Our first assignment in Genetics
in Society: Promise or Peril?
required us to
define “academic
writing.” Although
our descriptions
differed from
person to person,
there were several themes common to
each definition. One of these themes
focused on engaging with the works of
others. As our class soon found out, a
cornerstone of academic writing involves
building upon what has already been
said. This idea served as the foundation
of our three major research assignments during the semester.
“Genetic Paradigms: Lost in
Translation” was my final major
research assignment in Writing 20.
When I began that work, I had already
had considerable experience with
extending, challenging, and critiquing
the previous works of academics. Thus,
I decided to treat my final paper as a
“culminating work” in that it would
build upon everything I had done over
the course of the semester.
My first major writing project
concentrated on Peter Conrad’s essay,
“Genetics in the News: Dilemmas of a
Rising Paradigm.” Through an analysis
Ultimately, geneticists as
well as the popular media
must refine their approaches to contemporary genetics and forever bury genetic
determinism as an acceptable biological framework.
Genetic Paradigms: Lost in
Translation
Jeremy Friehling
Writing 20 (Spring 2008): Genetics and Society: Promise or Peril?
Professor Robin Smith
A
s a testament to its seemingly limitless potential, the human genome
has been deemed the “holy grail” of life. While such a metaphor captures the great promise that genetics holds for mankind, it simultaneously perverts the public’s perception of genetics and its role within the
etiological framework of human physiology, behavior, and personality.
Perhaps no other phenomenon better epitomizes this perversion than the persistence
of genetic reductionism and genetic determinism in the public parlance. Genetic
reductionism proposes that all human phenomena can be fundamentally understood
from a genetic standpoint, while genetic determinism implies that human beings are
the exclusive and immutable product of their genetic makeup (Beckwith 41). Genetic determinism is an oversimplified and outdated concept that bears no practical
meaning in the modern scientific community.
Contemporary science now generally accepts gene-by-environment interactions
as the modern biomedical paradigm that is at the root of the human condition
(Alper 36). However, this idea that both heritable and external factors work together to define an individual has yet to gain universal public acceptance. Why has
genetic determinism continued to linger in the modern public discourse? Jon
Beckwith, a research professor of molecular genetics at Harvard Medical School,
believes that geneticists may be at the heart of the problem (55). Historically, geneticists have wielded great power when it comes to the applications of genetics
research; however, they have failed to correctly shape public opinion. As a result,
they are largely responsible for the prevailing threat of genetic determinism in society. Although Beckwith is justified in his central claim, he fails to acknowledge the
importance of the popular media as the key vehicle through which science is translated from the academic community to the lay public. Through an analysis of the
history of genetic determinism and the reasons for its persistence in our culture, this
work will demonstrate that the interplay of both geneticists and the popular media
underlies the longevity of genetic determinism. Ultimately, geneticists as well as the
popular media must refine their approaches to contemporary genetics and forever
bury genetic determinism as an acceptable biological framework.
The origins of genetic determinism can be traced back to the growing interest in
heredity that emerged during the mid-late nineteenth century. Perhaps the first
appearance of the concept came in 1869 when Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles
Darwin, published a book called Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into its Laws and
Consequences. In that work, Galton asserted that “achievement” was strongly influenced by heredity because all of the prominent figures of his day had a documented
1 Because the two concepts are interrelated and often utilized interchangeably in contem-
58
porary literature, this work will henceforth refer to both using the umbrella term, genetic
determinism.
legacy of substantial familial achievement
over many generations. Although his work
was badly flawed due to a lack of recognition
of other significant factors such as wealth,
education, and social class, Galton nevertheless laid the foundation for genetic determinism (Reilly 133-4). In the early part of the
twentieth century, genetic determinism began
to gain momentum among pioneering geneticists in America, Britain, and Germany.
