When you hear about this Zaragozano who was born in 1934, has the feeling of being at one of those people who were born to make a stage. Juan Ramón Lacadena is an affable-looking man, a gesture sure and strong tone, he gives to his dialectical knowledge of a lifetime devoted to science. He is a member of the English Society of Genetics, of which he was founder and president for five years and just left his office as Professor Emeritus at the University Complutense of Madrid, where he was professor of genetics for almost thirty and five years. It is also Corresponding Member of the Royal National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences Institute of Spain, and Academician of the Royal Academy of Pharmacy Institute of Spain.
Today, with the kindness that always shows, has agreed to grant an interview to talk about science and literature, and as always, his words are presented as the keynote of a genius who assumes his condition with a lucid simplicity.
(interview published in the magazine 13 elcoloquiodelosperros, May de2006)
José
Antonio Garrido (JAG). Good morning, Juan Ramón. Let's start talking about science and society that word has come to accept but it took getting used to: cloning. When in February 1997 was announced to the world the existence of a cloned sheep named Dolly, the holder of a tabloid-tinged newspaper read: "Today the sheep, tomorrow the shepherd." Moreover, quite often the literature has addressed the issue of human cloning and the future societies with catastrophism resigned. Do you think this is merely a literary or believes there are reasons to be really as pessimistic regarding the future and use the tools that science brings in the hands of man?
Juan Ramón Lacadena (JRL). Good morning José Antonio. More than dyes sensational, I would say that the holder of that article wanted to be prophetic. I've used many times because I think it was a wise editorial marketing. In fact, after the sheep Dolly was cloned animals have been more than a dozen species of mammals: mouse, cow, goat, rabbit, pig, horse, mule, deer, cat, dog, etc. Since we may assume that advances in genetics of reproduction and embryology laboratory and domestic mammals can be extrapolated to humans, that means to achieve in the human species is not a question rather than decision, money ... and ethics. However, the reality today is very difficult being human cloning. Dismissing the fraudulent research conducted in 2004 and 2005 by Dr. Hwang in Seoul National University who accumulated more than sixty human embryos obtained by nuclear transfer technique, the experimental reality is reduced to two embryos, one of which failed to pass the six-cell stage and the other just reached the blastocyst stage. But again, if there are no ethical and legal barriers to end could be reached to obtain cloned human embryos.
JAG. In February 2001 published the human genome sequence, while in September 2005 was that of the chimpanzee which was revealed in the journal Nature. Comparative analysis of both sequences conclude that the number of protein-coding genes in both cases is around 20,000-a number considerably lower than expected, at least for the man, and orthologous proteins (equivalent) to which these genes result are extremely similar. Given this fact it raised a number of bioethical issues such as what makes us human and chimpanzees do to them or in what sense these developments has led the small differences to become what we are. What is your opinion?
JRL. Indeed, early drafts almost complete human genome sequencing were released simultaneously in 2001 by two private research groups and groups that competed in the race and that coordinated, respectively, Drs J. Craig Venter and Francis Collins. Three years later, in 2004, the International Consortium presented the final sequence almost 99% of the human genome.
Regarding the question that makes me remember that at the Conference on "The Right to the Human Genome Project" which was organized by Dr. Santiago Grisolia, held in Bilbao in 1993, Dr. Venter spoke of interest to undertake the "Chimpanzee Genome Project" as a basis for comparing our genome with the chimpanzee, our closest evolutionary relatives among the species that have survived in the process of evolution phylogenetic line Pongids since in the line of hominids only the human species has survived. Well, actually, as you say, in 2005 presented a first draft, still incomplete - of the chimpanzee genome. In comparing the two genomes, yours and ours, it follows that we share about 99% of DNA sequences. However, they are cute and we are human beings. Why is this so? What makes us different?
have written thousands of pages trying to establish the differences between humans and chimpanzees or any other species of great apes such as gorillas and orangutans. Intellectually satisfying to me the following answer: Humans have three singularities that have no other animal species: 1) We are educated individuals, ie are genetically capable of using symbolic language. Human culture began when the first hominid was able to tell a fellow his symbolic language by something he had done. 2) We are religious subjects; ie, are genetically equipped to wonder about the meaning of life, our origin and destination. We are able to transcend ourselves questioning the existence of God and freely accept afirmativativa or negative response. Do you think that a chimpanzee can make such statements? 3) We are ethical subjects, ie, are genetically equipped to foresee the consequences of our actions, to make value judgments distinguishing right from wrong and choosing freely to do good or evil.
