Medical Genetics

The Scary Bit

When they start talking about “quality” then it’s time to get worried. For instance, try Dr Bob Edwards, pioneer of IVF treatment (‘test-tube babies’) in Britain:

"Soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child which carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children."

OK, so most geneticists aren't as blatant as Edwards. They have worked out that human genetics has a bad ‘history’. The clever ones know that anything with “genetics” in its name is suspicious, thanks to the abuse of science, the public and the environment by the GM food companies.

So they claim that the new genetics is “good science” and has nothing in common with the “bad genetics” of Nazi Germany. They hide behind “pure” science and research: They reassure us that “designer babies” and screening for the “gay gene” are out of the question. But that’s not enough to convince a sceptical public.

The Comfortable Bit

So they have another, magic weapon. It’s a weapon that most environmentalists haven’t had to deal with. Disabled rights campaigners know the game - they’ve had it thrown at them for decades. The weapon is the N.H.S., or more generally health care. It's magic, because it transforms a dirty science (“genetics” = “Frankenstein foods”) into something good, kind and caring (“helping sick people”). It even makes it worth throwing millions of pounds of public money at (“help us find a cure for cancer”).

The Really Scary Bit

But still they talk about the “normal” genome, point to “faulty!” genes, and offer “solutions” based on reducing diversity and eliminating disabled people. Sure, people born with impairments don’t have an easy life: inaccessible public transport, fewer facilities, job discrimination, social prejudice. Those are all problems we can do something about. The only “problem” identified by medical genetics is the disabled people themselves.

The Un-Comfortable Bit

So how to respond to the “we’re just helping parents have healthy babies” facade. There are about four possible responses:

1) We can hide behind fundamentalism. It’s much easier to be against pre-natal screening if you’re against all abortion per se. It’s a simplistic response. It's also abhorrent to most of us.

2) We can run away from confronting the geneticists. GM foods are so much easier to campaign against. Trouble is, we’ll be at the bottom of the eugenics slippery slope before we know it.

3) We can try to respond on their own terms. We can complain about some of the more overtly eugenic scientists, but avoid challenging the underlying assumptions. We’ll probably lose (but if you want to give it a go, try the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ below).

4) Or we can try to challenge their assumptions about public health care, parental choice, normality.... And we’ve got a secret weapon too: the alternatives. Funding limitations mean that they are, and will be, in direct opposition with the new genetics. (See ‘Alternatives’ box.)

Fequently Asked Questions

Aren't you just anti-science?

We’re against bad science, that oversimplifies genetics and ignores other factors in disease. Science should not be treated like a God, untouchable and exempt from ethical debate.

Aren’t you scare-mongering?

New genetics developments encourage people to think about “improving” desirable characteristics and avoiding “abnormalities.” As the technology improves, the dangers of this leading to eugenics increase.

What harm does gene therapy do anyone?

Gene therapy (ie curing a living person by altering or treating their genes) does not work. It never has. This is about screening and eliminating, not curing.

Don’t you want to help sick people?

Sickness is caused by many factors, but especially social and environmental degradation. Pouring money into genetics diverts resources and attention from better cures, and creates false expectations.

Are you against parental choice?

It should be an informed choice, made against the background of a society that will care for those with impairments and offer the correct support to parents. Parents want healthy babies: most pre-natal screening offers anxieties, false hopes (it’s not exact or complete) and, if a “problem” is diagnosed, directive counselling.

Nipping It In The Bud

And if we don’t challenge the new medical genetics, and its hold on the public purse (and on university science courses), it’s not long before the promise of ‘therapy’ will become the reality of ‘elimination’ - before parental ‘choice’ demands screening for the criminal/ stupid/ugly/gay/misfit/free-thinking gene. Let’s nip this one in the bud - because that’s exactly what they plan to do with anyone that society happens to be unable or unwilling to cope with.

For a start, come to the National Genetix Action in Newcastle upon Tyne, 27th May