Essentially, it provided the necessary framework for the eugenics movement of the time
because the prevailing belief among geneticists was that heredity was unchangeable
(Beckwith 42). In accordance with eugenics,
geneticists of that era sought to increase the
proportion of “desirable” traits among the general population via selective marriage whilst
eliminating certain “undesirable” traits via
mandatory sterilization programs (Carnesale,
Lees, and Buder 30). The apex of the eugenics
movement in the United States saw the extension of genetic determinism to all sorts of
human behavior, ranging from “feeble-mindedness” to an “affinity for seafaring” (Kevles
and Hood 7). Unfortunately, the applications
of genetic determinism far outpaced the scientific research used to support them. Moreover,
according to Jon Beckwith, “Despite their
increasing disdain for the scientific arguments
of eugenics, geneticists generally failed to
speak out publicly” (43). It was not until the
rise of Nazi Germany and the subsequent
atrocities of Hitler’s “Final Solution” that
eugenics, along with genetic determinism, lost
support in American culture. Although the
concepts became associated with terrible science and inconceivable evils, they nevertheless
left their residual mark on society. It was only
a matter of time before the academic community would enter the age of molecular genetics
and biotechnology, and genetic determinism
would emerge once again. Genetic determinism, despite its nearly unanimous rejection
among today’s scholars, continues to permeate the fabric of society.
As in the past, the research conducted by
geneticists contributes to the sustained acceptance of genetic determinism among the general population. In the wake of the genomics
era, scientists are highly motivated to focus
their research on genetic factors. In fact, 85%
of today’s research budget is assigned to the
investigation of biomedical problems that
have some sort of genetic basis (Gailiun;
Strohman 172). A case in point is the Human
Genome Project, a scientific endeavor which
successfully mapped out the entire human
genome in an effort to better understand
human diseases, behaviors, and origins. From
1990-2005, the National Institutes of Health
contributed over $3 billion to the Human
Genome Project— by far the largest sum ever
allocated to a single research effort (Wellcome
Trust Sanger Institute). This reductionist
approach towards genetics research causes
the general public to hone in on the importance of genes, thus contributing to ongoing
public faith in genetic determinism. In addition, this method has become so popular that
other causal elements, especially those of the
external environment, are under-researched
and often discounted as significant contributors to the human context (Strohman 171).
Moreover, geneticists sometimes present a
more subtle view of genetic determinism by
proposing that there are limits to the degree
of change that can be made to one’s genotype
(Beckwith 46). This “limits” approach, which
suggests that there is little wiggle room within
the greater framework of genetic determinism, embodies the remnants of old deterministic attitudes towards genetics and may represent a reluctance among some geneticists to
fully change their views. Furthermore, it lacks
a sound scientific basis because the specificity
of the limits that are imposed by our genetic
makeup remains unknown. In light of this
research imbalance, and despite the fact that
genetics is still a budding science, leaders in
the field have boldly extended genetics to
nearly every realm of human life.
Public statements made by some geneticists
also often mislead the general public. When
geneticists publicly refer to their work, they
frequently speak in deterministic terms in
order to bolster their claims and extend the
implications of their results (Melo-Martín
526). In essence, they seek to promote acceptance of this doctrine
in society. For example, former
director of
the Human Genome
Project
and co-discoverer of
the structure of DNA,
James Watson,
famously stated,
“We used to think our
fate was in our stars. Now we know, in
of Conrad’s work, I learned
about how the popular press
misrepresents genetics in the
news. For my second major
writing project, I explored the
ways in which another popular
source—modern cinema— distorts the public’s perception of
genetics. Thus, after completing my first two major writing
assignments, I was under the
impression that only the media
was responsible for the general
populace’s lack of genetic acuity.
However, prior to beginning my final paper, I read Jon
Beckwith’s essay, “Geneticists
in Society, Society in Genetics.”
In his work, Beckwith placed
the blame solely on the shoulders of the scientific community.
I found this alternate perspective quite interesting, especially when it was juxtaposed
against all of my previous research on the topic. As a result,
my goal in “Genetic Paradigms:
Lost in Translation” was to
synthesize the two competing
claims in an effort to show how
both geneticists and the news
media are responsible for
society’s misunderstanding
of contemporary genetics.
This reductionist
approach towards
genetics research
causes the general
public to hone in on the
importance of genes,
thus contributing to
ongoing public faith in
genetic determinism.
59
60
large measure, our fate is in our genes” (qtd. in
Jaroff 67). Likewise, Paul Berg, a professor
emeritus at Stanford University, believes that
“many if not most human diseases are clearly
the result of inherited mutations.” Even
renowned behavioral geneticist Dean Hamer
has gone on record saying that everybody’s
“core personality [is] hardwired into their
bodies since birth, a genetic legacy from their
parents surely as the color of their eyes” (6).
