Collision Course

Edward Berger's genetics class examines the intersection where science and society come into conflict.

FIRST SCIENTISTS MODIFIED MICE WITH RAT GENES, CREATING RAT-SIZED super mice. Then they merged the genes of three different species of fish, creating a gigantic monster fish that couldn't swim. When it became clear that all kinds of interesting traits could be transferred from one species to another, scientists used firefly and jellyfish genes to create glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants and glow-in-the-dark mice. And when technology was further perfected, scientists were able to recreate whole individuals through cloning: a sheep, then cows, dogs, horses and eventually there were even sci-fi reports of successfully cloned human beings. Doctors, are already able to cure certain ailments by modifying faulty genes, and soon parents with sufficient resources may be able to not only genetically cure their children's diseases but also have their children's DNA enhanced to produce healthier, smarter; stronger and more handsome human beings.

When Edward Berger, professor of molecular and cellular biology, discusses recent developments in his field with his students in "Genes and Society" it sounds almost like an apocalyptic science-fiction movie. With the advances in genetic technology, society has indeed entered uncharted Waters. Scientists have raised moral quandaries that will need to be addressed in the coming decades. In "Genes and Society," a course that satisfies in part the elective science requirement for non-science majors, Berger teaches the basic scientific principles that will give students the topis to make informed decisions about genetics later in their lives. Most of the 25 students in the course-last May were non-science majors, and Berger was excited to be teaching them: "If you're going to boil down the education of social-science and humanities majors to two science courses, they should be studying genetics because it's very likely something they'll confront in life," says Berger.

Berger adheres to the philosophy of John Dickey '29 that in an increasingly specialized society, educated people should have a basic knowledge of important matters that affect them and their society.

This was the first time Berger was teaching the course in the 21st century. Having arrived at Dartmouth in 1975, he taught a very similar course back in the mid-1980s, when genetic technology was just taking off and no one foresaw how fast the progress would be: "Now new developments are being reported every day," says Berger.

For todays students, who have few memories of a pre-cloning world without genetically modified vegetables and animals, genetic technology might seem merely part of everyday reality. Kelly Hacket '09, an economics and computer science major, says the course made her reevaluate the significance of medical progress:" What you think is obvious becomes not so obvious. I thought any technology that can treat illnesses should be

promoted, but now I can see other, less positive consequences, like people being able to create designer babies," she says.

For every student who sees the value of a course such as "Genes and Society," however, there are others who worry that Dartmouth's science-course requirements will negatively affect their GPAs. Many ambitious students have qualms about being required to study subjects outside their major or minor concentrations. Victoria Fener '08, an economics major, says she found the issues raised in "Genes and Society" very interesting and important but that most non-science majors would prefer not having to study the nitty-gritty details of actual science. "It's interesting to learn how technology develops and how political and social forces influence it. I find that more important than the actual chemical science behind it," she says. "Ten weeks after the exam I'm going to forget the details anyway. And it's still a developing field, so much of waht we learn now might change in the future. We shouldn't be tested on the details."

Berger understands that non-science majors may feel intimidated by technical terminology and concepts, but he insists that to be able to evaluate scientific claims and to distinguish good science from bad science, people need a basic understanding of how science works. "The scientists who are doing the work and the companies that are supporting the research do not commonly emphasize the risks of new scientific advances," says Berger. He argues it is extremely important for lay people to be able to make informed judgments in their personal lives—as well as at the ballot box—because lay people have more influence on science than they may realize. "People think science impacts society," says Berger, "but I tell students that society has a much bigger impact on science. Society decides where the funding goes and which questions will be researched."

The course was designed so students first learn the basics of genetics: how traits are passed on from one generation to the next, how cells replicate through mitosis or meiosis, the causes of DNA mutations, gene expression, the function of DNA and RNA, the different ways in which viruses attack the DNA of organisms, and the basic techniques of recombinant DNA, cloning and gene therapy. During the second half of the course Berger moves on to larger social questions that have been raised by the new technologies: Should there be limits on what can or cannot be cloned? How can we protect the confidentiality of personal genetic information? Which genetic diseases should children be tested for? Should scientists be able to patent genes and modified organisms? How far should we go in correcting genetic maladies? At what point are we tinkering with nature to enhance healthy human beings?

Hacket says she understands how important it is to have the knowledge to be able to make informed decisions but she feels frustrated having to learn difficult technical details. "If you're not a doctor, do you really need to know how DNA replicates?" she asks. "It just happens inside your body and somehow it all works." She has studied and memorized, but the technical concepts just don't make sense to her: "The macroscopic stuff is fine, but at a micro level it's hard to understand. How do they know all this? How do they know that if one little thing goes wrong a certain thing will happen in your body? It's just so foreign to me."

Ultimately, even the most brilliant scientists don't know how it all works, says Berger. His research focuses on a problem that has mystified people throughout history: metamorphosis. How does a caterpillar change into a butterfly? Berger says he has studied metamorphosis for 38 years—and now understands one tiny aspect of how hormones play a role in that process. He says that even though we can now sequence the DNA of any organism, we still don't understand how that blueprint—the genetic information—becomes an actual three-dimensional organism. 'People will probably never solve all the mysteries of life," says Berger.

Don't Know Much About Genetics? EDWARD BERGER SUGGESTS THE FOLLOWING BOOKS: Human Genetics, by Ricki Lewis (McGraw-Hill, 7th ed., 2007). "The course text and a must-read if you wish to seriously evaluate the current issues in genetics." Not in Our Genes, by Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose (Pantheon Press, 1985), and Exploding The Gene Myth, by Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald (Beacon Press, 1993), "are written by debunkers of genomania with a liberal slant." On Human Nature, by Edward 0. Wilson (Harvard University Press, 1978), and Born That Way, by William Wright (Knopf Press, 1998), "present the issues from a conservative point of view."

JUDITH HERTOG is a regular contributorto DAM. She lives in Norwich, Vermont.