British think tank: Examine biopolicy

WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 (UPI) -- Despite the lack of a conclusive link between individual action and specific human genes as well as fears about negative impacts, a new study from a British think tank says research into behavioral genetics must be allowed to flourish because of the potential social benefits.

"Although there is the possibility in this area for misunderstanding and abuse, they are neither sufficiently catastrophic nor difficult enough to avoid as to make it necessary to say there ought to be a complete censorship in further (genetic) research," said professor Martin Bobrow, head of the department of medical genetics at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom.

The Report, "Genetics and Human Behavior: The Ethical Context," examines the ethical, legal and social issues raised by the expanding field of behavioral genetics and makes several policy recommendations.

The findings were developed by a working party of geneticists, bioethicists, psychiatrists and physicians in the UK and published by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, an independent institution in London created in 1991 to examine bioethics issues. The report was funded through non-profit foundation and UK government dollars.

Bobrow said the report and its findings are important because of the uncertain and controversial nature of genetic research.

He said that although some research has been conducted into specific areas, it has mostly been about IQ enhancement or genetic predisposition toward forms of antisocial behavior.

"Probably because the science is immature, it really hadn't had, as far as we are aware, a (broad) overall view of its policy implications before," said Bobrow.

Referring to the report, he said, "It is the beginning of a process, and we certainly don't think we have the last word on anything."

President Bush has established a commission to examine bioethics issues headed by Dr. Leon Kass, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, but its focus has been mostly limited to the areas of cloning and stem cell research, which is only a small portion of the genetic bioethics debate.

The committee focused on the associations between genetic variants and behavior considered within the "normal range" rather than those associated with diseases or mental disorders.

In looking at the existing scientific data in this arena regarding intelligence, antisocial behavior, personality and sexual orientation, the panel found that although claims have been made to the contrary, no genetic variations have been conclusively linked as influential to these behaviors.

Bobrow, who was a member of the panel and is also deputy chairman of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, said one of the problems is the publication of such findings before there is clear proof. He said this "leads people to come to a rather deterministic views that are scientifically unsound."

Alexander Tabarrok, director of research at the Independent Institute and associate professor of economics at George Mason University, agreed that this fact makes an informed public debate difficult.

"I do think there is tendency towards labeling too quickly," said Tabarrok. "The news media makes many of these findings (appear) more certain than they are."

But Bobrow said the problem is more deeply rooted in the nature of the issues involved as well as the way in which the scientific community can overstate finding to gain attention for scientific journals.

"The whole dialogue between scientists, the press and public and politicians is terribly distorted by these sorts of overstatements," he said. "The best defense against overselling is an educated audience, a knowledgeable audience."

According to the analysts, another danger of such overstatements is that people come to believe that genes alone can be the influence of behavior when genetic makeup combines with environmental factors to produce human tendencies.

"All genes operate through environment," said Tabarrok, noting that a gene said to provide for criminality might be better described as providing a predisposition for intense stimulation of physical prowess.

He said that in one environment physical prowess could lead a person to becoming a thug while in another an Olympic athlete.

Although the connections between genes and behavior are still not solidly proven, the report examines the potential impact if such connections can be made.

One of the more controversial findings is that if a genetic predisposition for a particular type of behavior leading to criminal activity is established, a judge should take a convicted criminal's genetic predisposition for that behavior into account during sentencing.

This would work much in the same way judges take something like an abusive upbringing into account when making such decisions.

But Bobrow was quick to dismiss concerns that they are recommending that such information be used as a defense for criminal activity. In fact, he said that taking genetic predisposition into account during the sentencing phase of a trial could actually work against a criminal.

Tabarrok, for one, said he believes that there should be higher penalties for convicted criminals that have a genetic predisposition towards such behavior so as to act as a deterrent for crime.

"This is very simple from an economic point of view," he said. "Rather than excusing them, the rational or economic approach would be to punish them more."