Such quotations made by prominent geneticists distort the public’s perception of genetics
and ignore the significant role that the environment plays in our development as human
beings. While statements like those made by
Watson, Berg, and Hamer are not representative of the vast majority of geneticists, they
resonate in the public discourse, shaping the
attitudes of countless people and impressing
upon them the myth of genetic determinism.
Geneticists must be more conscientious about
how they present their results because they
may instill questionable ideas about the causal
role of genes in human biology. In the words
of Jon Beckwith, “It is the nature of science
that when a successful new theory or paradigm appears, it is often invoked to explain a
wide range of phenomena well beyond the
scope of the studies that led to it” (40).
Today’s clinical setting reinforces the concept of genetic determinism as well. Because
genes are given a unique and privileged status
in our society, deterministic attitudes that overestimate the role of genes in human affairs
have become quite popular (Oyama 177). This
tendency is evident in modern genetic testing.
Often, geneticists present the results of genetic
testing as definite rather than predictive (MeloMartín 527). Thus, genetic testing reinforces
the assumption that genes lead directly to specific diseases and behaviors, which in turn can
cause fatalistic outlooks. Genetic fatalism
tends to parallel genetic determinism, leading
individuals to believe that they cannot alter
their genetic fates. For example, studies have
shown that individuals found to be at an
increased genetic risk for heart disease feel that
cardiac illness is inevitable and immutable
(Senior, Marteau and Peters 1857). We must
remember that, for the most part, we still control our destiny. To forget this key point is to
sacrifice hope and submit to genetic omnipotence. In addition, straightforward, deterministic genetic diseases are extremely rare in
humans, comprising fewer than 2% of the
total disease load in the developed world
(Strohman 172). Moreover, the genetic empiri-
cism for social, mental, and behavioral characteristics in humans is lacking. Thus, in the case
of more complex behaviors, “the genetic
reductionist view of human traits has far outrun the scientific evidence [used to support it]”
(Beckwith 43). According to emeritus professor of molecular and cellular biology at the
University of California, Berkeley, Richard
Strohman, there are four levels of genetic complexity that one must consider at the clinical
level. Monogenic traits follow single-gene, or
Mendelian, inheritance patterns, polygenic
traits are characteristics derived from multiple
genes, epigenetic traits incorporate gene-bygene interactions, and gene-by-environment
interactions encompass the three prior levels of
heredity along with environmental interplay
(175). Thus, the tremendous complexity in
genetics debunks most clinical applications of
genetic determinism; monogenic diseases such
as Tay-Sach’s and Huntington’s are rare exceptions and, therefore, are not good proxies for
the greater picture (Alper 23).
In spite of genetic determinism’s entrenchment in the public discourse, contemporary scientific research underscores the shortcomings of
this antiquated philosophy. Instead, gene-byenvironment interactions now function as the
modern explanatory model for the human context within scholarly circles. The theory behind
gene-by-environment interactions seeks to end
the long-contested “nature versus nurture”
debate by acknowledging the role each side
plays in our biology (De Waal 98).
Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of gene-by-environment interactions in the etiology of various
conditions. For example,
We must
remember that,
for the most part,
we still control
our destiny. To
forget this key
point is to
sacrifice hope
and submit
to genetic
omnipotence.
one groundbreaking study conducted at Duke
University by Drs. Randy Jirtle and Robert
Waterland suggested that genetic predispositions can be drastically altered by external factors. The study showed that mice carrying a
genetic predisposition to cancer, diabetes, and
obesity can develop healthily and normally if
only a few simple dietary, not genetic, changes
are made (Watters). In humans, asthma has
been shown to be the intricate product of geneby-environment interactions. The actions of
certain alleles on chromosome 5, which
increase one’s susceptibility to developing asthma, are greatly enhanced by exposure to
tobacco smoke during infancy. In short, the
presence of both the predisposing alleles and
the environmental factor of secondhand smoke
interact to produce a much greater risk of
developing asthma than either component
does alone (Koppelman 103). Similarly, depression is a mental illness that has a gene-byenvironment interaction. Certain genetic predispositions can be modified by abusive
behavior during childhood such that they have
a combined influence on adult-onset depression. The interplay of genetic inheritance and
major life stresses greatly increases one’s susceptibility to developing depression, whereas
each factor alone is not significant enough to
achieve the same result (Bradley, Binder, et al.
