Small is beautiful

Small is beautiful

There was a time, not so many months ago, when the rapid ascent of scientists up the spiral staircase was viewed with goose-pimply horror. By June 2000 researchers had already presented the first draft of the human genome, promising to fill us in on the remaining gene sequences in less than a year. The countdown to determinism seemed to have begun. It was a familiar rant. The 100,000 genes humans were said to carry would soon be identified. The roots of disease and of individual quirks would be clinically pointed out, with Alzheimer's patients living a markedly more interactive life but with the rest of us consigned to periodic genetic screening -- by employers, by insurance companies, by big brother governments. From here, a new caste system would be the logical trajectory, went the argument; the rich would make life more beautiful for themselves and their progeny by having expensive genetic makeovers, and the poor would simply wallow in an ever-widening genetic divide. The underlying argument was, thisinexorable march of science would render humankind as decipherable as an assembly line robot.

Nature, as always, has had the last laugh -- so far. The publishing in two scientific journals of the complete human genome this weekend should have effectively silenced critics of new endeavours in biotechnology. Far from waning, the magic and enigma associated with being human have actually been enhanced. Instead of finding the estimated 100,000 human genes, scientists say there are in fact only about 30,000 genes. That is, just about 10,000 genes more than the laboratory roundworm. This opens up a whole new vista. The correlation between a mere gene sequence and characteristics that make us humans what we are, and those that make each of us an irreplicable entity, is much more complex than had been thus far imagined. Or else, how could the 959-cell roundworm have two-thirds the number of genes we humans do, with our 100 trillion cells?

These are interesting times. Back in 1953, upon determining the double helix structure of the DNA along with James Watson, an ecstatic Francis Crick rushed into an English pub proclaiming they had discovered the secret of life. Today scientists will continue their trek on the trail firstpointed out by Crick and Watson. Even as they seek to identify the genes and gene sequences responsible for disorders and to hazard the complex web of genes and environmental factors to explain human emotions, another jigsaw puzzle may be slowly put together. At least 75 per cent of the genome is estimated to be junk DNA. This junk will be explored by genetic archaeologists in their effort to go back in time and trace humankind's slow progress on the path towards complexity from its one-cell origins. Amidst the promise of magical insights, however, warnings are warranted. It has often been pointed out that leaps in genetics should not be used to segregate and stigmatise. For instance, a company in the US is already accused of screening employees for mutations on chromosome 17, suspected of increasing vulnerability to the carpal tunnel syndrome associated with extended hours on the keyboard. Lawmakers clearly have to step in to protect civil rights in the genetic age.