I've spent a term doing research on Sickle Cell Disease and the relationship between genetic mutation (in this case, the substitution of regular hemoglobin-- HbA-- for HbS, in which the gene improperly codes for valine instead of glutamic acid) and instances of malaria in tropical/subtropical regions. There is a link there. Essentially children and teenagers with SCD or SCT are immune to malarial parasites which, before medical advances in malaria-rich regions, allowed them to survive TO reproductive age. Now of course the HbS mutation has been spread around so much (it is one of the most common genetic disorders) that it is common even outside of regions where malaria is a threat. Also, because of medical advances, SCD/SCT patients nowadays often live PAST reproductive age (in the last 30 years, the average lifespan of an SCD patient has increased from 14 years to 45ish years). This longer lifespan increases possibility of reproduction and therefore the continued spread of the mutation to future generations. Of course this is a common risk factor with any genetic mutation, but it's interesting to think that when we are trying to "help" patients who suffer from Sickle Cell, what we are actually doing is enabling the mutation and messing with the science of natural selection/survival of the fittest. Obviously I'm not advocating ending medical treatment for SCD/SCT patients, but it is an interesting dilemma nonetheless. In nature, mutations persist because they have an advantage of some sort. In recent history there has been no medical advantage to Sickle Cell Disease, yet it persists because we allow it to.
Just a few thoughts.
Tomorrow I am giving a 30-minute lecture on this topic in my molecular biology class. I'm really nervous because there is so much information to cover in such a short time period... it's just a complex issue. The physiological impact of this relationship is kind of... confusing? I guess.
Blah blah blah.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I don't really know about that kind of stuff, will you record your presentation so the rest of us can see?
You lost me at "relationship to genetic mutation". :)
haha. She lost me at 'doing research on...'
: )
love you, kid. I'm so glad you're smart.
Interesting... I see where you're going with the medication and treatment aspect. Similar to what I was saying about disabilities. Although like you said earlier no one really wants to come out and say it for moral reasons.
It seems like there are two sides to these issues, both of which contain a moral dilemma: medicating and treating people with genetic illnesses, as you said, perpetuates them. But you can't STOP treating them, or they will die.
On the other hand, we are not solving a problem, we are making it worse. The only way to CURE gene mutation, through science, would be gene therapy. Which obviously opens up a whole GATTACA-esque range of issues.
So, I see your point. I'm sure we'll discuss it extensively tomorrow.
Right after my "lecture" on DNA fingerprinting.
Troy-- Did you see I deleted the trailer? AREN'T YOU PROUD OF ME? (P.S. Next time we get together we can talk about tools instead of science and art, because, man, I love a good socket wrench conversation. =) [...for real, though. I do.]
Or we can talk about me painting your house and giving you an "I love the Sanders" discount...? Sound good?)
Also, did you try WD-40 on the metal frame? And did you fix the commenting on your blog? I guess I could go check it... but... I'll probably just go to sleep after posting this...
Alex-- OH MY GOSH. Our bio class is basically the highlight of my week... and I'm so glad you caught on to what I was saying. I was totally thinking the same thing in terms of gene therapy. I don't know if I would go as far as to make a comment like that in the classroom but I see the moral issues on both sides. I really hope we do discuss this, though, because even the little that we've talked about it, I think the link between genetic mutations and natural selection is fascinating. I think because humans are the only creatures with the ability to fight off natural selection rather than embrace it... which is maybe what we should be doing?
It will be cool to hear your presentation, though. Not that I haven't heard most of it already... =)
P.S. NICE gattaca reference! That has got to be one of my all-time favorite movies... good call. You obviously have good taste... hahaha.
im w/the antimoralists on this one. as a utilitarian i think it is more benefitial to maximize the potential for the future rather than satiate the current desires to aid everyone and anyone. i also think that all the scientists that keep preaching a massive worldwide plague are onto something, namely, nature is going to put us back into our place, not in the teleological sense, but in the "get back in your damn cage" sense. try reading peter singer, Arne Näss, Bill Devall, David Foreman and George Sessions. they have a magazine called simply living that gets all kinds of shit for their opinions that we shouldnt give aid to african nations.
heres a quote from bill devall:
When I tell people how the worst thing we can do in Ethiopia is to give aid – the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let people there just starve – they think this is monstrous… Likewise, letting the USA be an overflow valve for problems in Latin America is not solving a thing. It’s just putting more pressure on the resources we have in the USA.