190). Many more studies vindicate the hypothesis that gene-by-environment interactions are
at the root of many human characteristics and
that predisposition is not predestination; but,
the science is still in its infancy (Reilly 143). As
a result, when genetics arises in public discussions, the complex gene-by-environment model
has had to take a back seat to the older, albeit
obsolete, explanation of genetic determinism.
Although geneticists bear much of the
blame for the persistence of genetic determinism in our contemporary culture, one question still remains: who relays the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of the scientific community
to the general populace? The answer, quite
succinctly, is the popular media. Despite the
eugenics legacy of the past as well as the scientific research of the present, the popular
media continues to spread the concept of
genetic determinism. According to Peter
Conrad, a professor of medical sociology at
Brandeis University, “Genetic influence is complex, multifaceted, and indirect, yet it is often
presented in the news as if a single gene is
responsible for a behavior or condition” (66).
In his eyes, the popular press is guilty of committing two follies: “finding and losing genes”
(62) and conveying the “OGOD” (one gene,
one disease) assumption (66). By “finding and
losing genes,” Conrad implies that the news
media intentionally favors reporting on genetics research that yields positive results while
denying coverage to studies that see no effect.
Such a practice can leave false impressions on
the general public, especially when a promising study that claims a genetic basis for a particular disease or condition is subsequently
disproven. For example, behavioral geneticist
Dean Hamer claimed to have isolated a “gay”
gene in a 1993 study; however, several subsequent studies found no support for his
hypothesis (Reilly 148). The press enthusiastically reported on Hamer’s original publication, but it did not give any attention to the
later studies that debunked it (Conrad 70).
The cultural residues from “finding and losing genes” provide a solid foundation for the
persistence of genetic determinism in our society. Furthermore, by conveying the “OGOD”
model of genetics, the popular press ignores
the tremendous complexity associated with
modern genomics and, instead, drives home
the ideology of genetic determinism. For example, a headline from the Wall Street Journal
proclaiming, “Scientists Say They’ve Found
Gene That Causes Breast Cancer,” portrays
breast cancer, an illness with an intricate
genetic and environmental etiology, as a purely genetic disease unaffected by external factors (Waldholz B7). Even the language used by
the popular press in this example expresses a
sense of optimism that contributes to the overall hype surrounding genetics research in the
news. Despite the fact that the press employs
well-educated journalists with strong scientific
backgrounds, it encourages oversimplified
scientific reporting that will sell stories. In
essence, the news media has shrewdly created
a pathway whereby genetics research from the
academic community is filtered, shaped, and
tailored according to the press’ needs prior to
its dissemination to the general public.
In addition to the genetic-determinist propaganda championed by the print media,
modern cinema often espouses simplistic
models of genetics science. Science fiction
films, while an integral forum for popular discussions about real scientific issues, overexaggerate the potential modern science has
for mankind. With respect to genetics, movies
throughout the twentieth century have conveyed the idea that genetic determinism is a
scientific reality (Kirby 193). For example, the
1997 science fiction thriller Gattaca portrayed
In essence, the news
media has shrewdly created a pathway whereby
genetics research from the
academic community is
filtered, shaped, and
tailored according to the
press’ needs prior to its
dissemination to the
general public.
61
a futuristic world in which society has accepted the
gene as an omnipotent force in human biology. Set
in the not-too-distant future, Gattaca portrays a
world in which society has evolved a caste system
based not on race or gender, but rather on an individual’s genotype. Those who are genetically
enhanced at birth enjoy better health, cultural
62
acceptance, and career prospects during the course
of their lives, while those who are genetically “inferior” endure the hardships of society’s bottom rung
(Gattaca). Likewise, in their book, The DNA
Mystique, sociologists Dorothy Nelkin and Susan
Lindee identify that “popular culture is a business,
and the appeal of any product — be it a television sitcom, advertising campaign, or newspaper story —
depends on its resonance with consumer experience
and popular belief” (13). Science fiction films that
address genetics issues are no exception in that they
often misrepresent the facts in order to make the
story more interesting and accessible to the general
audience. They tend to perpetuate genetic determinism as a biological paradigm because it is appealing,
broadly understood, and widely appreciated among
the general public (Rose 49).
