05.07.2000

Genome project

Human science

The publication last week of the first draft of the complete human genome draws our attention once again to the rapid pace of advance in genetics and biotechnology, and reminds us how important it is for the working class to understand not only the science itself, but also the way it is being exploited for profit by biotech companies and may be abused by governments for political ends. The new science will create some potentially profound changes in society and there needs to be an informed debate to decide which developments are desirable and which unacceptable. Such questions should not be left to market forces and government opportunism.

The genetic material of human beings, as with other animals, plants and most lower organisms, consists of a linear sequence of four different nucleotides, referred to as A, C, G and T, arranged in long DNA molecules packed in humans into 46 chromosomes, copies of which exist in most of our 75 trillion body cells. The human genome consists of about three billion base pairs - their sequence determines our inherited characteristics. Of this 99.8% is the same in all human beings, evidence of the relatively recent evolutionary emergence of our species. A small part of the genome has been shown to consist of the genes which code for proteins acting as enzymes, hormones and building blocks for the tissues of our bodies. Some have a more subtle role in regulating cellular processes, while the function of much of the rest is still unknown.

The human genome project, to determine the precise sequence of these three billion nucleotides, began in the 1980s as an international, government-funded, cooperative research effort. Scientists working on the project hoped their findings would be freely available to everyone and used to help cure inherited diseases. As Dr James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA in 1953 and sponsor of the HGP from its beginnings, wrote in the Los Angeles Times: "I worked to ensure that the project was an international one, supported by all the major countries of the developed world. That way no one nation or private body would be perceived as controlling the human genome. We also wanted all the data placed on the internet so that they would be available, free of cost, all over the world," (June 26).

Inevitably in a capitalist world, ways are found to make science profitable. To the dismay and alarm of altruists such as Watson, biotech companies sprang up which patented and then researched human genetic sequences. One of these, Celera, sold the patent rights for gene sequences it discovered to pharmaceutical companies which hope to use this information to develop new, best-selling drugs. Celera used the proceeds of these sales to discover more genes, and at one time seemed likely to complete the sequencing of the human genome before the HGP. Last week Celera and the HGP declared a temporary truce and jointly announced that the work of sequencing the genome was effectively completed. There have been some legal challenges to the practice of patenting genes, and earlier this year US president Bill Clinton and British prime minister Tony Blair published a joint statement opposing it, which temporarily depressed the share prices of biotech companies.

The completion of 'the first draft of the book of humanity' was a great story for the newspapers, and they welcomed it as the most important breakthrough in the history of science, claiming it would revolutionise medicine and extend the human life span. The hope is that when the entire genetic code is understood, each person's genes can be read to reveal what diseases they are predisposed to and what drugs would be most effective in treating them.

However, despite all the hype there is still a lot of work to be done before such medical advances come about. The genome has been sequenced but the function of much of our DNA remains obscure, so the significance of most of the differences between people in the variable 0.2% of DNA is unclear. Although the genetic basis of many inherited diseases such as haemophilia and cystic fibrosis is well understood, gene therapy is still at a very early stage of development and the hunt for genes believed to be implicated in conditions like cancer and heart disease currently serves only to attract speculative capital to biotech companies such as Genset and Human Genome Sciences. The Financial Times of July 1-2 advised investors which of these companies are likely to provide the highest profits.

Screening for some genetic defects is already provided by the NHS: for example, to women with a family history of breast cancer, and to prospective parents who are closely related and thus in danger of having the same recessive defective genes. Foetuses can be tested for cystic fibrosis and abortion offered to affected women. The doctors who developed this screening were quite open about the justification for it: "The cost of antenatal screening ... per CF pregnancy detected [is] considerably less than the lifetime cost of treatment" (The Guardian June 26). As more genes causing or predisposing their carriers to disease are found, pregnant women will have more difficult decisions to make about whether to terminate pregnancies, and there are likely to be more abortions. There is also an overtly ideological side. The simplistic belief that genes 'determine' characteristics such as intelligence, poverty, homosexuality or criminality is already a powerful weapon in the hands of reactionaries and crude determinists. Governments for their part are far more inclined to blame complex social problems on aberrant genes than the existence of exploitative capitalist relations.

On a more prosaic level, growing knowledge of the role of genes in disease seems certain to lead to an expansion of genetic screening, giving individuals the possibility of finding out what illnesses they are most susceptible to. Smokers, for example, might be told whether their genes make them more likely to contract lung cancer or heart disease as a result of their habit.

Inevitably this knowledge may not always benefit the individual in a capitalist society. Even today insurance companies can demand the results of genetic tests previously taken by applicants for insurance cover, although the guidelines of the Association of British Insurers do not yet allow companies to force individuals to take tests to see if they are a bad risk. John During of the Prudential admitted: "If someone came in with that Huntington's gene and they were 30 years old, looking to cover a 20-year mortgage, we would have to put the premiums up so much that we couldn't offer anything viable" (The Guardian June 26). There are fears that employers may also start discriminating between people on the basis of their genes: for example, employing those most resistant to workplace hazards rather than paying to eliminate these hazards.

The decoding of the human genome provides the opportunity for humanity to remake itself in a profound sense. The most revolutionary development resulting from the advance of genetic science will happen when it becomes possible to choose the genetic make-up of babies. It is possible to conceive of one way this could be done: women could be treated with hormones to produce many eggs, as happens now during fertility treatment. These could be fertilised in the test tube, and one cell removed from each embryo (embryos survive this treatment reasonably well) for genetic analysis, and the embryos frozen. She might then be invited to choose which to have implanted on the basis of their genetic composition. If such prenatal selection becomes well established, there is a danger that society may split into two classes: those who can afford to choose the physical and mental characteristics of their children, and an underclass of people who cannot. The problem with human genetics for some, however, is the way "the subject is inescapably linked to memories of the pseudo-science of eugenics, with its fascistic echoes," - at least according to Richard Holloway (The Guardian June 26).

The biotechnology revolution does have ethical implications which need to be discussed by the working class movement and widely in society. Some bizarre reactions have already been published, none more so than that in the Daily Catholic: "... the idea of man living longer, of replicating organs, of being totally healthy all the time flies in the face of god's call to 'carry our cross'. Illnesses, both physical and mental, are crosses he gives us ..." (quoted in The Guardian June 30). Clearly Marxists must oppose such reactionary nonsense.

Democratic, rational and humanist ethics provides a basis for us to put forward communist demands in response to the advances in genetics and biotechnology. First, that the result of research be published openly and used for the benefit of everyone: scientific findings should not become commodities.

As with all healthcare, as it is developed gene therapy should be made freely available to all who can benefit from it, irrespective of cost. The results of genetic tests should be private; insurers and employers should have no right of access to them; there should be no discrimination on the basis of genes.

Parents should be free to use whatever technology is developed to choose the characteristics of their offspring, but as with sex selection for cultural reasons we would seek to persuade them not to destroy healthy foetuses simply because of their genetic make-up.

We would seek to oppose the false ideology of genetic determinism and demonstrate that human behaviour is influenced by the complex web of social interactions people operate in, not by the effects of genes.