Editorial Music & Art Travel Book Review Humour Column Poetry Prev Issue Next Issue

Genetic Advances Have Some Drawbacks Melvin Durai Melvin Durai is a Pennsylvania-based writer and humorist. Born in Tamil Nadu, India, he grew up in Zambia and moved to the U.S. in the early 1980s. In 1995, while working as a reporter for a daily newspaper in Chambersburg, Pa., he began writing a regular humor column. His weekly column now appears in several newspapers and on a number of Web sites. He also writes a twice-monthly column on Indian and Indian-American issues. He is a diehard fan of the National Football League and also likes to run, lift weights and play soccer, tennis and pool. An award-winning feature writer and aspiring novelist, he plans to publish a collection of his best columns. You can write to him at humor@melvin.com To read his older columns, go to http://www.humor.melvin.com

Remember Gregor Mendel? In the 19th century, the Austrian monk used pea plants to discover the basic laws of genetics, explaining, for example, why some plants are tall and some are short. Mendel's work was largely ignored during his lifetime, partly because Mendel, being a typical monk, neglected to hire a publicist. He could have signed a million-dollar book deal and become a hero not only to monks and scientists, but also to pea farmers everywhere.

If Mendel lived today and announced his findings to the world, things would be considerably different. Rather than being ignored, he would become instantly famous, as the subject of hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of jokes. Yes, poor Gregor would be ridiculed all the way back to his monastery.

Newspaper editor: "So what award-winning story are you going to write today?"

Science reporter: "I don't know. There are two major press conferences to cover. In the first, two teams of scientists are announcing that they've unveiled the human genome, identifying every letter of the genetic code. In the second, an Austrian monk is announcing that he knows why some pea plants are short."

Editor: "I'm not too smart, but I think you should write about the human genome. Let Jay Leno handle the monk. Perhaps I'll also tell our cartoonist about him. With Elian gone, he's running out of material."

The human race has certainly come a long way since Gregor's days. We're not only cloning animals and using DNA to catch crooks, we've now identified all 3.1 billion molecular "letters" of DNA found in every human being, even Ross Perot. Like other observers, I applaud the latest achievement and wish to send this message to the scientists: "Congratulations! Keep up the good work. And whatever you do, please stay away from my DNA."

There's no denying the potential benefits of the decoded human genome. It could help us predict whether a person is susceptible to a specific disease, whether certain genetic defects are likely to be transferred to offspring, whether it's wise to allow Chelsea Clinton to have an intern.

It could also help us determine whether humans evolved from apes. Although I don't believe in evolution, I've often wondered -- especially in hot weather -- why I'm so darn hairy. And why I like to eat nuts and berries.

But I'm afraid that DNA readings will tell us more than we want to know about ourselves and our children.

Doctor to excited parents of newborn baby: "I just got the results of your son's DNA analysis. The good news is that he has a nice set of acting genes and could be successful in either Hollywood or Congress. The bad news is that he has litigious genes and could become a lawyer. Would you like to put him up for adoption?"

In the wrong hands, a person's DNA analysis could be harmful. By "wrong hands," I'm of course talking about the government. But private companies can be just as intrusive.

Assistant manager: "Why didn't you hire that candidate? She has a great resume."

Manager (taking a puff of his cigarette): "Yes, she's a bright woman, she interviewed well and has lots of experience. But I just don't like her DNA. Our health insurance bill will hit the roof if we hire someone who's likely to get cancer."

Start a discussion on this article