" Genomics is a way to do science, not medicine" -- Dr. Harold Varmus, National Cancer Institute Director
Given the amount of time and money spent on the Human Genome Project, New York Times writer, Nicholas Wade, suggests that the research has accomplished little in the direction of developing treatments for genetically-linked diseases. While the genome project has produced disappointing results for medicine but the research has contributed much to basic science. Knowing that genetic variants contribute a small fraction to the onset of a disease, where else should we be looking for other answers? What could and could not be learned from the HapMap?
I think that the write of this article, along with some of those interviewed are quite impatient and expecting immediate results from the project. Frequently projects take more time to complete than originally anticipated and overcoming large obstacles, such as determining how genes and their environment interact to produce specific outcome, is no different.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said I do believe that at this point in time the project may want to consider going in another direction. For example, the study could help to determine the genetic influence on the presence of heart disease by conducting a large cohort study. It could begin with many individuals who do not have any signs of heart disease, from all races and social classes, etc., and catalog their DNA. From this point the researchers could follow these individuals periodically interviewing them to determine their day to day exposures. The researchers could then use the data collected from those who do, and those who do not, develop heart disease and compare the DNA to their exposures. This combination of societal factors and genetic factors may give researchers a better understand of which genes under what circumstances cause heart disease to develop from there allowing them to determine the best means to prevent heart disease. I realize that preforming such a task would be extremely costly and time consuming but believe that by only having genetic information researchers are not getting the full picture of diseases and are therefore having a difficult time breaking the code for such diseases.
I believe that HapMap is a good starting point for genetic research regarding disease in that it may give some insight as to some rare mutations however, I think that the study will need to grow to a progressive study which starts with healthy individuals to provide researchers with the information needed to determine how these diseases come to be.
The Human Genome Project has been ongoing for over a decade now and there has still not been any significant data complied to point out the causes of human disease, such as cancer and diabetes. Therefore, new approaches are necessary so that our society can benefit from the appropriate knowledge. This is where the HapMap comes into play. What I particularly like about the HapMap is that it is cost efficient and relatively will not take a long time when compared to the Human Genome Project, which was estimated to take 13years at a cost of 3 million dollars. Instead of looking at whole genome sequences the HapMap will concentrate on the Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs), which are the sites of common variation in the DNA sequence. It is significant that this project is studying SNPs because it is here that researchers will find common patterns of human genetic variation, which is what is involved in human health and disease.
ReplyDeleteI think Nicholas Wade’s lack of patience is typical of his profession. The press taps their pencils on their pads impatiently waiting for the next big story, when, in many cases, they’re failing to appreciate the progressively growing string of words that will accumulate into the bigger meaning. The “big story” goal of the International HapMap Project was to create a genome-wide database of human genetic variation patterns with the expectation that these patterns would be useful for genetic associations of common diseases. To really break it down, the HapMap aims to increase knowledge in an interconnected science that we know is rarely reducible to a single gene or cause. I think the HapMap is well on its way to achieving just that. While the medical benefits may be elusive, sequencing whole genomes has provided many unexpected insights – the smaller words that will string the bigger story together. As a result of the HapMap’s existence, we will continually expand our understanding of natural selection and evolutionary pressures, develop genotyping and analytic methods, and better define genetic relationships across populations. It IS sobering to realize that we remain chiefly ignorant of the underlying causes of common diseases because until we aren’t, we will be at a great disadvantage in improving ways to prevent, diagnose and treat medical problems. BUT it’s not the “be all to end all”. In addition to the HapMap’s contributions to basic science, we can continue to study epigenomics and learn something about the changes in gene activity that do not involve alterations to the genetic code. We are coming to some profound understanding, and while that doesn’t give us the answers to all we anticipated just yet, we can be excited that our knowledge is expanding and should celebrate that the complexity of genes may hold real clues to solving health and disease.
