For the debate

2013/10/18 Galarraga Aiestaran, Ana - Elhuyar Zientzia

• Giza zientziak
• Genetika

In last week's column, researcher Izortze Santin spoke about genetic studies. Specifically, he wrote about genes related to breast cancer. He explained the importance of knowledge of these genes in diagnosis and treatment, as well as the benefits offered by personalized medicine. In the end, however, he also showed his concern about the danger that personalized medicine is only in the hands of a few.

And it is that, as it happens in other fields, in science there are few things totally white or absolutely black, and much less uses or applications. Energy, biotechnology, astronomy, computer science, neurology, robotics, pharmacology, climatology… these are areas where the debates were lit and genetics is no exception. It even seems to be one of the areas that generates or socializes the most, taking into account its presence in the media.

For example, a patent recently filed in the United States has provoked a major revolt these days: a company has patented a method of fertilization that allows their parents to create children who possess the desired physical characteristics.

Referring to the 23 pairs of chromosomes of our species, the company is called 23andMe, and its intention is to help those who want to be parents to be “good” children. At present, a genetic diagnosis is made prior to implantation in the uterus in those cases where there is a risk of hereditary transmission of some disease. The genetic study is done when the embryo only has 6-8 cells to ensure that it is not a carrier of the disease.

The method that offers 23andM is much broader than this. From the company it has been indicated that they can help a person choose their partner “genetically suited” or a partner to be a healthy child who by himself has a low risk of suffering certain diseases. But it goes further: although their goal is not to create “design children”, parents have announced that they will be able to know the color of the child’s hair or eye. It can be “fun”.

But those who oppose it do not seem anything fun. They fear that the method will generate competition for being the most beautiful and clear child, and increase the distance between successes and those excluded from birth. In any case, as a result of the debate, an expert at Stanford University, Jacob Sherkow, recalled in the newspaper The Wall Street Journal that artificial fertilisation was considered initially rejectable and has become something “habitual and boring.”

That is, if the focus is opened, the debate is not so new. But to be old does not mean that consensus has been reached. Proof of this is the survey carried out by the scientific journal Nature, in which four topics considered taboos in genetic studies have been classified according to the strength of tobacco and their opinion has been requested to the public. The themes are race, intelligence, violence and sexuality. “Should researchers give up investigating these issues?” they asked. According to Nature, if we are concerned about the use, we must put “red lines” and generate an open public debate that guarantees responsible use. We would appreciate that the debate was given to other areas and places.