Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!mintaka!ogicse!plains!jarvi
From: jarvi@plains.UUCP (Trent Jarvi)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: The persistance of homosexuality in a gene pool
Keywords: mutation
Message-ID: <5378@plains.UUCP>
Date: 1 Aug 90 07:18:48 GMT
References: <5914@videovax.tv.tek.com> <1990Jul23.022511.28161@mtcchi.uucp> <8800@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo
Lines: 42

In article <8800@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> bill@uhccux.UUCP (William J. King) writes:
>  The political consequences of genetic labeling are scarey. these questions
>  ought not to be asked.  Imagine if genetic claims were genaralized across
>  an ethnic group (as science did in the 19th century to justify rascism).
>  consider the public policy  and expenditures that would be implemented.
>  scary!
>  bill
We cannot ignore these questions.  The human genome project will reveal many
facts about human genetics that could be used to discriminate against 
testable genetic traits.  It is unfortunate that society is unable to
adjust to changes in technology as fast as science.  That is the very
reason that it is important that people discuss how this new information
should be used.  More importantly how will we regulate it.  I believe that
there will be some discussion concerning this topic at the next human genome
project meeting.

Obviousely many good things will come from understanding the genetics
of humans.  This is why it is important that we continue this research.
But society cannot look upon the research as "scary" as you mentioned 
twice in your reply.  I am afraid we must be more objective than that
when we tell industry and government what we consider ethical.

For instance, consider an employer 20 years from now looking at genetic
profiles of applicants for a position.  Should the employer be able
to use such traits as heart attack risk... as grounds for deciding 
which employee to seek?  Obviously if the insurance industry knows
that an employee has a high risk of some genetically inherited abnormality
than the insurance rates for that employee would be higher.  We already
use many traits when deciding upon employees.  Are these just a few more
to add to the list?

The list of questions continues with child selection, genetic manipulation
(transformation/transfection), counteracting the aging process and so on..
Who will be able to afford this?  Are we now looking at a society that has
far more to wory about than sexual preference?  I think so.

scary?  I think we can do better than that when *dealing* with these
issues.

(((((((( Trent Jarvi ||UUCP    :   !uunet!plains!jarvi||   Fargo, ND ))))))))
(((((((( North Dakota||BITNET  :   jarvi@plains.bitnet||       58105 ))))))))
(((((((( State Univ. ||INTERNET:jarvi@plains.NoDak.edu||701-237-8448 ))))))))