OH, MY ACHING GENES!

By Michael Kinsley

My stocks are doing O.K., but my gene portfolio took a big hit recently. Doctors at Johns Hopkins announced that they have discovered a genetic mutation in Ashkenazi Jews that doubles the risk of colon cancer. Ashkenazi Jews are those with roots in Central and Eastern Europe. That covers most Jewish Americans, including me. Only 6% of Ashkenazi Jews are thought to carry the defective gene, but that's enough to make it, according to the New York Times, "the most common known cancer gene in a particular population." And colon cancer is just one disease for which Ashkenazi Jews seem to have a disproportionate genetic tendency. Breast cancer, Tay-Sachs and cystic fibrosis are others. The Times reports that this is the result of too much intermarriage during the Middle Ages! So tell that to your mother, Jewish boys of America.

The Times was comically eager to point out that other ethnic groups probably have a lesser genetic tendency to a larger number of diseases, so Ashkenazi Jews shouldn't feel that put upon. Nevertheless, both stories raised the possibility that blood tests for this genetic defect will be used by health insurers and employers to discriminate against people with the defective gene. (Why? Oh, possibly bosses may not want their workplace atmosphere soured by a lot of grumpy people who've just undergone a colonoscopy.)

Genetic research is rapidly discovering all sorts of creepy information about the future in our genes, such as who is likely to develop Alzheimer's. These predictions are widely regarded as the apple of knowledge, which we might be better off not tasting. There is a general feeling that it is wrong for a person's life chances to be determined by a test tube of blood. According to this reasoning, the only issue for public policy is what to do about it. Forbid or discourage genetic tests? Strict rules about what they may or may not be used for? We can't yet prevent Alzheimer's, but we can at least try to prevent discrimination against folks just because they have an increased probability of getting Alzheimer's.

This revulsion at fate-by-genetic-testing is understandable and admirable. It's also a bit crazy. That's because the sorting of people according to their genes goes on in all kinds of ways that don't involve drawing blood. It's not necessary to know the actual gene involved. In fact, the human condition can be thought of as one big genetic test. When a caveman lost his woman, or his life, to another caveman, that was a genetic test.

It would be nice to think of civilization as a long process by which such crude genetic determinism (the bigger guy wins) is replaced with finer and fairer values. But genes are barely less important today. There is, of course, the sensitive issue of intelligence. Many people think of the SAT as a genetic marker every bit as clinical as that contained in a syringe of blood. The folks who believe this are mistaken. But even the politically correct position--that "intelligence" is actually a bundle of different mental capabilities that people have in varying amounts, and that these capabilities can be strongly affected by environmental factors--leaves room for a large genetic component. Few Ashkenazi Jews, I suspect, would trade their genes for a random draw from the gene pool, whatever their fear of colon cancer and whatever they may have felt (and said) about Charles Murray, notorious co-author of The Bell Curve.

We are all undergoing genetic tests every day, and our life chances are being influenced by the results. A blood test for, say, an Alzheimer's gene is different in only two ways. First, the test is separate from its social application. By contrast, when the cavemen fought, the genetic measurements and their use as a way of ordering society were intertwined and simultaneous. Second, discrimination based on blood tests is punishing people on the basis of mere probabilities. Yet how much do these distinctions matter? If insurers and employers discriminate against people with an increased risk of getting some dreadful disease, they are making a rational assessment of probable future costs. We as a society may decide that such discrimination is unfair and outlaw it, but it is no more unfair than discriminating against a person with the disease itself.

Still, the natural feeling remains that there is something unfair about sorting and rewarding people based on the genes they were born with and have no control over. Good. That feeling should be encouraged. The proper lesson is not that there's nothing wrong with discrimination based on what a lab technician finds in a test tube of your blood. The proper lesson is that a lot of the sorting and rewarding in society works essentially the same way. And whatever upsets you about genetic testing ought to apply to matters larger than a slightly increased chance of getting colon cancer.