Tabarrok also agreed with the recommendation to guard against the potential for genetic technologies to exacerbate the Western societal trend toward altering individual behavior once considered normal with medication.

"There is a danger whether it is through government or through social pressure of normalizing everyone," he said.

"We have seen this with ADHD and Ritalin," said Tabarrok. "Some schools have kicked children out because their parents refuse to put them on Ritalin and I do worry that we would see similar dangers."

He said, for instance, that schools could potentially only accept children if their parents genetically engineered them to be docile, straight-A students.

Another recommendation made in the report is that although parents can already pre-select the implantation of embryos without genetic traits for certain diseases, society should not allow people to select by genes linked to particular behaviors.

Tabarrok criticized this stance, noting that private-sector eugenics is different than the coercive public genetic experimentation that occurred in Nazi Germany that overshadows this debate.

"What we are talking about here is private eugenics which has been going on for millenniums through the mating process," he said.

He added that genetic testing of embryos simply functions as a more accurate way than mate selection to decide what a person's children are going to be like.

He also said that the preslection process is actually similar to giving children eye surgery or feeding them a nutritional diet so they become strong.

"Some people are worried about the post-human future I say bring it on," said Tabarrok. "At the moment there is no need for any limits (on research) and we should wait and see what happens."

Although the findings are centered on the current state of genetic policy in the UK, they are applicable to a great extent across the western world.

Betsy McCaughey, an adjunct senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, told UPI that America and Britain both view genetic testing and biotechnology in general as an "engine for economic growth."

"I see Britain and the United States very much in tandem and very far ahead of the European Union," said McCaughey. "The one exception is the issue of reproductive genetics and stem cells where the U.S. is lagging."

But according to Eric Cohen, resident scholar and director of the project on biotechnology and American democracy at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, looking at human behavioral normalcy as a strictly statistical phenomenon based upon what society find acceptable is useful only as a starting point in the debates about biotechnology.

"In order to made clear decisions about how we should use genetic power, we need to openly consider the nature of the good society and the good life," he said.

McCaughey, whose research focuses on the impact of medical innovation and scientific discovery on society, told UPI that she supports most of the report findings.

"I oppose any limitation on the pursuit of knowledge unless the method of inquiry would cause harm," she said.

"Nothing diminishes human dignity more that the presumption that human beings cannot handle the ethical problems brought upon by new knowledge," said McCaughey. "We have been doing that for 10,000 years."

But according to Tabarrok, the moral opposition that some have to genetic testing is likely to change when it becomes available and people see that those that are genetically altered are just as human as those that are not.

He also predicted that we are likely to see the acceptance of this first in athletes.

"There are already indications that some of the drugs which basically genetically turn-on proteins and create proteins are already being used (by athletes and if so they would be undetectable because they would be no different than proteins already created by the human body," said Tabarrok.

Despite her overall support for the Nuffield findings, McCaughey said that she opposed the recommendations that genetic testing only be made available through government health agencies. The report contends that this is a way to ensure that both the rich as well as the poor have access to genetic technologies when they become available.

She cited the fact that heart transplants, hip replacement and other procedures were once only widely available to the wealthy because they could afford them but now are available to all.

"Making affordability a litmus test of scientific inquiry is wrong," she said. "Innovation always costs a lot in the beginning."

According to Cohen, although the debate over behavioral genetic technologies is clearly here to stay it is only at its begging stages and has yet to capture the public imagination to the degree that is should considered the important questions involved.

Nevertheless, he said, it may be a while before the technology brings the important policy questions under their immediate radar.

"The issue combines great scientific competency that is hard to get your hand around and great moral passion on both sides, both of which make democracies disinclined to take them up until great scientific achievement forces them to," said Cohen.

"The question is will we have enough presence of knowledge to understand the meaning of technology so that we can use it to make life decisions or is this a situation where imperfect knowledge is actually worse than no knowledge at all?"