ReplyDeleteIn adding to what V. Cohen wrote about the purpose of the Human Genome Project and what it was originally set out to do, new approaches are definitely necessary. We need to be looking at different approaches to find out the genetic roots for common disease. With cancer showing up more and more each day, scientists should be looking more into the HapMap idea. Also, in accordance to what V.Cohen said about the SNPs, the results could be potential significant. The difference is just a single nucleotide which is significant when common variants are only a small portion of the risks of diseases. The HapMap has taken the Human Genome to another level with reconstructing history with fingerprints and natural selection. There is further information that could be possible at some point but I think we all just need to look at the big picture like mentioned in the last sentence of the article, "the only intellectually honset answer is that there's no way to know".
ReplyDeleteThe Human Genome Project’s aim is to understand the genetic makeup of the human species, which we have found include over 20,500 genes. This investigation of any single individual’s genome is a very complex and lengthy process that involves sequencing countless variations of each gene. All participants, including the press, in this project need to be reminded that patience is a virtue and to focus on the accomplishments discovered thus far: Hapmap is well on its way to being a resourceful database for finding genetic variants affecting health, what environmental factors are involved and disease responses to drugs. In accordance with V. Cohen, I think that it is important to study the SNPs because difference is found in just a single nucleotide. Researchers will find patterns of variation with this concentration and will further their understanding of disease and health. As Dr. Lander mentioned, there is really no way to know what will come from all of this time, money and research.
ReplyDeleteI agree with J. Esposito and C. La Porte that in extensive research projects like the Human Genome Project it cannot be expected that they will yield immediate results. It takes time to develop answers to just one unknown in medicine, and certainly takes time to understand all the complexities behind a variety of diseases and conditions. The article itself notes that the HapMap project has already been successful in changing the way researchers approach studying genetic predispositions to conditions from looking at common mutations to rare ones, and that the efficiency of using genetic technologies has greatly improved since the project was started. The project is still developing medical solutions, but shows that there is progress being made. To me it seems that Dr. Varmus' quote that "Genomics is a way to do science, not medicine" does not appreciate the fact that scientific knowledge has to come before there are new solutions in medicine.
ReplyDeleteCiting Susan and J. Esposito: An initial reaction of the public, especially those with experience in the medical field, might be that one cannot expect immediate cures for disease even with the great success of the HGP. However, one must consider the power of the pharmaceutical industry in America when discussing cures for disease. It may seem like a conspiracy theory to some, but researchers have recently published journal articles (Example: http://jama.ama-assn.org.ezproxy.bu.edu/content/295/4/429.full.pdf+html) that explore the often corrupt relationship between medical professionals and drug companies. The pharmaceutical industry plays a huge role in our country's economy and thrives due to the population's medical conditions. One must question whether the industry may be preventing the cures to be discovered (or at least introduced to the public). After all, how could the pharmaceuticals maintain its influence and lucrative business strategies if the public was healthy and disease-free?
ReplyDeleteAdiperna, Susan, and several other have a really good point when they state that an initial reaction from those in the medical feild to a proposition that immediate responses to cures for disease will be found would be shock and rejection. Imagine if you had researched for several years, along with several othre people, on a study and someone or a group comes along and believes that even after all of your research and the conclusions that you have made, a difference can be found? I would assume that you would turn the idea down as well. But with the technology of today and the research that we (the human genome project in this sense) have obtained and learned from, new evidence and possibly different results may come out of it. Like adiperna said, pharmaceutical advancements and their large hand in today's society plays a very large role in the the discovery of cures for todays abnormalities and diseases. Who is to know that the new drugs that are coming out arent hindering the possible cures that are stil out there and have not been discovered yet? Who knows that if the enviornment that people live in is blocking a potential cure for genetic varients? There are so many barriers in the way, even human participation and the amount of people cures and testing is done on. Without a proper population size, one will never be able to obtail sustainable results to claim an argument on any issue.
