Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information Is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educators , and Law Enforders

by Ruth Hubbard

How Genetic Information Is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers

Genres: Science, Nonfiction

225 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

About the author

Ruth Hubbard was a professor of biology at Harvard University, where she was the first woman to hold a tenured professorship position in biology. She authored several books challenging the male model of science.

Born Ruth Hoffmann in Vienna, Austria, she escaped Nazism as a teenager, moving with with her family to the United States. Hubbard graduated from Radcliffe College in 1944, earning an A.B. in biochemical sciences.

Reviews

[Tessa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was worried this book would be a bit outdated, since it was written in the 1993 and the science of genetics has changed a whole lot even in the past 6 years. However, the dubious sociology around genetics in our culture is relatively unchanged since the 90s, so score one for Ruth Hubbard.

I really enjoyed the way she began with classical eugenics thinking and then smoothly tied it to modern eugenic thinking. We used to forcibly sterilize people with the belief that "shiftlessness" and "criminality" were genetically inherited. We should question our modern desire to encourage holders of masters degrees to reproduce (with the assumption, loudly expressed in that awful movie Idiocracy, that we have to counteract the reproduction of others with less desirable genes).

I also enjoyed some of Dr. Hubbard's idea that we use genetic thinking to individualize problems, including those that would be more clearly viewed from a social or environmental perspective. She also points out some examples where we focus on genetic factors over all others. For example, human growth hormone was inserted into mice and pigs, with startling effects in each: the mouse grew to twice a normal size, while the pig, though roughly the same size, grew leaner. You can view that as an example of the power of genes to elicit changes in an animal or as an example of the power of an animal's body to change the effects of a gene.

I felt like some of the later chapters railed rather tediously on privacy and legal issues that aren't so relevant today, but I'd definitely recommend the first two thirds of the book for other aspiring geneticists.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN OVERVIEW (AS OF 1993) OF GENETIC RESEARCH AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

Ruth Hubbard explains in the Preface to this 1993 book, “Although two of us have worked on this book, it is written in the first person. This is because I, Ruth Hubbard, am a biologist and take responsibility for the scientific content and for much of the interpretation we present. My coauthor, Elijah Wald, is a writer and a musician who believes, as I do, that anything worth saying can be said clearly enough so that people without special training can understand it.”

She outlines, “We need to have a realistic sense of the positive contributions genetics and biotechnology can make, and of the risks inherent in the science, its applications, and its commercialization. We need to understand that biotechnology can change … how we think of ourselves and other animals. Are living organisms machines… or are we too complex for anyone to foresee the effects of genetic tinkering?... It is crucial that we, as citizens, not leave this process in the hands of ‘experts.’ … We must become sufficiently informed to be able to decide to what extent genetics and biotechnology can improve our lives. We cannot just sit by as passive worshipers or victims. This book is intended to provide an overview of what is occurring in modern genetics and to make it easier to understand and evaluate current applications of genetic research.”

She suggests, “Scientists and physicians need to use extreme caution when it comes to making predictions. DNA and its functional units play a crucial role, but a limited one. Many things that have nothing to do with genes affect the ways we develop and function day by day.” (Pg. 54)

She observes, “Even where preventative measures may be helpful, the circumstances of our lives… may make it difficult or impossible to ‘follow doctor’s orders.’ It does not help to be told that we have this or that ‘tendency,’ if there is nothing we can do with this information. Medical, and especially genetic, predictions do not increase individual control. Such predictions place the source of all our health conditions in our biology and give physicians and scientists authority over them. By erasing the social context, genetic predictions and labels individualize our problems, blame the victim… and are authoritarian… But predictive tests contain rather little information to live by, since the answers they offer are almost always couched in terms of probabilities and contingent on other factors.” (Pg. 74)

She points out, “Simon LeVay, a researcher at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies… claims that an area of the hypothalamus … is smaller in homosexual men and heterosexual women than it is in heterosexual men, and that the smaller size is linked to a preference for males as sexual partners. This linkage presumes a size similarity for the area among heterosexual men and lesbians, but LeVay was not able to test that part of his hypothesis. This omission is only one of the defects in LeVay’s work. All of the brain tissues he studied were from cadavers, so there was no way to determine the range or extent of the men’s sexual orientation… All the homosexual men had died of AIDS, which may have affected their brain tissue.” (Pg. 95)

She states, “The most frequently cited study linking genes and alcohol found that the incidence of alcoholism among adopted sons who had an alcoholic biological parent was 3.6 times the incidence among adopted sons whose biological parents were not alcoholics… The problems with adoptive-child studies are legion, as are the problems with twin studies. It has been shown, for instance, that variations in the age at adoption can completely change study results… Also, in the case of alcoholism, the child of an adoptive parent may have considerable environmental exposure to alcohol while still in the womb. Even if we accepted this study’s result, only about 18 percent of the sons with an alcoholic biological parent become alcoholics, as opposed to 3 percent of the sons whose biological parents were not alcoholics. Though these results may suggest some biological component, we must remember that 82 percent … did not become alcoholics.” (Pg. 100-101)

She concludes, “Our new fixation on genes can only make us less confident about our bodily functioning and so increase our alienation from ourselves. We need to engage in active debates about the practical consequences of genetic forecasts for our self-image, our health, our work lives, our social relationships, and our privacy. To be ill or disabled is part of the human condition, and not the worst thing that can happen to us. Far worse to harden ourselves and look on people who are ill or have disabilities as statistics or as burdens, to be prevented at all costs. In the name of disease prevention, the genetic ideology in the past led to gross abuses of power. We must see to it that the new technical knowledge does not outstrip our political capabilities to show all our fellow humans the respect and good will we would have them show us.” (Pg. 162)

This book (which admittedly is more than 25 years old) will be of keen interest to those studying such issues as biotechnology and genetics research.

[Nuno · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think the most important question raised by this book is the importance of strong public health policies. Ruth Hubbard states the obvious when she says it is not worth developing methods to detect or treat medical conditions if people are not able to afford such technology. This is similar to the question regarding GMOs: the problem is not so much in the shortage of food as it is in food distribution, so perhaps we should focus on it instead of trying to develop new crops. This is not, however, a scientific problem. Scientists try to learn as much as they can about their field with the funds they are granted. Surely the distribution of funds is subjected to policies and industry lobbies, but sometimes I got the impression the author was saying the science itself was fundamentally flawed.

I also think the author thinks of science as a purely pragmatic enterprise, that is, it is only worth pursuing scientific questions as long as they will be useful. I completely disagree with this. Scientists must learn about the world for the sake of learning. That's the main objective of science. If something useful is found along the way - and history has proved us that happens a lot -, that's wonderful, but by assuming that's the end of all scientific enterprise we are limiting ourselves.

[Alicia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Actually only made it part of the way through, it bothered me too much to finish. There aren't any untruths in it, but the perspective from which it is written can be easily misunderstood by those without experience in the sciences, which is irresponsible of the author.

[Shane · Rating 4 out of 5]

non-fiction. written in 1997 so somewhat antiquated but i kept this book so that means something.