02-06-2006, 01:54 AM
Research into the genetic basis for autism continues. Here’s a link to a recent study on Faroe Islanders, concluding that certain genetic markers appear to be associated with autism: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v11/n1/...01754a.pdf
I am currently reading the 1999 book Genome by Matt Ridley. It is a great read, highly recommended. I was particularly struck by the following passage from pages 165-166 (which does not specifically concern autism):
I am currently reading the 1999 book Genome by Matt Ridley. It is a great read, highly recommended. I was particularly struck by the following passage from pages 165-166 (which does not specifically concern autism):
Quote:
[T]here may be 500 genes that vary in tune with human personalities. These are just the ones that vary. There may be many others that do not normally vary, but if they did would affect personality.
This is the reality of genes for behaviour. Do you see now how unthreatening it is to talk of genetic influences over behaviour? How ridiculous to get carried away by one ‘personality gene’ among 500? How absurd to think that, even in a future brave new world, somebody might abort a foetus because one of its personality genes is not up to scratch – and take the risk that on the next conception she would produce a foetus in which two or three other genes were of a kind she does not desire? Do you see now how futile it would be to practise eugenic selection for certain genetic personalities, even if somebody had the power to do so? You would have to check each of those 500 genes one by one, deciding in each case to reject those with the ‘wrong’ gene. At the end you would be left with nobody, not even if you started with a million candidates. We are all of us mutants. The best defence against designer babies is to find more genes and swamp people in too much knowledge. . . .
Curiously, understanding that [shyness] is innate seems to help to cure it. One trio of therapists, reading about the new results emerging from genetics, switched from trying to treat their clients’ shyness to trying to make them content with whatever their innate predispositions were. They found that it worked. The clients felt relieved to be told that their personality was a real, innate part of them and not just a bad habit they had got into. ‘Paradoxically, depathologising people’s fundamental inclinations and giving group members permission to be the way they are seemed to constitute the best insurance that their self-esteem and interpersonal effectiveness would improve.’ In other words, telling them they were naturally shy helped them overcome that shyness. Marriage counselors, too, report good results from encouraging their clients to accept that they cannot change their partners’ irritating habits – because they are probably innate – but must find ways to live with them. The parents of a homosexual are generally more accepting when they believe that homosexuality is an immutable part of nature rather than a result of some aspect of their parenting. Far from being a sentence, the realisation of innate personality is often a release.
This is the reality of genes for behaviour. Do you see now how unthreatening it is to talk of genetic influences over behaviour? How ridiculous to get carried away by one ‘personality gene’ among 500? How absurd to think that, even in a future brave new world, somebody might abort a foetus because one of its personality genes is not up to scratch – and take the risk that on the next conception she would produce a foetus in which two or three other genes were of a kind she does not desire? Do you see now how futile it would be to practise eugenic selection for certain genetic personalities, even if somebody had the power to do so? You would have to check each of those 500 genes one by one, deciding in each case to reject those with the ‘wrong’ gene. At the end you would be left with nobody, not even if you started with a million candidates. We are all of us mutants. The best defence against designer babies is to find more genes and swamp people in too much knowledge. . . .
Curiously, understanding that [shyness] is innate seems to help to cure it. One trio of therapists, reading about the new results emerging from genetics, switched from trying to treat their clients’ shyness to trying to make them content with whatever their innate predispositions were. They found that it worked. The clients felt relieved to be told that their personality was a real, innate part of them and not just a bad habit they had got into. ‘Paradoxically, depathologising people’s fundamental inclinations and giving group members permission to be the way they are seemed to constitute the best insurance that their self-esteem and interpersonal effectiveness would improve.’ In other words, telling them they were naturally shy helped them overcome that shyness. Marriage counselors, too, report good results from encouraging their clients to accept that they cannot change their partners’ irritating habits – because they are probably innate – but must find ways to live with them. The parents of a homosexual are generally more accepting when they believe that homosexuality is an immutable part of nature rather than a result of some aspect of their parenting. Far from being a sentence, the realisation of innate personality is often a release.
Rather than oppose research into the genetics of autism, we should recognize its inevitability. Indeed, we should embrace it.
As Ridley so eloquently puts it, “The best defence against designer babies is to find more genes and swamp people in too much knowledge.”