Genetic screening - what is the diameter of the holes?

Prof. Armand Leroy, a researcher in the field of developmental biology at Imperial College, came to a special event held at Hamada in collaboration with the British Council. A report from the event, special for the science website

Last Wednesday there was a debate open to the general public in Tel Aviv, about genetic screening, and the way in which understanding the human genome can affect our lives. In a world where in less than ten years we can get our complete genetic code for $1000, it is important to understand what the consequences could be, and how to prepare for them. Almost 200 people came to hear the debate and ask their questions to the debaters. The rabbi himself was organized on behalf of the British Council in Israel, in cooperation with Hamda - a center for scientific education in Tel Aviv. The event is part of the series of Beautiful Science events that the British Council organizes in Israel. Other events in the past year were the Visualize show - science without words - at the Bloomfield Museum in Jerusalem, and the FeyLab competition - short scientific lectures for the general public - which was held all over Israel (and will be held again this March).

The rabbi was moderated by Arad Nir, a qualified veterinarian and a reporter for Channel 2. He sat with the four participants in the discussion on a wide stage, directed questions from the audience to the participants and guided the discussion with skill.

The four debaters themselves made sure to clarify their positions at the very beginning of the discussion. Professor Eitan Friedman participated in the discussion from his position as a doctor and researcher at the onco-genetics unit in Tel Hashomer. The onco-genetics unit deals with understanding the genetics of cancer and the ability to detect it in advance. Professor Friedman supported the knowledge of the genetic code. He claimed that the question every person should ask himself is not whether he should be afraid of knowing his genetic code, but what he can learn from the results of the genetic review, about himself and his health. From the knowledge of his genetic structure, each person can make wiser and more informed decisions in his life. "Everyone in this room has 5-50 mutations that will affect our lives," Friedman said. Once people know what their mutations are, they will be able to act accordingly. People who discover that they have some sort of addiction tendency, for example, may know that they should not try drugs, cigarettes or alcohol. People who knew they were at risk of heart disease knew that they needed to be careful about their diet and lifestyle. From the knowledge of our genetic code, we can know which mutations and genetic diseases we pass on to our children, and we can also decide whether to give birth or abort fetuses with severe genetic diseases.

Friedman's colleague on the panel, Dr. Yehuda Meltzer, was less enthusiastic about the possibility of genetic screening. Meltzer is a philosopher and publisher of the Harry Potter books in Hebrew, and specializes in the philosophy of morality. At the beginning of the discussion, Meltzer raised a concern about the impact on the insurance companies. When an insurance company can know from the genome of a certain person that there is a high chance that he will get heart disease, then they will charge him a very high premium. The result will be an inequality in the prices charged by the insurance companies from different customers, and may even result in some people not being able to be insured. Lawyer Gali Ben-Or, who is in charge of legislation on genetics at the Ministry of Justice, calmed Meltzer's concerns. In 2000 Israel established the Genetic Information Law, which prohibits discrimination in insurance or employment as a result of receiving genetic information. According to her, the law is able to protect the ordinary citizen, and to date no complaint has been received against an insurance company for using genetic information.

Meltzer returned and expressed his concerns about the genetic review at a later stage in the debate, in a question with a more personal tone. "What happens if I want to get married again, and my future partner wants to see my genetic record? And, of course, I want to see hers!” His main concern was the loss of spontaneity and intuition in choosing partners, and Arad Nir asked Roy to respond to his question. Armand Leroy, the fourth participant in the discussion came to him from his position as a professor of developmental biology in Great Britain. Leroy participated in the creation of the BBC television program - What Makes us Humans, which was also broadcast in Israel on Channel 8. He replied to the waiter that we choose partners based on their genetic material anyway: how beautiful they are, how smart they are, how they smell, and so on . All of these are influenced by our genes to a great extent. The only difference, according to Leroy, is that in the future we will be able to read them directly. Intuition will indeed be lost, but as Friedman said, we will be able to make more informed and prudent decisions about our lives.

Leroy added and firmly stated that the decision on the genetic screening, or the information interpreted from the genetic code, must not be entrusted to any authority. You cannot trust the government, the insurance companies, the health funds or even the professors of genetics and morality. The genetic information should remain in the hands of the individual to whom it belongs, and in his hands should also be the decision regarding the selection of the embryos he intends to produce. "This is a consumer market," according to Leroy, "and the market is very powerful. I think society will try to restrain him, but will fail." Leroy showed a deep understanding of the intricacies of the Jewish psyche, saying that, "Even the government will not be able to curb the genetic screening and the abortions of unwanted babies. Why? Because every Jewish mother wants a perfect child." Attorney Ben-Or did try to respond to Leroy, claiming that the existing laws in the various countries would prohibit the choice of fetuses, but he refused to accept her answer. The child, according to Leroy, is the biggest investment we make in our lives. If we insure our car, who can forbid us to 'insure' our fetus as well by checking its genetic code, and making sure it is free of defects? In order to have the degree of safety regarding the future of their child, many mothers will agree to fly to foreign countries where different laws exist, where they can examine the developing fetus and possibly abort it.

At that point came a question from the audience, whether under many years of genetic selection, there will be a loss of human diversity. Leroy agreed to answer the question, saying that there will indeed be a loss of diversity, but only if we define 'disease' as 'diversity'. This is indeed a variety, but a variety that we are not interested in. He added that he does not believe that we will lose human diversity - individual beauty and personality, simply because we don't all like the same thing. Professor Friedman concluded the discussion by saying, "I believe that the beauty, the innovation and the tools that genetics gives us as a society and as individuals are tools that we cannot even understand where they will take us. They will bring us to places that are currently described only in science fiction. I don't want to stop science."