What your GRANDPARENTS ate may affect how healthy YOU are.
"Epigenetics: Genome, Meet Your Environment" -- The distinction between genetic and environmental factors in the development of an organism may not be as simple as you once thought.
Lamarckism -- the long discredited evolutionary theory which proposed that characteristics acquired in one generation is inheritable by the next -- is reconsidered in the study of epigenetics.
Google: EPIGENETICS.
"The Ghost in your Genes" (Documentary)
"Granddad's Diet Affects Descendants' Health" (New Scientist, Oct 2002)
What are the ethical implications of such findings? (This is the crux of GP; the science alone is irrelevant.)
Two controversial issues immediately spring to mind: (1) racial/cultural/sexual determinism and (2) sexual orientation.
***
(1) Should Scientific Research be Dictated by Ethical Concerns?
This op-ed in the International Herald Tribune, "Your genes are not the real you", takes a look at how public backlash against certain research as being "sexist" or "racist" may not just be political correctness gone out of control.
***
(2) The debate whether sexual minorities (homosexuals, transsexuals) should be accorded the same civil rights (marriage, adoption of children, state benefits for couples) has very often featured the "Nature vs. Nurture" argument.
Put simply, if
a) sexual orientation is genetically determined (inference: "gay people do not choose to be gay"), then the case for equal rights is stronger; if
b) sexual orientation is shaped by environmental factors (inference: "gay people can choose to be straight"; "gay people can be changed"; "gay people should change"), then the case for maintaining the status quo (i.e. gay people do not deserve certain civil rights) is stronger.
...
It has been argued that the clear distinction between genes and environment is false; read for example this article "Playing fast and loose with science" on Yawningbread. The study of epigenetics will be a new chapter in the ongoing search for a better description of the relationship between genes, environment, and sexual orientation.
...
To take it further: so what if we eventually do find a valid scientific theory relating sexual orientation to genes / environment?
I have always been uncomfortable with how conservative groups make the leap from "can change" to "should change". Before X "should change", X must be "wrong". Assuming that X "can change", and assuming the "wrong" is definable, the fact that X "can change" does not necessarily make X "wrong".
I am equally uncomfortable with how gay activists argue "inborn" or "natural" equals "right". The idea of what is "natural" has not been consistent across time:
The idea of "natural" is not even consistent across existing societies:
Hence, "naturalness", being an unstable idea, is not a good criterion for determining "right".
...
We superficially understand that something is "natural" if we "observe" it in "nature".
However, both the processes of "observation" and the selection of what is a "natural environment" are not necessarily objective; both processes are conducted by human communities, which are inevitably governed by various agenda, whether cultural or political. For example, people who use observations of killdeers luring predators away from their chicks to justify the "naturalness" of "nobility" and "self-sacrifice" will often ignoring the other, equally persuasive argument that "self-sacrifice" is essentially a selfish act of perpetuating one's genes -- it's one of the tactics of survival, rather than an act of love.
The use of "naturalness" as justification has also been inconsistent. Going back to our topic of justifying civil rights for sexual minorities, one argument has been that homosexual behaviour is aberrant, not observed in "nature", and therefore "unnatural". Hence, civil rights should not be accorded. However, with increasing evidence that homosexual behaviour among animals is widespread, another argument has been proposed, asserting that since humans are not animals, humans are above what is "natural", humans are "civilized", all the more humans should not practice what animals practice, i.e. same-sex relations. The only clear conclusion here is that there are many, contradictory theories and notions of the relationship between Man and Nature -- Is Man natural? -- so much so that debate is still necessary.
...
Do check out the various philosophies working out the relationship between "nature" and "right": "Natural Law" (Wikipedia)
***
While interesting, and certainly illuminating, I think scientific theory alone does not provide us with the ethical framework to determine the rights of sexual minorities.
Check out the various ethical theories (and follow the links in the article!) that are more sufficient in providing frameworks for moral behaviour, for deciding what's "right" and "wrong", and how has "rights".
Lamarckism -- the long discredited evolutionary theory which proposed that characteristics acquired in one generation is inheritable by the next -- is reconsidered in the study of epigenetics.