In fact, one of the primary reasons for the continued acceptance of genetic determinism among the
general public involves the inherent simplicity that is
associated with genetic determinism. Genetics provides much more solid quantitative and verifiable
results than, say, the complex epidemiological studies needed to document gene-by-environment interactions (Beckwith 41). People find solace in the simplicity of genetic determinism because they can
rationalize their current state of affairs by shifting
the blame from themselves to their “immutable”
genes. Furthermore, due to the legacy of the “nature
versus nurture” debate, a conflict which seeks to
determine whether genetics or the environment is
the primary factor behind human disease, behavior,
and personality, “we still love to phrase everything
in terms of one influence over the other, rather than
both [genetic and environmental influences]” (De
Waal 95). Due to the modern surge
in genetics research coupled with
our “sound-bite” culture, today’s
society loves to frame human characteristics solely in terms of genetic
influences. And, despite primatologist Frans De Waal’s claim that
“no one is in a better position than
the scientists themselves to warn
against distortions and to explain
the complexities” (99), geneticists
choose to remain silent and distance
themselves from the public dialogue, thus allowing the popular
media to continue to manipulate
public opinion. The scientific community maintains that “science is a
neutral pursuit where scientists
have no role in entering into discussions of social issues, even when
there is a scientific component to
the discussions” (Beckwith 51).
It remains clear that geneticists, in conjunction
with the popular media, have been behind the prevailing specter of genetic determinism in the public
parlance. Consequently, each has failed to assume its
moral responsibility to help transition the public
from the simple, dogmatic concept of genetic determinism to the more complex and multifaceted framework of gene-by-environment interactions. In the
future, geneticists as well as the popular media must
assume accountability for their actions and ensure
that the general public is properly educated about
genetic complexity. Education is the key to welcoming the age of genomics into our modern social order.
Furthermore, it is apparent that genetic determinism
is an archaic philosophy that has not only survived
the research that debunks it but has also outpaced
the research that supports it. Although some geneticists believe that “arguing against genetic determinism is like battling the undead” (Oyama 192), geneticists must work together with the popular media to
vanquish the haunting myth. As Jon Beckwith advises, “... the lessons of history mandate a greater participation in public debates over the importance of
genes and a greater involvement in public education
by scientists” (54). It is never too late to remedy what
has been lost in translation and bridge the gap
between science and society. Works Cited
Alper, Joseph S. “Ch. 1: Genetic Complexity in
Human Disease and Behavior.” In The DoubleEdged Helix: Social Implications of Genetics in a
Diverse Society, ed. Joseph S. Alper, Catherine
Ard, et al. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2002. 17-38.
In the future, geneticists
as well as the popular
media must assume
accountability for their
actions and ensure that
the general public is
properly educated about
genetic complexity.
Beckwith, Jon. “Ch 2: Geneticists in Society,
Society in Genetics.” In The Double-Edged
Helix: Social Implications of Genetics in a
Diverse Society, ed. Joseph S. Alper, Catherine
Ard, et al. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2002. 39-57.
Berg, Paul. “The Human Genome Project: Biological Nature and Social Opportunities.” Talk
presented at the Stanford Centennial Symposium.
11 Jan. 1991.
Bradley, Rebekah G., Elisabeth B. Binder, et al.
“Influence of Child Abuse on Adult Depression:
Moderation by the Corticotropin-Releasing
Hormone Receptor Gene.” Archives of General
Psychiatry 65.2 (2008): 190-200. PubMed.
Duke U Lib., 2 Apr. 2008 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed>.
Carnesale, Mary, Brittany Lees, and Hans Buder.
“Policy Briefing: Germline Gene Modification
and the Specter of Eugenics.” Deliberations 6
(2005): 30-37.
Conrad, Peter. “Ch. 3: Genetics and Behavior in
the News: Dilemmas of a Rising Paradigm.” In
The Double-Edged Helix: Social Implications of
Genetics in a Diverse Society, ed. Joseph S. Alper,
Catherine Ard, et al. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2002. 58-79.