ReplyDeleteThis article was intriguing. I never thought about the money that goes into the human genome project. I think it is interesting when it was said that this is an advance in science not in medicine. I believe this project could be extremely effect but the kinks need to be worked out. It is a waste of money to just test half of peoples genes because vital information could be ignored or just simply not discovered. I believe these tests need to be done on a large group of people. We need to look at differences in people's environments and take that into affect when talking about new drug testing or discovering new diseases. I don't believe pharmaceutical companies are hindering our ability to discover new drugs. If we didn't have these drugs or cures for diseases how would people survive? It is essential that new drugs and cures keep being discovered and tested but in the mean time we need the current system to keep people alive and fend from certain diseases. I believe this human genome project could be extremely effective and with the technology we have today the problems with the program will effectively be discovered and fixed. It is obviously a work in progress but this could change the future of medicine isn't it worth the time and money?
ReplyDeleteI feel like the article gave a negative one-sided view of the story. Although a lot of money has been spent and expectations of the project have not been met yet this doesn't mean that the project was a waste. In fact, as noted in the genomics text book, the project took less time than originally anticipated in the first place. We can't expect to solve all of our medical health problems in a day. With regards to the HapMap i think it was money well spent. By looking at common genes causing disease and reconstructing history of populations scientists are learning more about our world daily. What originally couldn't be learned from the HapMap was rare varients that are the causes of diseases. I think that with the new technology of 2010/2011 scientists will be able to use the knowledge they have gained from the HapMap and the processes to obtain this information and refine it towards rare varients. I disagree with the statement that genomics is a way to do science and not medicine. I think it is too early to make such a statement. Over the span of the next 10 years I think the advancements made will be applicable to medicine and not just science. Initially the science behind our genome needed to be understood and there wasn't the technology to dig any deeper. But in the up-coming years I believe that both the drug companies and the scientists will work together to identify varients and create drugs that can target the most rare genetic diseases and those genes that predispose people to all diseases. I am fully optomistic that all the scientists world-wide that are working on this project will be successful and their time and money spent will not be wasted.
ReplyDeleteCourtney LaPorte and others make great points with the mention of impatience with the so-called lack of advances regarding the Human Genome Project. Granted then-President Clinton's comment that the very first draft of the human genome sequence would "revolutionize the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of most, if not all, human diseases" seems a bit over-ambitious and naive in light of where we stand now, this is not to say he haven't made advances in other areas that are just as important, or that we will never reach this vision in the future. Linking this NYT article back to one of the readings for our class, "Human Genomic Association Studies: A Primer for the Infectious Diseases Specialist," although we may have not yet made huge strides in the realm of diagnosis and treatment based on the discovery of certain genes linked to certain diseases, the reading points out the many caveats that have come to the attention of researchers who have been trying to do just that. After taking into consideration false associations that easily arise due to population stratification, genotyping error, or simply chance, it appears that we have since discovered that using genes to better medicine is going to be harder than we had originally intended. Is it impossible? Certainly not, but the press and those in the medical field shouldn't criticize where the HGP has not taken us yet, they should appreciate the efforts by hard-working individuals that have brought the HGP to the place it is today.
ReplyDeleteI agree with V. Cohen in that new approaches to researching the human genome should be considered. The human genome is extremely complex and complicated. It will take many many years to understand it. We need to be patient. I do believe that genomics is a way to do medicine though. It has been very complicated in the past and not led to many new discoveries but the key thing to remember is that it hasn't led to new discoveries YET. Certain genes are linked to certain diseases. The problem is is that people want answers now. We want a single gene located for the cause of cancer or the cause of diabetes but it is not that simple. Understanding the genes and how they cause these diseases is a long process. That doesn't mean that we should give up. If the techniques that we are using now aren't working then new strategies need to be figured out. With new strategies, diligence, and patience I do think that genomics is a way to do medicine. Studying the human genome may be extremely complex and tedious but in the future it will lead to medicine for these currently incurable diseases. If not for our generation then for the next.
