Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The shift over the last decades focused on the complexity of the
makeup of organisms. Even synthetic approaches such as sociobiology
appreciate the complexity of the organism, and the critical interaction
between its genome and the environment in which it exists. Ironically,
as a result of the mapping of the human genome, some have used the
results to emphasize the role of the single gene for determining particu-
lar diseases, traits, or behaviors, regardless of their complexity. Thus, in
addition to constant announcements of discoveries of genes for any
number of diseases, we also have the concomitant announcement of a
single or a small number of genes for complex behaviors such as homo-
sexuality, alcoholism, intelligence, shyness, aggression, and all manner of
other behaviors. We seem to be returning to an earlier genetic essential-
ism, a genetic explanation of behavior that focuses exclusively on the
role of the single gene rather than gene-gene interaction and/or the
interaction of the genome as a whole with the larger environment. This
often-unacknowledged shift will have profound implications for how we
understand ourselves, and we need to keep this perspective in mind as
we think about human nature.
Biological Solidarity
One of the most critical discoveries of modern genetics is the commu-
nality of the DNA of all organisms. This biological solidarity is extremely
interesting as well as quite threatening. Studies of mammals, primates,
lesser vertebrates, and other organisms reveal a striking complementar-
ity of genetic structure. It is clear that humans differ genetically from
orangutans and other chimps by perhaps only 1 or 2 percent. The mouse
is becoming a major model for the study of human diseases because its
genetic profile overlaps considerably that of humans.
The question is whether to focus on differences or solidarity. Obvi-
ously the differences are critical, and 1 or 2 percent of DNA in the right
place and in relation to specific environments does make a critical dif-
ference, as the history of human culture reveals. As Jonathan Marks
notes, “The fact that our DNA is 98 percent identical to that of a chimp
is not a transcendent statement about our natures, but merely a decon-
textualized and culturally interpreted datum.” Thus, by looking at both
chimps and humans, we can differentiate them quite easily as well as
spot several common characteristics. Marks observes that “the apparent