De Waal, Frans B.M. “The End of Nature Versus
Nurture.” Scientific American 281.6 (1999):
94-99. EBSCOhost. Duke U Lib., Durham. 2
Apr. 2008 <http://www.ebscohost.com>.
Gailiun, Michelle. “NIH’s Budget Flatlines.”
Duke Today. 11 Mar. 2008. Duke Institute for
Genome Sciences and Policies. 19 Apr. 2008
<http://www.genome.duke.edu/press/news/0311-2008>.
Gattaca. Dir. Andrew Niccol. Prod. Danny DeVito.
Perf. Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, and Jude
Law. DVD. Columbia Pictures Corporation,
1997. 106 min.
Hamer, Dean. Living With Our Genes. New York,
NY: Doubleday, 1998.
Jaroff, Leon. “The Gene Hunt.” Time. 20 Mar.
1989: 67.
Kevles, Daniel J, and Leroy E. Hood. “Ch. 1: Out
of Eugenics: The Historical Politics of the
Human Genome.” The Code of Codes: Scientific
and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1993. 3-36.
Kirby, David A. “The New Eugenics in Cinema:
Genetic Determinism and Gene Therapy in
Gattaca.” Science Fiction Studies. 24 Jul. 2000:
193-215.
Koppelman, Gregroy H. “Gene by Environment
Interaction in Asthma.” Current Allergy
and Asthma Reports 6.2 (2006): 103-11.
PubMed. Duke U Lib., Durham. 2 Apr. 2008
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed>.
Melo-Martín, Inmaculada. “Firing Up the Nature/
Nurture Controversy: Bioethics and Genetic Determinism.” Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (2005):
526-30. EBSCOhost. Duke U Lib., Durham.
2 Apr. 2008 <http://www.ebscohost.com>.
Nelkin, Dorothy, and Susan Lindee. The DNA
Mystique. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman, 1995.
Oyama, Sosai M. “Terms in Tension: What Do
You Do When All the Good Words are Taken?”
In Cycles of Contingency, ed. Sosai M. Oyama,
Paul E. Griffiths and Russell D. Gray.
Cambridge, MA. The MIT Press, 2001: 177-93.
Reilly, Philip R. “Ch. 11: Talent: Nature or
Nurture?” Abraham Lincoln’s DNA and Other
Adventures in Genetics. Cold Spring Harbor,
NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press,
2000. 131-43.
—. “Ch. 12: Gay Genes: What’s the Evidence?”
Abraham Lincoln’s DNA and Other Adventures
in Genetics. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2000. 145-155.
Rose, Christopher S. “Biology in the Movies: Using
the Double-Edged Sword of Popular Culture to
Enhance Public Understanding of Science.”
Evolutionary Biology 34 (2007): 49-54. Web of
Science. Duke U Lib., Durham. 9 Apr. 2008
<http://scientific.thomson. com/products/wos>.
Senior, Victor, Theresa M. Marteau and Timothy J.
Peters. “Will Genetic Testing for Predisposition
for Disease Result in Fatalism?” Social Science
and Medicine 48 (1999): 1857-60.
Strohman, Richard C. “Genetic Determinism as a
Failing Paradigm in Biology and Medicine:
Implications for Health and Wellness.” Journal
of Social Work Education 39.2 (2003): 169-91.
EBSCOhost. Duke U Lib., Durham. 2 Apr. 2008
<http://www.ebscohost.com>.
Waldholz, Michael. “Scientists Say They’ve Found
Gene That Causes Breast Cancer.” Wall Street
Journal. 14 Sept. 1994.
Watson, James D. “President’s Essay: Genes and
Politics.” Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Annual Report, 1997.
Watters, Ethan. “DNA Is Not Destiny.” Discover.
22 Nov. 2006. 28 Jan. 2008 <http://discover
magazine.com/ 2006/nov/cover/article_view?
b_start:int=0&-C=>.
Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. “Human Genome
Project Shows the Wonder and the Mystery of
Humankind.” Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute.
11Feb. 2005. 2 Apr. 2008 <http://www.sanger.
ac.uk/HGP/publication2001/mainrelease.
shtml>.
63