ReplyDeleteAs the majority of the other students have stated, I also agree that there is still hope for the Human Genome Project to lead us in the right direction for learning more about genetically-linked diseases and eventually finding a suitable cure. All improvements that have been made in medicine and science have been built and transformed from smaller ideas, through a series of experimental trials and errors. The error aspect of the whole experiment process is necessary and essential because it helps scientists to rule out what is not important and narrow down the possibilities. The study of the human genome is no different- it requires an extreme investment of time, energy, and money. The article discusses the many failures of the Human Genome Project and the amount of money that has been poured into its studies, and it seems to overlook or undermine many of the achievements. No matter how small scientific successes are perceived to be, all types of improvements pave the way for future life-changing discoveries. I understand that the whole point of investing into scientific research is to yield results that can be applied effectively towards medicine. But the knowledge that is gained from huge studies such as the HapMap and Human Genome Project still serves to move us forward. Geneticists continue to search for commonalities of causes of rare diseases and, with each new newly funded experiment, are able to build upon what they already know and develop new ideas. Though some may not fully agree that much significant improvement has been made by the genetic map studies, I believe that it is all still a working progress and support its continuation.
ReplyDeleteI'm in agreement with what Jeanette Esposito, Courtney LaPorte, Adiperna, Susan, O. Onyekwu and others have said with respect to the impatience of the medical establishment when it comes to results (or lack thereof) expected from the Human Genome Project. Given that a staggering $3 billion has been spent in decoding the complete human genome, and given that this endeavor has not yet produced any significant medical breakthrough, it is easy to understand why critics are grumbling. The progress of science can be slow and the quest for new understanding sometimes takes decades. So, I think the benefits of decoding the human genome are yet to be realized, and hopefully in dramatic ways that will revolutionize the way medicine is practiced and the manner in which health care is delivered. Even though the information in the human genome has been decoded, I think it will take some time before the emerging field of genomics is able to integrate this information with existing scientific knowledge to produce results like generating treatments for disease through gene therapy or pin-pointing the genetic markers for disease.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with V. Cohen, C. Johnson, J. Daniels and others have written that in the absence of any significant medical applications from the decoded genome, HapMap serves as an important start in the search for genetic variants or SNPs associated with some of the most common diseases. Not only is HapMap cost effective, but it has already generated promising results by identifying about 850 sites on the genome that are associated with some common diseases. Invariably, I think time will vindicate the usefulness and promise of the Human Genome Project. The future it has ushered in is real, and the medical possibilities are also real, even if it takes time to discover.
First and foremost, I’d like to highlight the fact that science is about trial and error and without testing ideas and conducting research, geneticists cannot understand the big picture of Genetics and Hereditary and the forces that drive these sectors of science. Thus although research may not be on schedule with the goals the Human Genome Project had hoped to establish in 10 years, this “failure” is almost as large of an accomplishment as it would be if the goals were actually achieved. This is because through trial and error a revised road map can be constructed for the future of genetics as new information surfaces through research. But the only way to try and steer the course of genetic testing is to experiment; thus even though we may not be where we want to be in terms of the goals for genetic research relating to medicine, we have obtained more information about tests that do and do work, which will in turn help us figure out the new direction of the future in Medicine research.
ReplyDeleteNow that we are aware of genetic variants’ minimal contribution to the onset of a disease, researchers should delve into investigating socio-environmental factors’ interaction with the individual’s developmental process, which may have a greater impact than previously expected. Another interesting place to conduct research is to monitor protein turn over within cells of particular organs to determine whether or not the rate at which it occurs may have an impact in the development of new cells, which may tie into how medicine is absorbed and begins circulating in the bloodstream.
The HapMap project demonstrates that time, money, and resources are all costs of making advancements and becoming more knowledgeable about the link between gene sequences and diseases. These minor advancements don’t come with what initially appears to be large financial burdens, but as the research techniques are used routinely, the cost declines, which creates more room to allocate money towards different research projects. Thus the HapMap project is indicative of the how grueling and long the process is involved in trying to achieve an established task, and even then researchers need to be open to the possibility of their research veering away from their original plans.
