Pros and cons of the Human Genome Project

[Monique]

The way it works is that there are defined places on the genome that are highly variable. An example are VNTRs (variable number of tandem repeats) for instance [CATG]n. The code CATG is repeated n times, where n is highly polymorphic eg. it is unlikely that two people have the same lenght.

You can determine the length of that particular VNTR in a individual, at the same time you determine the length of a number of other VNTRs.

An example of the results from a SINGLE VNTR are given here
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/gif/vntr1.gif
You see a pedigree with two parents and four children below, you can see how many patterns are possible within just that one family.

 

[reasonmclucus]

There is a potential con in the way the project was conducted. Some critics argue that the "quick and dirty" approach used to meet the deadline might have caused researchers to overlook some genes. The two groups involved initially came up with two different genomes and a different number of genes. I'm not sure if the conflicts have been resolved yet.

 

[MerelyCurious]

Please excuse me if this has been addressed previously, although I don't believe I saw mention of it. I must first say, that I'm not educated in anyway scientifically so if my thoughts are pure idiocy, I apologize in advance. I do, however, love to ponder :D

If genetic identification, if you will, of a single human being could be used against one due to negative genetic predisposition, and this sounds sci-fi-like, but could it not also be used against one that possessed a positive genetic predisposition?

 

[zomgwtf]

Please excuse me if this has been addressed previously, although I don't believe I saw mention of it. I must first say, that I'm not educated in anyway scientifically so if my thoughts are pure idiocy, I apologize in advance. I do, however, love to ponder :D

If genetic identification, if you will, of a single human being could be used against one due to negative genetic predisposition, and this sounds sci-fi-like, but could it not also be used against one that possessed a positive genetic predisposition?

Next time, instead of posting in a 5 year dead post you can just post a new thread.

Now how exactly do you propose that a positive genetic predisposition could be used against a person?

Are you thinking something like: oh, he has extremely 'good' genes, like bash him!?

 

[MerelyCurious]

Bash him no and I didn't really pay attention to the date until after I'd replied...hahaha...but you answered didn't you so there :P

Anyway...bash him? no, I was thinking more along the lines of trying to "own them" in a way. Big $$ to be had in the areas of drug discovery, medical treatment, etc.

 

[mazinse]

For something like that to happen there would be some serious violation of human rights. Do you think that the policy makers would approve that?

 

[zomgwtf]

Bash him no and I didn't really pay attention to the date until after I'd replied...hahaha...but you answered didn't you so there :P

Anyway...bash him? no, I was thinking more along the lines of trying to "own them" in a way. Big $$ to be had in the areas of drug discovery, medical treatment, etc.

Nah, you can study a persons genes, resistences etc. without having them be a lab rat.

 

[MerelyCurious]

Serious violation of human rights? Hasn't that happened before?

 

[mazinse]

Serious violation of human rights? Hasn't that happened before?

I think one example would be in those developing countries where you sometimes hear about those child geniuses that the government decide to take and raise in special facilities far away from their families. In return, the families receive some monetary compensation. This happens often in developing countries where the government usually fund the majority of science and technological developments directly so they make a big deal out of these things.

 

[MerelyCurious]

Another example would be the patenting of genes (e.g., BRCA1 and BRCA2). Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah actually held patents on these two genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer. This made it quite difficult for these genes to be used for research or for diagnostic testing without incurring heavy costs due to the patent. Thankfully, the patent was just recently declared invalid by a New York Federal court, however, there are still a relatively large number of genetic patents out there that still remain in effect.