic mastectomies?
- Do the risks of universal screening for the BRCA genes outweigh the benefits?
- If there were enough genetic counselors to support population-wide screening, would you support it?
- Should patients be informed of mutations that are not found to correlate with increased cancer risk? 257
- Is it in fact "common knowledge" that there isn't a gene for homosexuality, etc.?
CB
- (Oops - published out of sequence. See previous for CB part 6)
Health news... Weekly health quiz... WHQ 3/8... WHQ 3/3... Treating Alzheimer's... Her son died. And then anti-vaxers attacked her
If short people are discriminated against, is the solution to engineer tall people? Or to oppose discrimination more aggressively?
ReplyDeleteThis could be translated into so many other issues. Gay/trans people, black people, people with big noses.
The ethical answer is to reduce discrimination. Having a plethora of aesthetic choices is a good thing. What if you were somebody that is attracted to big noses and everyone opted to have their child with smaller noses.
I don’t believe that we should engineer peoples genetic code to that degree where we would change things that would be unnecessary for the survivability or health of someone. I feel that most people believe this way but this is something that will happen no matter what we do.
Delete- Jaxon Spinell
DeleteIs it in fact "common knowledge" that there isn't a gene for homosexuality, etc.?
ReplyDeleteI remember reading on the NIH website a couple of years ago (it's gone now) that they had conducted experiments where they controlled the release of a certain hormone in the third trimester of pregnancy of other mammals and were able to successfully manipulate the sexuality of the offspring. They tried injecting this hormone into human adults and other adult mammals and it had no effect on sexuality.
The chances of having a gay male increase with each succussive male child that a mother has. I think this evidence suggests that genes are somehow responsible for the production of homosexuals. Some notable biologists like Robert Sapolsky have suggested that gay people serve the evolutionary purpose of adding extra protection to their sibling's offspring.
If there were enough genetic counselors to support population-wide screening, would you support it?
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I would not support something like this if it were mandated or if social pressure were applied to influence people to use it. However, I think the presence of available genetic counselors would be wonderful for our population. There should be a serious discussion about what sort of traits that these genetic counselors would be helping couples with, but it would not be right to disallow this service based to people based on things that we could possible prevent by regulation.
Regarding the gene for homosexuality idea, I think that they have found alterations in brain structures of those who are straight versus gay, looking similar to the opposing sex. There has also been different brain activity monitored in different sexualities.
ReplyDeleteIf short people are discriminated against, the solution is to target discrimination, not engineer tall people. Engineering tall people seems like a cheap way to allow for discrimination. Like David said, this can translate to so many different things.
Over hyping the promise of gene therapy would be on journalists and inflammatory headline authors. A scientist would tell you they’re hopeful, but couldn’t give an exact date or even if the processes would be 100% possible.
- Aidan Haines
DeleteWhy is the history of genomics so full of unfulfilled promise?
ReplyDeleteThe history of genomics is full of unfulfilled promises due to the complexity of gene-environment interactions, the overestimation of early discoveries, challenges in translating genetic insights into treatments, and the gap between scientific progress and real-world applications.
Who's responsible for over-hyping the promise of gene therapy?
ReplyDeleteThe over-hyping of gene therapy has been driven by scientists seeking funding, biotech companies attracting investors, media sensationalism, and government agencies promoting genomics as revolutionary. While gene therapy has led to breakthroughs in rare diseases, its widespread impact has been slower and more complex than initially promised.
I feel like we see that a lot in today’s society since we are so money driven. A lot of things on social media is also increasing the hype since all forms of communication, false or true, is able to spread at exorbitant rates.
DeleteWhy do patients who support genomic research nonetheless "want to be informed..."?
ReplyDeletePatients who support genomic research still "want to be informed" because they recognize the ethical, privacy, and personal implications of genetic data. They want transparency about how their data will be used, potential health risks, the limitations of genetic insights, and the real-world impact of research on their medical care and personal lives.
If there were enough genetic counselors to support population-wide screening, would you support it?
ReplyDeleteI would support this if we were confident in our ability to read and understand genetic code. From what the book says I question our ability to screen accurately so I believe until then, most money should go to more research rather than possibly inaccurate screening.