I also agree with J. Esposito, C. La Porte and others with regards to it taking time to essentially correlate the gene sequences that have been mapped out to the diseases they may affect. Ultimately this would allow us to observe variations in the human genome of different individuals and predict whether or not these individuals would be at risk of obtaining a disease. However, Wade writes that looking at various gene variants only contribute a small fraction to determining an individual’s risk of disease. So, we must be able to look to other factors that may contribute to an individual’s risk such as their lifestyle, environment, and other factors to help us further our knowledge of an individual’s risk for a disease. The HapMap is creating great progress already, with costs of observing rare variations now declining and 850 sites already correlating with common diseases. Nothing can be achieved overnight, but with time the HapMap Project looks as though it will expand the genome database allowing an even greater chance of observing rare gene variations among individuals and thus better determining risk, but other factors such as family history (as Dr. Paynter) will be of large importance regardless.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the NY Times piece, I found several parts of the article very interesting and worthy of discussion. First, the fact that the Human Genome Project has not yielded answers to the most complicated medical problems that plague society. One segment from the article I found interesting was " After 10 years of effort, geneticists are back to square one in knowing where to look for the roots of common disease." While the Human Genome project has benefited science, it has not directly enhanced the lives of the majority of people suffering from diseases like cancer and diabetes. The article sums up this point by staing "Genomics is a way to do science, not medicine." Though, there is still hope that “Over the longer term, perhaps in another 15 or 20 years, you will see a complete transformation in therapeutic medicine.” It is important to combine the knowledge gained from genetic research to benefit the medical world because so many people depend on it. It is this goal that drives science forward. I am also in accordance with what S. Martin-Tsoupas said about how the media should not criticize the scientific world for all of the problems that have yet to be solved. Rather, we should realize that the first step toward curing disease is understanding the basic science behind it and that is exactly what the Human Genome Project is all about.
ReplyDeleteI think the HapMap Prject will be highly beneficial for society because it allows researchers to, in some cases, reconstuct human population data in order to study natural selection in relation to genetics. As more techniques become available for studying human gentics, scientists will be better able to determine the genetic components of disease. It is also important to take into account the lifestlye factors and family history when determining how disease evolves. As a result, science must incorporate not only lab experiments but also enviornmental factor research. Science revolves around research and the fundamental basis for this is trial and error. Thus, without attempts at projects like the HapMap and the Human Genome Project, we wouldn't be on track to developing treatments for disease.
Prior to reading this article, I was unaware of not only the astounding cost of the human genome project, but also its failure to provide useful information regarding the causes of common genetic diseases. Although at first glance these facts depict the project as a failure, I believe that it has provided great data and knowledge that will be beneficial for the health of subsequent generations, as well as future research. Francis Collins, the director of the genome project, may have been off on his estimated timeline for the genetic diagnosis of disease, as well as his 15-20 year estimate for the "complete transformation in therapeutic medicine,” however, this does not mean that such feats will not be accomplished. In regards to Harold Vamus' comment stating that, "genomics is a way to do science, not medicine," I think a better way to phrase this would be that genomics is a gateway to practice better medicine. The HapMap project seems to be a more efficient and less costly project that has yielded data linking hundreds of common genetic variants with various diseases. This project is a great place to start, and I'm optimistic that each little step along the way will aid in discovering the roots of genetic diseases.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jeanette Esposito and C. Johnson. Seeing that geneticists are finding that rare variants are the major cause for common diseases, they are now realizing that these finding are going to take more time and effort. Thus, this is going to prolong the amount of time that will hopefully allow geneticists to use this knowledge and help generate treatments for these common diseases. But I think that not only geneticists but also epidemiologist and many other health professionals should be studying other factors besides genetics such as behavior, environment , and so forth. Even if someday we do find all the rare variants in our DNA that account for common diseases, that is just one piece of information. We will need to know all the pieces in order to put into place prevention and treatment methods that really work in the long run. I also agree with Courtney LaPorte that the HapMap is a good project to have in place. It can only helps us to learn more about where we have come from and add to the knowledge of why certain diseases and health issues came about and about natural selection. Any knowledge like this can help us in the long run from putting in place and making appropriate treatment and prevention methods for common diseases.
