Philosophy of Genetics

Tackling racism

Many have been forced to grapple with the issue of race and genetics after James Watson – the co-discoverer of DNA's double helix – recently made some racist remarks.

The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

William Saletan (writing in Slate) is to be congratulated for tackling this issue head-on, bravely and correctly.  Most commentators (including the shameful New York Times) prefer to be inoffensive and politically correct, rather than accurate.

I would go further than Saletan, and argue that any racial classification is wrong.  Any demographic questionnaire asking whether you're White, Black or Hispanic should be outlawed.  By identifying yourself with a racial group, you're simply asking to be stereotyped.

According to Nature Genetics:

the use of race as a proxy is inhibiting scientists from doing their job of separating and identifying the real environmental and genetic causes of disease

Every racial group has a slightly different distribution of gene variants (i.e. genes for white skin, genes for intelligence, etc).  By saying "I am White" you're really saying "I'm assuming I have the gene variants that are most representative of my race".  You're setting yourself apart.  The problem is, you may or may not have those specific genes.

Everyone has the same rights, regardless of race.  Everyone is morally equal.  By identifying with a race – by discriminating based on "group genes" – we muddy and degrade our moral equality.

A modest proposal for Big Pharma

Drug companies have serious problems these days.  The FDA is not approving their drugs, especially when viable alternatives or generic versions exist.  Moreover, when drug companies publish their data on new drugs, scientists around the world often find fault with the clinical results, either for legitimate or self-serving reasons.

So what's Big Pharma to do?

First, Big Pharma should focus less on hawking drugs, and more on promoting a healthy lifestyle and comprehensive health maintenance.  Specifically, they could bundle (and sell) everything from healthy food and drink, to vitamins, exercise videos, workout clothes (and sometimes treatments), as part of an overall health management program.  Instead of passively watching us consume "high-fructose corn syrup" laden drinks, and then cynically providing drugs to treat the resulting diabetes, Big Pharma could instead sponsor celebrities to educate the public on the evils of such sweeteners, and promote suggestions for a more healthy lifestyle.

Second, Big Pharma needs to be more candid and open about the risk/rewards/tradeoffs of drugs, instead of trying to downplay side-effects in a shortsighted effort to sell as many drugs as possible.  For example, if a drug helps treat diabetes, but increases risk of heart attack, don't encourage people to take your drugs if they have the genetic proclivity for heart disease or other risk factors.  Propose alternate (non-drug) treatments or sell those folks something else (your consumer division's heart-friendly breakfast cereal, perhaps?).

Third, with the advent of personal genetic testing, consumers will have information on which genetic variants and disease susceptibilities they have.  Big Pharma should be ahead of this train, not under it.  Acquire a company like 23andme or Navigenics (people will soon be addicted to these sorts of information resources online).  Make it part of your marketing – your own DNA.  Make the case for consumers that certain gene variants may require active management, in the case that they increase the risk of arthritis or diabetes or Alzheimer’s, etc.  Educate consumers on how to manage the disease (with your non-drug products, of needed).  You should be about promoting overall health, not just selling drugs.

Finally, Big Pharma has to move beyond using "chemicals" as treatments for disease (a drug is basically a chemical).  That approach is played out.  Even biological therapeutics (using proteins, antibodies, and vaccines instead of drugs) may have limited appeal (since they may prove difficult to deliver to the right target in the body)  Until genetic enhancement becomes a reality, Big Pharma should develop multi-faceted treatment options that may involve highly localized changes to gene regulation.  Basically, think out of the box, and move away from chemicals as treatments.

That would go a long way toward restoring public confidence – and profitability – to the industry.