Posted by SLS on July 7, 2000, at 8:26:21
In reply to Re: An eloquent M.D. writes about genetic(s) hype..., posted by SLS on July 6, 2000, at 16:07:00
> > Eloquence does not equate to accuracy. It may simply be that the writer displays an elegant
> > style of being wrong.
>
> Or right!Of course.
> > > "Looking for genetic cures for disease lets us
> > sidestep the need to tackle the social
> > and environmental causes, says Dr. Gabor Maté"
> >
> > How is it that such eloquent people manage to create such unsophisticated constructs that rely >upon unwarranted mutual exclusion? This is silly.
>
> The cited piece is from the editor's summary of what the article is about, so it is the editor's construct you are referencing. I doubt that Dr. Mate's view exludes the value of ADs, just their value by themselves alone.My apologies to the doctor, however, as it is written, it appears as though those were the doctor's words.
> > I can't even begin to deal with the rest. Maybe >another time.
>
> I'd love to see you or anyone attempt to refute the facts he cites, eloquently or not. The issue at essence is the historic argument of nature vs. nurture and he argues for the systemic interaction of both. Anyone who focuses on one only at the exclusion of the other is foolish, in my view.I am a bit confused. Who wrote the following?
"In the case of schizophrenia, a mental illness it is currently fashionable to consider genetic..."
Fashionable?
I think this one word drew my attention.
Also.
"For the commonest North American afflictions -- heart disease, lung cancer, diabetes -- we don't need to seek genetic origins"
This one I also found unpalatable. It seems far too polarized a statement and doesn't take into consideration the benefits that the knowledge of which genes are responsible for which processes in the body can bring - even in healthy people. Evaluation of a healthy person's genes may give rise to a screening process that would identify exactly which foods, drugs, and behaviors can be avoided for that individual to prevent these things from happening. Such would lead to much greater compliance to a change in lifestyle. That is just one example of what can be gleaned from figuring out just how our bodies operate. I don't understand how anyone can decide what is not worth discovering when only its discovery can determine its importance.
If the genetic constitution of the Cree lends itself to such intolerance of a particular foodstuff for which there is little opportunity to currently avoid, perhaps turning ON or turning OFF a combination of genes would remedy the situation. Of course dietary changes might help. How well? Which would be more practical (quicker - save more lives) given the current state of human affairs? In addition, there is no mention of what the rate of these diseases were in the Cree prior to European settlement. What does "alarming" mean. Was it high to begin with? If these diseases manifest at an age later than the child bearing years (allowing for successful reproduction), it could have been alarming all along. Perhaps knowledge of their genetics could lead to a better understanding of how to manage these diseases if dietary changes are not sufficient. These are just a few hypotheticals I came up with. That we *don't* need to seek genetic origins for the Cree has not yet been determined. I don't think it can be until we see how well the application of changing diet and exercise behaviors actually solves the problem in real life. Until then, perhaps the Cree would think differently about the need for genetic study. I don't know.
"Given the paucity of evidence for the decisive role of genetic factors in most questions of illness, why all the hoopla about the genome project?"
Again, I don't understand how anyone can decide what is not worth discovering when only its discovery can determine its importance. There is no paucity of evidence, in my opinion. Mendelian evidence has been recognized for a great many maladies for a great many years. Specific genes have already been identified that encode for specific proteins and enzymes that are responsible for a great many of these and other maladies. Inheritance and mutation need both be considered, among other things. Of course there are other factors involved in the expression of genes. But a great many illnesses cannot occur without the genes necessary to produce them, even if they are not produced in 100% of the individuals in which these genes exist.
Huntington's Chorea sucks.
Hurray for the Human Genome Project! By the way, the project has not been completed, but has only just begun. I don't think the media has done a very good job describing this. So far, we have identified all the words, but we haven't discovered all of their definitions yet. Sort of like deciphering the Rosetta Stone.
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:39430
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000630/msgs/39656.html