ReplyDeleteJ. Esposito and C. La Porte make valid points in reference to the doctor’s and media’s unrealistic expectations from the extensive Human Genome project. A time limitation and cures for diseases requires patience and further testing alternative approaches such as the HapMap. I agree with V. Cohen on the fact that the HapMap is a good alternative for cost-efficiency and focusing on the SNPs for genetic variation because we will attain better comprehension over natural selection and cross-cultural differences and similarities. Like Adiperna and O. Onyekwu mentioned, the large pharma presence affecting today’s doctors, patients and society as a whole can potentially determine the discovery and/or hindering of cures. Aside from the external factors like environment and pharmas that must be considered when investigating cures for diseases, using the genomic aspect to redefine and improve medicine will require much patience and openness to other methods of doing so.
ReplyDeleteAs aforementioned by ASchonenbeg and others, an important element to this whole issue is time. The founding issue presented in this article is the factor of time, in that X amount of money has been spent over X amount of years, yet we have only seen minimal medical results. I think it is foolish to expect just instantaneous solutions and cures to diseases that have plagued humanity for centuries in just a decade of post human genome discovery research.
ReplyDeleteThe HapMap is certainly a great idea, and provides certain shortcuts in unlocking our genome, specifically quicker discovery to rare variants in our genetic code, such variants that could be linked to common diseases. However, as stated above by others, patience is important. It takes time, in this case more time than was originally predicted to benefit from the mapping of our genome. Unfortunately, it is not a garutnee to see much success in the area of medicine. That is part of science, the element of discovery and potential insecurity. Time will ultimately tell, and despite the disappointments that the article has highlighted over the past decade, it is imperative to keep pushing forward on this front, as there still remains great potential for scientific and medical discoveries to be made.
I agree with everyone's comments about the article being very negative and one sided. As J. Daniels said, understanding the human genome is a very complex and long process, and many accomplishments have been made so far. I think that with any research project there is no guarantee that cures will directly follow. However, it is evident that since the completion of Human Genome Project, many other research projects and genomics discoveries have occurred, such as HapMap. Like E. Bradley said, scientists will be able to better understand the genetic factors of disease as more techniques become available. I also agree with the comments about incorporating environmental factors and lifestyle behaviors into genetics research. There is still a lot of things to learn about the development of disease, and even though it will take a lot of time, this knowledge can only benefit our health in the future. In the long run, I think this research will improve prevention of diseases sooner than actually producing treatments. Wade's article seemed to have a heavy emphasis on the production of pharmaceuticals, but human genome research leads to other methods of reducing illness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the majority of the aforementioned comments. The article stated that “[genetic] findings have explained only a small part of the risk of getting disease,” so the author recognizes that genetics is not the sole cause for disease. However, the tone throughout article shows otherwise. The author seems to over-emphasize genetics as a cause of disease and overlooks the more important interplay of factors that co-exist in the determination of gene expression. Most common diseases are not just associated with rare genetic mutations. They are likely to be influenced by the many dynamic interactions that are environmental, epi-genomic, and which include other lifestyle factors such as our nutrition, biological rhythms, lack of physical activity, stress, sleep, heredity, substance use and/or abuse , social constructs, as well as age. In fact, diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s certainly involve genetics, but they are essentially triggered later in life, and so age becomes the prime causal determinant here.
ReplyDeleteMany of my peers have already commented on this complex mix of factors that go beyond genetics in disease. To add a new perspective, I think it is also of interest to note that Mr. Wilde is a bit harsh in saying that a decade later, the genetic map yields few new advancements. The greatest accomplishment of the Human Genome Project is that we now have a blueprint for life. This milestone hugely enhances the basic understanding we have and leads us to a more global knowledge of genes in various organisms, not just humans. For example, great strides will surely take place in molecular biology, which can be applied to approaches in the fields of environmental science and energy. The Genome Project will enable scientists to detect genes of bacteria that pollute air and water in order to experiment with new environmental methods and energy sources (e.g. bio-fuel), as the US Dept. of Energy and NIH claims. Therefore, we should not only look at its developing influence in genetics, but also appreciate all the other fields of research, that the Human Genome Project will positively impact. This way, we can see that the Project actually will yield many solutions, in due time.