In this context it could refer to the Great Ape Project which seeks to extend to chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans the community of peers who constitute beings human. The Great Ape Project, which began in 1993 led by the philosopher Peter Singer has recently undergone a social debate in Spain, having been presented by the Socialist Group in the Congress of Deputies a non-legislative proposal urging the Government to adhere to the Project.
JAG. A few weeks ago was approved in the House of Congress the Law on Assisted Human Reproduction Techniques legalizing preimplantation genetic diagnosis, a technique that allows to detect certain abnormalities in the embryo and transferred to the womb only embryos genetically "normal" for chromosomes studied. With this technique could prevent diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy or Fanconi anemia. But the Catholic Church, as in many other aspects related to the advancement of science, has given its public disapproval. It seems that the disagreement Science-Church was total. Do you think that one point on which both could-or should we say "should" ... - merge? Are they really immiscible Catholic doctrine and the future of science?
JRL. The question to me is very complex and require much time and space to respond. I'll start answering at the end: I do believe that science and belief are compatible and who are required to understand. Moreover, I can say I am a believing scientist and I do not consider them a kind of intellectual schizophrenia because I know how far and where to begin Scientific Belief. What you can not do is mix things up as happened, for example, the controversy "creationist" evolution "in the United States. Often happens in such controversial issues that scientific knowledge is so great that knowing "how" things happen are confused with the "why." On these issues I have written many articles and a small book titled "Faith and Biology." Responding
now the first part of your question I will say that in my opinion, the issue of embryo selection, and when speaking of selection must be aware that the other side of the coin is the elimination of embryos, is not a problem religion, but an ethical problem which solves each according to their own well-founded criteria. A few years ago I decided to leave the laboratory bench to devote all my time for reflection and interdisciplinary dialogue between genetics, which is my profession, and Bioethics. I have never regretted that decision, so much so that in 2004, my seventy years, got the degree master's in Bioethics.
JAG. Literature and science are creative fields or knowledge, despite having much in common, have traditionally presented separately and divergent. However, there are many writers who have played with success in his novels scientific issues such as Jules Verne or Aldous Huxley, to name only the most famous, and scientists who have developed their literary work recognized success as is the case Conan Doyle, Asimov or Doctor Marañón. Do you think that respect for entering a field that is considered alien may be causing us to lose great literary treasures famous writers or scientific training?
JRL. I am all in favor of an intellectual activity that combines scientific knowledge and skills as a writer. Here I would like demarcation of two situations: one is the scientist who is also a writer of great literary value, say for example Dr. Marañón, which you mentioned, and another scientist who is also a great promoter. Science popularization is needed to educate society. It is important to know how to convey in language accessible to the average citizen the realities and research achievements. Moreover, in these current times in which scientific advances are so spectacular, but still full of problems ethical, it is our duty to communicate to society the more complex issues as clearly as possible, helping the city form its own view of topics in principle difficult to understand. This is to avoid "social manipulation" that sometimes accompanies the "genetic manipulation" and not confuse "public opinion" with "public opinion."
JAG. The work of junior Prince of Asturias Award for Technical and Scientific Research, the Portuguese neurologist Antonio Damasio, has been instrumental in understanding how brain areas which are involved decision making and behavior, and sets the brain basis of language and memory. Do you think genetics should have the final word on it, having set the foundations of human behavior in the gene sequence of the individual?
JRL. For many years, in my books and my classes Genetics at the University come to argue that the "behavior" is the last component of development, starting with cell proliferation, cytodifferentiation, histogenesis, organogenesis and morphogenesis. By analogy, in Developmental Genetics of the gene is passed unidimensional and leaf morphogenesis blastodermic dimensional two-dimensional and multidimensional behavior.
How to define the behavior? For me, the best definition of behavior I read Professor Pinillos: behavior can be understood by "any reaction to any stimulus." The virtue of this definition is so simple that covers all types of behavior, from taxis tropism and simpler to more complex behaviors such as reflexes, instincts, learning and intelligence.
