In chapter 5 of Graham, there is a quote from Nelkin that says “social factors, such as social class, wealth or poverty, environment, lifestyle and diet are far more influential (than genes) in influencing morbidity and mortality rates, as successive surveys have shown.” I am curious as to how statistics like these are gathered and interpreted, and also how it is possible to know what it will be like if we do in fact make vast improvements in our understanding of genes through the Human Genome Project. To me, pushing the boundaries of science seems like a better long-term option for solving poverty and suffering than any alternatives.
In humanity’s past, the biggest societies usually had a couple of elites with the majority of the wealth while everyone else was dirt poor. With the rise of the middle class, it may seem as if everyone should be able to live like us, after all, it is only fair. Yet we seem forget that most of the world has lived in complete poverty (according to our standards) for as long as humans have walked the earth until recent years. Is it fair that we are born into better circumstances than others? No, but its never been fair in the past either, so we must temper our expectations as we move towards this goal. Sure, it would be great if everyone could live as luxuriously as we do, but as it stands, this is simply not possible (we are already running low on natural resources as it is!). That’s why I think that massive scientific undertakings such as the Human Genome project are a potential cure for some of the major issues of the world, and therefore so what if it is marketed to the public as having nearly infinite potential? Even if it’s not infinite, it undoubtedly has a lot of potential. I think it is great that they are able to obtain so much funding for furthering our scientific knowledge. Graham seems to take issue with the fact that “the financial rewards will more than repay the research movement.” But what do you expect? Those working on the project are among the brightest minds in the world so of course they will need incentive to work on this project or else they would just move to a job less beneficial to humanity that paid more. The fear of corporations having complete domain over everyone feel overblown to me. Worst-case scenarios such as the post-3 war society in Stone Gods are simply that — worst-case scenarios, and I find potential futures such as these to be extremely unlikely. Ultimately, I think that holding reservations and challenging research such as the Human Genome Project is necessary and good, but at the same time we mustn’t forget that this type of research is (and will be) extremely beneficial to humanity as a whole.
In taking on Graham’s claims, you would do well to offer your own evidence in response. You say that HGP and other related research is our best hope for ending poverty and suffering, but how? You don’t really give evidence of that. In what ways is it geared toward that task? (Indeed, as you note, financial incentives are important to having such work take place, and yet there’s very little financial incentive in ending poverty or curing illnesses that those in wealthy nations no longer suffer from.) Your response here reads as opinion rather than argument, because you’re not working to provide support for your claims. It’s not actually a ‘fact,’ for instance, that the brightest minds are involved in the HGP or other genetic-enhancement or oriented investigations. It seems, on the whole, that you’re accusing Graham of something she’s not actually doing. She doesn’t say science is bad (as your title implies and your tone assumes) but rather that it is a human product, itself, and not simply based in disinterested fact. So analysis and thoughtful investigation are necessary. Is that what you’re arguing against?
I agree that Graham is not saying that science is bad (the title was meant to be more of an attention grabber), but, in my reading, her tone suggested that because science is a human product and not based in disinterested fact, she thought our time and money would be better spent elsewhere than being poured into these research projects (or she was at least asking the reader to explore this possibility, even if she doesn’t necessarily endorse it). Upon further reflection, my reasoning for challenging Graham likely stems from the fact that I myself know next to nothing about the intricacies of genetics. With this in mind, I felt as if Graham was simiply challenging those working on the HGP in order to offer her reader’s an alternative voice and to challenge them to question and think about these important topics (which is a great thing!). I do wholeheartedly agree that we need to be very wary of the potential downsides of messing with genes, and to question whether this is research we should continue to spend so much time on. But when it comes down to it, I’m trying to say that I trust the scientists who do this research for a living are doing research that will be both beneficial and worth our time (even if I myself don’t know exactly what it is and even if it is a human product), and that warning flags like Graham’s should definitely be encouraged, but are ultimately unnecessary in this case.