Mr. Wade's article, as everyone has said, is very negative and one sided. Even though it has been a decade since the completion of the first draft of the Genome Project and few results have been drawn, unlike the expected "turn of the century" innovation, I believe many issues have been 'corrected' or made some form of advances in technology and science that we couldn't have done without the project. For example, a medical team (Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston), discovered a small finding linked to heart disease, but this did not help in predicting the disease in women (who have been participating in a study), but something so difficult and complex can not be figured out so easily; if it could, we would have created the genome project years ago. People don't realize what kind of work is being done--years and years of trial and error, disappointment, and revelation will have to arise before concrete facts can be issued. Mr Varmus, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said, "genomics is a way to do science, not medicine,” and he is absolutely correct. Scientists after years of work will find something, the first half of the puzzle, and will continue to take more time to figure out how they can use that information to implement it into a tangible form of treatment.
ReplyDeleteThe Genome Project, in my opinion, has elevated the bar of technology further than we could have imagined. One of the main problems seems to be a financial issue. It takes a great deal of money to figure out something small. A suggestion could be, if somehow money could be funded or donated to begin procedures allowing scientists to work more easily, resulting in positive conclusions. There are many things we have and will continue to learn from HapMap; it may take longer than we would like, but if done properly our advancing technology and science will allow us to make exponential findings and begin to learn and change more about the development of diseases.
I hate to sound like a record stuck on repeat but I must agree with my fellow students in saying that Mr. Wade's article is very biased in terms of the Human Genome Project. Advances in science takes long stretches of time before major breakthroughs are seen. For example, vaccines for multiple viruses or diseases. The Human Genome Project was expected to act as a "magic button" to solve most of medicine's problems, and although it has helped to draw some correlations, more time is needed to do more research. We still simply don't know the full extent of what the Human Genome Project can do for medicine. As also noted above, we must continue to look at environmental factors and other variants of everyday life in the production of the diseases. Although Mr. Wade claims that the Human Genome Project hasn't done much we can already see the effect of its help in the Brigham and Women's Hospital study. The article states that the pedigree offered better results about who would be most susceptible to the cancer. However, Mr. Wade must realize that the HapMap has helped with creating thousands of pedigrees. This has led to knowing the points at which natural selection has taken place and this information may very well hold the key to correlating the Human Genome Project with diseases. As noted in the article, "One can prefer to be a optimist or pessimist." I, for one, prefer to be an optimist and believe that the Human Genome Project and HapMap still have numerous amounts of information to offer.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the authors headline is a bit cynical; for like many above have mentioned,
ReplyDeletedrastic cures to diseases ususally don't come instantaneously. The human genome project
is setting the stage for a different type of research. The expectations were predictions,
and predictions don't always go directly according to plan. At this point in time I can
see the author's point, and it is true, to a degree. However, I wouldn't write it off the
way he did and say that it is strictly a way of science. He may be speaking too soon. I
don't see how it could not lead to discoveries in cures. Eventually, I believe that the
project will put the pieces together and like a roadmap, lead scientists to discovery.
These things take time.
While I'm sure that many are disappointed the Human Genome Project has not directly impacted disease prevention, curing illnes, or other aspects of medicine (althought there are probably indirect contributions), I think that the HGP will directly help medicine in the future. Hopefully, our improved knowledge of science will one day improve the ways in which medicine is practiced. I also believe the quote overlooks an important element of medicine, which is the value of scientific understanding. As an undergraduate student studying Health Science, I know the importance of having a strong science background, and this will ultimately help me understand different physiological processes as a healthcare professional. On that premise alone, if the HGP can improve our knowledge about science, then I find it difficult to believe it won't benefit the field of medicine as well.
ReplyDelete