The study of behavioral genetics has several difficulties such as: 1) The difficulty of defining and assessing the character wants to study. 2) the distance so great that there are genetic-speaking-between genotype and phenotype or behavior pattern. Think of the receptors that receive the stimulus, the nervous system or endocrine intermediary process it and effectors that carry out the response and all of them may be genetically determined. 3) Thirdly we must consider the influence of the environment that can interfere with and modify the action of genes. In genetic studies of human behavior must be very careful, we can not say without more that everything is due to genes, the DNA sequence in the terms of your question, or that genes play no role and that everything is due to the environment, as is sometimes heard to say. In humans there are many behavioral traits in which there is no doubt that there is a genetic influence and environmental influence, the important thing is to try to ascertain the extent to influence both components. In many situations to escape the absolute genetic determinism, going to the "bias" or "sensitivities" in terms of probabilities.
JAG. Books like "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris, "The Panda's Thumb" by Stephen Jay Gould, the well-known and best-selling novel by Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene "deal, so pleasant and entertaining, along with scientific rigor, such issues as the evolution of the species, paleontology and genetics, and have a more than acceptable reception of the public. Do not you think that scientists should put more often grounded to develop an informative work that would contribute to bringing science to society?
JRL. I have already referred earlier to the popularization of science. What happens is that there are many fine scientists who either orally or in writing disclose know science, as well as being good scientists are bad teachers.
JAG. In the book "The Selfish Gene" the theory that the author tries to develop is to say something like that chicken is the tool that holds the egg to give rise to another egg (English writer famous aphorism of Samuel Butler), but brought genetics. That is, a living organism is structurally more than what their genetic material required to be. Do you think that this assertion leaves us helpless in regards to human behavior? What would take place ethics and morality, if the end of the day are nothing more than the consequence of what we need to perpetuate our genes?
JRL. Your question is somewhat reductionist and frustrating if things were to exactly as you the poses. When fertilization occurs in two gametes form a zygote, after a wonderful genetically controlled development process will result in an individual of the species to which belong the gamete in question: a mouse, a dog or someone human, as appropriate. Responding in a manner similar to an earlier question you raised me in this interview, the genetic information that is developing that body enables him to be what it is and behave accordingly. Being the result, quotes, our genes do not prevent us from developing our moral attributes.
JAG. It is little more than sixty years since Avery, MacLeod and McCarty demonstrated that the "transforming principle" responsible for the phenomenon of bacterial transformation was the deoxyribonucleic acid, ie, that DNA is the hereditary material. A few years later a very young Watson (he was only 25 years by then) and the British scientist F. Crick published the structural model of the double helix in the journal "Nature." Since then, genetics has made great strides and a dizzying pace. Does the immediate future so "generous" in terms of major discoveries or development of fundamental techniques of genetic engineering mean?
JRL. Yes The golden rule of research has three components: 1) raise an important question, 2) choose the appropriate biological species to try to answer it, and 3) use the methodology most appropriate conceptual and instrumental. I once did a study on the history of genetics in the light of the Nobel prizes, giving the casual fact that genetics began with the rediscovery of Mendel's laws in 1900 and the Nobel Foundation began life in 1901, and is that you can make a parallel study of the history of genetics and Nobel prizes awarded to scientists from the fields of genetics. Until the year 2005 was awarded the Nobel Prize 31 times to 66 scientists in the field of genetics, either by their great conceptual ideas which represented important milestones in genetic science, such as, for example, answer the following questions: What are genes? How to organize and convey? How and when they express themselves? How do you change? - Scientific or analytical techniques introduced which allowed progress in new areas of research such as, for example, techniques for sequencing and amplification of DNA, recombinant DNA molecules, site-directed mutagenesis, monoclonal antibodies or restriction endonucleases. All years, when they approach the dates in the month of October are made public the new winners do my own pool, I think the pioneer scientists in the fields of genomics, embryonic stem cells or transgenic knockout mice by homologous recombination, for example, may be future candidates to be awarded the Nobel Prize.
JAG. Finally, recommend a book, scientific or not, he has left a pleasant aftertaste.
JRL. The last book I read was "Anatomy of scientific fraud" of HF Judson, translated this same year 2006 by Editorial Crítica. I found it interesting but leaves a bitter taste which is a lack of ethical behavior in the world of research. It recommended a book to be discussed and debated in seminars and PhD courses to train young people starting their careers in science, warning them not to succumb to the many pressures that are going to find.
JAG. Thank you very much for everything. It is a pleasure to share a few minutes with someone like you.
JRL. Thank you very much to you. The pleasure is shared.
0 comments:
Post a Comment