Google: EPIGENETICS.
"The Ghost in your Genes" (Documentary)
"Granddad's Diet Affects Descendants' Health" (New Scientist, Oct 2002)
What are the ethical implications of such findings? (This is the crux of GP; the science alone is irrelevant.)
Two controversial issues immediately spring to mind: (1) racial/cultural/sexual determinism and (2) sexual orientation.
***
(1) Should Scientific Research be Dictated by Ethical Concerns?
This op-ed in the International Herald Tribune, "Your genes are not the real you", takes a look at how public backlash against certain research as being "sexist" or "racist" may not just be political correctness gone out of control.
***
(2) The debate whether sexual minorities (homosexuals, transsexuals) should be accorded the same civil rights (marriage, adoption of children, state benefits for couples) has very often featured the "Nature vs. Nurture" argument.
Put simply, if
a) sexual orientation is genetically determined (inference: "gay people do not choose to be gay"), then the case for equal rights is stronger; if
b) sexual orientation is shaped by environmental factors (inference: "gay people can choose to be straight"; "gay people can be changed"; "gay people should change"), then the case for maintaining the status quo (i.e. gay people do not deserve certain civil rights) is stronger.
...
It has been argued that the clear distinction between genes and environment is false; read for example this article "Playing fast and loose with science" on Yawningbread. The study of epigenetics will be a new chapter in the ongoing search for a better description of the relationship between genes, environment, and sexual orientation.
...
To take it further: so what if we eventually do find a valid scientific theory relating sexual orientation to genes / environment?
I have always been uncomfortable with how conservative groups make the leap from "can change" to "should change". Before X "should change", X must be "wrong". Assuming that X "can change", and assuming the "wrong" is definable, the fact that X "can change" does not necessarily make X "wrong".
I am equally uncomfortable with how gay activists argue "inborn" or "natural" equals "right". The idea of what is "natural" has not been consistent across time:
"The natural place of women is at home" used to be the argument against the emancipation of women.
"The king's natural right to rule" and "the people's natural right to decide who governs them" are mutually exclusive "natural" laws -- logically, only one of them can be right -- yet democracy is only widely accepted in the last century or so.
The idea of "natural" is not even consistent across existing societies:
The "natural law" of "survival of the fittest", which gives rise to meritocratic (or at least capitalistic) societies, is opposed by the "natural law" that "all men are equal", which favours the development of socialist systems. Both types of societies exist today, with various degrees of success.
Hence, "naturalness", being an unstable idea, is not a good criterion for determining "right".
...
We superficially understand that something is "natural" if we "observe" it in "nature".
However, both the processes of "observation" and the selection of what is a "natural environment" are not necessarily objective; both processes are conducted by human communities, which are inevitably governed by various agenda, whether cultural or political. For example, people who use observations of killdeers luring predators away from their chicks to justify the "naturalness" of "nobility" and "self-sacrifice" will often ignoring the other, equally persuasive argument that "self-sacrifice" is essentially a selfish act of perpetuating one's genes -- it's one of the tactics of survival, rather than an act of love.
The use of "naturalness" as justification has also been inconsistent. Going back to our topic of justifying civil rights for sexual minorities, one argument has been that homosexual behaviour is aberrant, not observed in "nature", and therefore "unnatural". Hence, civil rights should not be accorded. However, with increasing evidence that homosexual behaviour among animals is widespread, another argument has been proposed, asserting that since humans are not animals, humans are above what is "natural", humans are "civilized", all the more humans should not practice what animals practice, i.e. same-sex relations. The only clear conclusion here is that there are many, contradictory theories and notions of the relationship between Man and Nature -- Is Man natural? -- so much so that debate is still necessary.
...
Do check out the various philosophies working out the relationship between "nature" and "right": "Natural Law" (Wikipedia)
***
While interesting, and certainly illuminating, I think scientific theory alone does not provide us with the ethical framework to determine the rights of sexual minorities.
Check out the various ethical theories (and follow the links in the article!) that are more sufficient in providing frameworks for moral behaviour, for deciding what's "right" and "wrong", and how has "rights".
Labels: Science
posted by cp at
1:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home