When scientists mapped human genetic information (genome) 15 years ago, they promised to change the world. Optimists expected an era in which all genetic diseases would disappear. Pessimists feared the spread of genetic discrimination. Both of them turned out to be wrong. The reason is simple: our genome is very complex. Finding specific differences in the genome is just a small part of understanding how genetic variation actually works, giving rise to all of these traits that we see. Unfortunately, few people realize how complex genetics is. And as more products and services begin to use genetic data, there is a danger that this misunderstanding will lead people to make very bad decisions.
In school, we were taught that brown eyes determine the dominant gene, and blue eyes determine the recessive one. In reality, there are no human traits that are passed from generation to generation in such a direct way. Most of the traits, including eye color, are influenced by several genes, each with a small contribution.
Moreover, each gene contributes to a wide variety of traits - a concept called pleiotropy. For example, genetic variants associated with autism have also been linked to schizophrenia. When a gene treats one trait in a positive way (for example, produces a healthy heart) and in another negative way (increasing the risk of macular degeneration in the eyes), it is called antagonistic pleiotropy.
As computing power increased, scientists were able to isolate many distinct molecular differences in DNA with specific human characteristics, including behavioral traits such as love of learning and psychopathy. Each of these genetic variants explains only a small variation in the population. But when all of these options are added together, they explain more and more of the differences we see between people. And in the absence of genetic knowledge, many things will be incomprehensible.
For example, we could sequence the DNA of a newborn baby, calculate its polygenic score for academic achievement, and use it to predict, with some degree of accuracy, how well it will perform in school. Genetic information can be the strongest and most accurate predictor of a child's strengths and weaknesses. Using genetic data would allow us to more effectively personalize education and targeted resources for the children who need it most.
But this will only work if parents, teachers, and legislators have enough understanding of genetics to use this information correctly. Genetic effects can be prevented or improved by changing a person's environment, including providing opportunities and choices in education. There is also a perception that certain genetic traits could lead to a system in which children will be permanently separated into classes based on their DNA and will not receive adequate support for their true abilities.
Improved medical knowledge
Promotional video:
In a medical context, people most often follow advice on genetics from a doctor or other professional. But even with such support, people with good genetic knowledge will benefit more and be able to make better decisions about their own health, family planning and the health of relatives. People are already confused by proposals to conduct expensive genetic testing and cancer treatment based on genetic information. An understanding of genetics would help them avoid treatments that are not needed in their particular case.
Today, the human genome can be edited directly using the CRISPR method. While such genetic modification techniques are highly regulated, the relative simplicity of CRISPR means that biohackers have already adopted the tool and are editing their own genomes, for example, for muscle strengthening or HIV treatment.
Such biohacker services are likely to become more and more available (even illegal). But as we learned about pleiotropy, changing one gene in a positive way can have disastrous unintended consequences. Even a little understanding of all of this can save future biohackers from a costly or possibly even fatal mistake.
We are becoming increasingly vulnerable to potential genetic misinformation as we do not have specialists to consult. For example, UK food spreads company Marmite recently launched an ad campaign offering a genetic test to see if you love Marmite or hate it for just £ 89. Despite the wit and hilarity of the campaign itself, it has several problems.
First, the preference for Marmite pate, like any other complex trait, is determined by the complex interaction of genes and the environment, rather than given at birth. At best, such a test will tell you whether you have a penchant for products of this kind, and even then it will be very inaccurate. Secondly, the advertising campaign shows a young man who "confesses" to his father that he loves Marmite. This obvious analogy with sexual orientation may reinforce the outdated and dangerous concept of “gay genes,” or even the idea that there may be a single gene for complex traits.
Knowledge is the best tool for the genetic revolution. You need to be prepared.
Ilya Khel