Genetics has always
been a facinating idea/field of study. After taking a course this past
semester in Genetics, I have come to realize that while advances in
mapping genomes and researching genetic solutions are aiding in those
with genetic malformities, we might not really be advancing science in
a broader sense. What I mean by this is, scientifically, we are by
passing up on fully understanding why and how these problems arise and
ultimately, what could possibly be a simpler solution.
Take a look at the problem at hand: There
are genetic diseases that are becomming more common and more pronounced
in society today. We wonder why this is becomming more of an epidemic
rather that just an isolated incident. We need only to look to wild
animals in nature and theory of "survival of the fittest", with a touch
of Darwin thrown in. Charles Darwin, perhaps one of the forefathers of
modern ideas in genetics and adaptation theories, his studies shed new
light on why some animals live and others die. Adaptation is the
foundation for all genetic stability as well as change. Animals in
snowy regions are lighter in color than in jungles where dark, marbling
colors provide adaquate camoflage for survival. Genetic in origin, but
adaptive in application.
A human example of subtle genetic "weakness" for logical adaptive,
survival gain: African inhabitants native to the areas can have the
condition of Sickle Cell Anemia.
Simply described, there are three types of genotypic varieties:
- normal red blood cells, AA
- half normal, half sickle red blood cells, Aa
- all sickled red blood cells, aa
Those who have all normal red blood cells,
are healthy when it comes to their red blood cell levels, however,
Malaria was/is quite prolific in Africa and those without sickled cells
would not survive if they contracted the disease. Those who had half
and half, were not only resistant to dying from Malaria, but also had
the ability to have enough red blod cells. Those who had only sickled
red blood cells would have no chance of dying from Malaria, but because
all their red blood cells sickled, they were more prone to anemia.
This genetic variance exists for a reason,
perhaps much like many of the cancers and other genetic malformities
which exist today. If it were not for medical advances thus far, many
of these people suffering would most surely die quickly. However, much
like nature's "survival of the fittest", are we truly making ourselves
a fit species by instead of allowing these malignant and obviously
fatal genetic deformities, allowing the genes to be carried on? Nature
itself has no other "cure" for its own genetic death sentencing, other
than to allow the organism to die and thus removing its deformed/weak
genes along with it.
It is a huge question as well at thought
in the science world, but we must honestly ask ourselves as scientists
if we are really focussing on what is the real science.