ATTICA
HAHAHAHAHA
Are you kidding me, Terry?
Holy crap man. Ridiculous.
How easy is it for you to agree with that when you get food any time of the day you want?
Yes, let's let millions of people die because it's easier to do.
What a great idea.
Oh man. Who knew I could get you guys going on molecular biology? Yesssss.
Terry, you said... "i also think that all the scientists that keep preaching a massive worldwide plague are onto something, namely, nature is going to put us back into our place". YES. The more I study any scientific field, the more I agree with this statement. The only reason we're capable of living the way we are right now is because we have found a way to essentially "trump" selective pressures for the time being. But there is no possible way this can last if you consider the predator/prey relationship. Our environment will adapt and eventually overtake us (if you read my post about Super Tuberculosis, that is a really good example of the concept, within the framework of antibiotic resistance.)
Another example (and perhaps an even better example of natural selection/gene mutation) would be the Bubonic Plague. Terry, you'll probably know a little bit more about this case study than I do... but basically, the Black Plague levelled the population in Europe. BUT. Recent studies have shown SOME people of European ancestry (who can trace their ancestors back to survivors of the plague) have a genetic mutation that gives them an immunity to diseases on this level, INCLUDING AIDS.
Which means that by allowing natural selection to run its course (not that we had a choice at the time), the population actually became stronger. I think the numbers are around 14% of causcasians with European ancestry are immune to HIV.
Eventually, if left alone, a similar thing would probably happen with AIDS. Which would actually be better for society even than introducing a "cure"...
The problem is that from a moral standpoint this just doesn't work for right now. Terry, I know you, I don't think you actually advocate starvation/disease on a moral level, but from a scientific standpoint it totally makes sense, I agree.
This comment was MUCH more thought-provoking.
god damn it matt keep your fucking trite comments to yourself or at least my own blog. yes of course its easy to say this in my position! thats why i was advocating it (even though ciaras right-if it came down to it, id cave and try to save them cause theyre human just like me). its more of a theoretical advocacy.
ciara, thanks for the response. it is difficult for me to determine whether i really think this way or not. i cant imagine actually carrying something like this out, but from my worldview, it makes sense. where i run into problems (as is evidenced by matts continual reactions of outrage) is when i have to consider what is more fundamental to me: that humanity continue and become stronger as an organism (which would mean letting people die off) or that i be a "moral" individual (i only use quotations because im not sure which of these constructs- evolution or morality- is more applicable to life, although the longer isee how the world is, the more i lean toward evolution).
Well, I must say if there is a desease that wipes out a third of earth's population (like in revelation) we had warning
Well, another time of cussing me out, Terry. Seems like this is becoming a pattern. I didn't know you resorted to such things with people who disagree with you, but to each his own. I also think I'll comment where I want, thanks though.
My outrage stems from this fact: I guess I don't consider the possibility of discounting morality. This solution may be more scientific, but completely unfeasible in light of how it devalues the life of an individual. In my mind, that doesn't even make it worth considering.
I'll try to temper my comments more in the future. I could have explained my position much better the first time.
good news for HIV sufferers...http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19025554.400&feedId=online-news_rss20
matt sorry i guess i just get sick of hearing your untempered remarks, too. you wouldnt say the things you say to me w/the same disregard to someone you didnt know, unless you wanted to be seen as a pretentious jerk.
the reason we get into so many little (some not so little) arguments is because we represent polar extremes of the morality line. i am not even sure it matters in the sense that their exists some deity that will hold us accountable to it, and you think the opposite. is this a fair estimation?
Wow... that is a cool article. I picked up this SWEET book yesterday at Powell's (The Coming Plague by Laurie Garrett) and it is pretty much about what we're talking about here. Infectious diseases and why fighting them only makes them stronger...
Now, boys... you are welcome to discuss science on my blog. But be NICE to each other.
I like the article Terry posted as well, found it informative
Terry, if you like this kinda stuff we should get together and talk about sociobiology. I would love to hear your opinion on that stuff.
Post a Comment