Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gene Concepts and Genethics: Beyond Exceptionalism

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The discursive explosion that was provoked by the new genetics could support the impression that the ethical and social problems posed by the new genetics are somehow exceptional in their very nature. According to this view we are faced with special ethical and social problems that create a challenge so fundamental that the special label of genethics is needless to justify. The historical account regarding the evolution of the gene concepts could serve us to highlight the limits of what we know about genes and what we can do with genes. The widespread notion about the exceptionality of genetic knowledge and its applicative possibilities is hardly justifiable and leads to misunderstandings regarding the conceptualization of the ethical and social problems we might face. Following a more realistic interpretation of the role of genes in human life we might avoid a whole set of fictive dilemmas and counterproductive regulatory efforts in bioethics. Bioethical discourse should move from the gene-centered scientific discourse toward the more sophisticated and complex discourses where human development represented as a matter of complex interactions between genomes and environments, between genes, educational factors, nutritional regimes, and other different developmental resources. If a gene is seen as one among the different developmental resources that are shaping a given human trait then both genethics and genetic exceptionalism could hardly be represented as a justified approach in discussing the ethical and social problems of genetics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References:

  1. Sándor, J. (2003). Society and genetic information: Codes and laws in the genetic era. Budapest and New York: CEU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ashcroft, R. E. (2003). The double helix 50 years on, models, metaphors, and reductionism—Bioethics should update its conception of the gene. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Moss, L. (2003). What genes can”t do. MA, Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Falk, R. (2000). The gene—A concept in tension. In P. Beurton, R. Falk, & H.-J. Rheinberger (Eds.), The concept of the gene in development and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Keller, E. F. (2000). The century of the gene. MA Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Morgan, T. H. (1963). The relation of genetics to physiology and medicine. In Nobel lectures...physiology and medicine, 1922–1941. Amsterdam.

  7. Gilbert, S. (1978). The embryological origins of the gene theory. Journal of the History of Biology, 1, 307–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Crick, F. (1967), Molekulákról és Emberekről. Budapest: Magvető Kiadó, 1986 at 50–51. trans. Crick, F. Of molecules and men. Washington Press.

  9. Crick, F. (1970). Central dogma of molecular biology. Nature, 227, 561–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buchanan, A., Brock, D. W., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D (Eds.) (2001). From chance to choice – genetics and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sarkar, S. (1998). Genetics and reductionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ethics and genetics study pack II. at The Center for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, 2004.

  13. Harris, J. (2001). Introduction: The scope and importance of bioethics. In J. Harris (Ed.), Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jacob, F., & Monod, J. (1961). On the regulation of gene activity. Cold Spring Harbour Symposium on Quantitative Biology, 26: 93–211, 197–198.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jacob, F., & Monod, J. (1961). Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins. Journal of Molecular Biology, 3, 318–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Black, D. L. (1998). Splicing in the inner ear, familiar tune, but what are the instruments? Neuron, 20, 165–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Monod, J., Changeaux, J. P., & Jacob, F. (1963). Allosteric proteins and cellular control systems. Journal of Molecular Biology, 6, 306–329.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of the genes. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions. Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Portin, P. (1993). The concept of the gene, short history and present status. Quarterly Review of Biology, 68, 173–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Walters, C. K. (1994). Genes made molecular. Philosophy of Science, 6, 163–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Epp, C. D. (1997). Definition of a gene. Nature, 389, 537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Griffiths, P. E., & Neumann-Held, E. M. (1999). The many faces of the gene. BioScience, 49(8), 656–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fogle, T. (2000). The dissolution of protein coding genes. In P. Beurton, R. Falk, & H.-J. Rheinberger (Eds.), The concept of the gene in development and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Moss, L. (2003). What genes can’t do. MA, Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moss, L. (2004). One, two (too), many genes? At http://www.nd.edu/~ndphilo/papers/onetwo.pdf.

  27. Project website: http://www.pitt.edu/~kstotz/genes/genes.html.

  28. Stotz, K., Griffiths, P. E., & Knight, R. (2004). How biologists conceptualize genes, an empirical study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (part C), 35, 647–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kay, L. E. (2000). Who wrote the book of life? The history of the genetic code. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Annas, G. J. (1995). Genetic prophecy and genetic privacy – Can we prevent the dream from becoming a nightmare? American Journal of Public Health, 85(9), 1196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Goldworth, A. (1999). Informed consent in the genetic age. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 8, 393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kevles, D. J., & Hood, L. (2000). Reflections. In D. J. Kevles, & L. Hood (Eds.), The code of codes: Scientific and social issues in the human genome project. (p. 324). London, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Greely, H. T. (2000). Insurance, employment, and the genetics revolution. In D. J. Kevles, & L. Hood (Eds.), The code of codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the human genome project. London, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Knoppers, B. M. (1999). Who should have access to genetic information? In J. Burley (Ed.), The genetic revolution and human rights. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cecile, A., Janssens, J. W., & Khoury, M. J. (2006). Predictive value of testing for multiple genetic variants in multifactorial diseases: implications for the discourse on ethical, legal and social issues. Italian Journal of Public Health, 3, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Holtzmann, N. (2001). Putting the search for genes into perspective. International Journal of Health Services, 31(2), 445–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Baird, P. A. (2002). Identification of genetic susceptibility to common diseases. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 45(4), 516–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wilkie, A. O. M. (2001). Genetic prediction: What are the limits? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and the Biological Sciences, 32(4), 619–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Richards, M. (2001). How distinctive is genetic information? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and the Biological Sciences, 32(4), 680.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Zimmern, R. L., & Kroese, M. (2007). The evaluation of genetic tests. Journal of Public Health, 29(3), 246–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Holm, S. (1999). There is nothing special about genetic information. In L. Thompson, & R. Chadwick (Eds.), Genetic information. New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Zimmern, R. L. (1999), Genetic testing: a conceptual exploration. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Murray, T. H. (1997). Genetic exceptionalism and ‘Future Diaries’: Is genetic information different from other medical information? In M. A. Rothstein (Ed.), Genetic secrets: Protecting privacy and confidentiality in the genetic era. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Condit, C. M., Ofule, N., & Sheedy, C. (1998). Determinism and mass-media portrayals of genetics. American Journal of Human Genetics, 62, 979–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Prainsack, B., & Tim, D. Spector (2006). Twins: A cloning experience. Social Science & Medicine, 63(10), 2739–2752.

  46. Lewens, T. (2002). Development aid: on ontogeny and ethics. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and the Biological Sciences, 33, 195–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Behavioural Sciences, Medical and Health Sciences Centre, University of Debrecen, Nagyerdei krt. 98, P.O. Box 45, 4032, Debrecen, Hungary

    Péter Kakuk

Authors
  1. Péter Kakuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Péter Kakuk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kakuk, P. Gene Concepts and Genethics: Beyond Exceptionalism. Sci Eng Ethics 14, 357–375 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9056-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9056-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation