Resisting Reductionism from the Human Genome Project

In Resisting Reductionism from the Human Genome Project, Robert N. Proctor argues that history demonstrates how people often misunderstand and oversimplify new scientific results which leads to accepting a reductionist view that then reduces complex facts and theories to overly simplistic maxims.

Such reductionist views have provided grounds for eugenics and racism to develop and be justified by the means of Social Darwinism. The Human Genome Project has been widely criticized by many groups contending that the projects’ purpose might be a determinist one. How would we know it is not the foundation for another and perhaps more drastic Holocaust?

Proctor warns people against the danger of reductionism, in this case the popular belief that “It’s all in the genes.” Proctor fears that exaggerating the influence of genetics in the development of disease might undermine the substantial environmental origins. I mean, why would I eat healthy or exercise when my genes have already condemned me to develop diabetes? He claims that although genetics accounts for a partial role in developing diseases, most of the diseases are acquired by substantial environmental origins. For instance, a heavy smoker who has a genetic foundation to develop and suffer of lung cancer is indeed more likely to get the disease, however, the act of smoking itself, more than the genetic basis, really or directly caused the disease.

One problem with genetic based disease portrayal is that the assertions about their frequencies and what they imply for social policy are politically charged. The media are fond of publishing speculative figures regarding predisposing disease, in this cancer. However, the data they depict is often corrupted and untrustworthy yet sufficient enough to falsely convince people of adopting a reductionist approach. Cancer can be acquired according to occupation, diet, socioeconomic status, and personal habits such as smoking but all these causes can be detracted and minimized by the exaggeration of the role of genetics which can be detrimental for people.

Recent interests in the role of genetics in disease have led to a common and fundamental question. What causes a gene to mutate in the first place? Many people claim that disease roots from the genes. However, Proctor defends that disease mostly results from some kind of environmental insults.

There is a drastic problem with supporting the superior role of genetics in disease as compared to environmental factors. That is biological determinism, the process in which the root cause for the onset of disease is changed from the environmental (toxic pressure) to the individual (genetic defects). Supporters of this approach claim that it is done for the sake of learning what treatments suits patients the best, based on genetics. Nonetheless, critics claim that such efforts could cause the “industry to try to screen out the most vulnerable rather than clean up an environment that places all workers at increased risk.”

Therefore, the main problem posed by the tendency to adopt reductionism is that it may be a foundation for a path that will take society down a slippery slope. If everything we know is determined by genetics and some people possess different and superior genetics aren’t those who possess those superior genes to be deemed superior? Why is cheating on your significant other deemed immoral when animals do it too and, thus, there is a genetic base that accounts for this behavior?

Proctor worries that science is being used as a proxy for deeply held social values. In reality, there is little evidence to support a correlation between genetics and certain human cultural qualities that are often genetically anchored.

Finally, Proctor concludes his argument by stating that the role of genetics on disease is not what hurts people the most but the exaggeration by the media and the misinterpretation and the false assumption that “biology is destiny.” He urges people not to oversimplify new scientific results which can leads to accepting a reductionist view that then in turn reduces complex facts and theories to overly simplistic maxims. Furthermore, he warns that the danger lies on how the knowledge and technology are used and warn that in the twenty first century America there is a lot of pits in which people can fall similar to those of Nazi Germany many years ago.