The documentary, “Cracking your Genetic Code”, gave a fairly comprehensive look into the world of DNA sequencing and issues related with this practice. Often times, when we think of genome sequencing, the movie GATTACA comes to mind which has led many to believe that we can tailor individuals to have certain characteristics. Yet, this is far from the truth as our understanding of how genes operate is still not complete and instead we can only give probabilistic estimates. However, the most important question this documentary provoked was one that I struggled with for a couple days, “Do you want you genomes sequenced?” The examples provided in the documentary showed both sides of the dilemma. On one hand, through genome sequencing, doctors and researchers are able to gather even more information. On the other hand, many individuals don’t want their genomes sequenced in the hopes of not finding they have a high risk of a life altering disease. Moreover, many are concerned about the confidentiality of the results of their personal genome and I think this the most pressing dilemma. If employers have access to these results and can make hiring decisions based off them, many will be deterred from getting their genome sequenced. Thus, as startups become more sophisticated and sequencing becomes more common, we have to work together to create safe laws and guidelines to ensure confidentiality.

Personally, I feel that genome sequencing should become common practice in the coming years as the benefits far outweigh the costs. Allowing doctors to gain more data will help further advance medicine and create a healthier future for all.

This movie, NOVA, introduces the decoding of human genes and the impact of this technology.

Even a 5-year-old child, who never took any biology class, would probably be able to tell that DNA includes all the information that makes a human. Meanwhile we know very little about the information encoded. After decades of research, the scientists can now indentify the protean types of the numerous pairs on the DNA chain. Yet, we still have limited understanding on how these protean relate to our biological features. Luckily we are now already able to utilize the limited knowledge to improve human welfare, especially in medicine. Reearchers in the area believe that human will be able to completely manipulate these genetic information, i.e. modify what makes up us.

Thrilled by the wonder of science, we still need to consider the ethical side of this development. Should each indiviual have access to his/her own DNA info, and how can we protect the privacy of such info? If we can just genetically modify our descedents, what are the moral issues that come with it?

I personally think that we should consider this problems without stopping our studies becuase the benefits are irresistable. Would not it be great to not having illness or birth-defects anymore?

The scientific film-Cracking Your Genetic Code inspired me to reconsider the meaning of fear. If someone got a disease, does his fear come from the suffering from guessing, planning or imaging his unpredictable future or the real disease causes him to suffer. In other words, people may tend to think those who got diseases are poor because they have to suffer from the pain caused by the disease and they might have a shorter or more restricted life compared with normal people. However, the suffer of someone’s guessing before he or she was ‘officially’ informed to have a disease is also painful, or even more painful sometimes. Some people choose to suicide not because they have the disease but probably because they are tired of the mental breakdown or nervous tension. They just want to get rid of the ‘mental disease’.

Then, as the film introduced, our society is going to develop a technique by which people can foresee their disease by checking their genetic code. Of course, it is a powerful method and one of the most significant scientific movements which is great to our society. However, if we reconsider the information the technique provide, are we actually willing to take it? Are you feeling better if you were told that your genes said that you would have a disease? It is good for the genes to be ‘transparent’ to me but sometimes I would rather choose to stay unknown and foolish since sometimes, the fear from disease is from the fear of having the disease.

This past Friday I watched a documentary about cracking the code of life, DNA. The documentary itself focused on the idea that the human genome presents the answers to most of life’s mysteries and that by doing full DNA sequencing we can potentially save the lives of thousands of people. However, it also raises many ethical questions. Will genomics eventually lead to designer children? Is it reckless to give people access to their entire genomes? What will happen if insurance companies or employers find something undesirable in an applicants genome? All of these are extremely valid questions that should be addressed before attempting to reach an answer on whether or not genomics is practical and ethical. However, one should not ignore the amazing medical potential genomics and DNA sequencing has.

In the documentary, it they discuss how DNA sequencing has helped saved the lives of many, including two twins born with health issues. Standard medical diagnoses could not help the children and had they not underwent DNA sequencing it is very possible they would have died by now. However, DNA sequencing allowed scientists and doctors to find irregular letters in their genetic pattern. By prescribing medicine to correct this irregularity the twins eventually saw an incredible change eventually becoming fully fledged healthy adults. All of this would have been impossible without genomics and thus for this reason I believe that genomics is extremely beneficial. However, as mentioned I believe it also has some drawbacks.

In the case of those with Huntington’s disease there is nothing that can be done even if they are found to have the gene linked to the disease. It is cases like these that make me question whether or not genomics is really ethical. If one discovers that they have the gene then they are left with no choice but to wait until the symptoms begin to appear. One could argue that this would allow the person to go out and enjoy life as much as possible until that time, but on the other hand it could send a person into a very deep depression. Additionally, there are many other genes that could potentially “increase” a persons risk for a certain disease which could effect both their mental health as well as their job and insurance opportunities if this data was to fall into the wrong hands.

Overall, the documentary really made me question something for the first time in a while. Typically when you see something in the news you might be influenced to think one way or the other, but after a few minutes you will probably forget all about it. In this case I feel as though the documentary laid out both the pros and cons of genomics and presented it in such a way that forces the topic to remain on your mind. I believe that due to this the documentary is extremely effective at conveying the information it wants people to know but also allows for the topic to enter into the front lines of discussion by providing people with the opportunity to make up their own opinions after having heard facts for both sides of the argument.

I found the documentary enlightening, partly because I was unaware that science, technology, and the database of information on what genes influence specific conditions had progressed as far as being able to predict so much about our personal experiences at different stages in life. Yet, I was, as one of the women in the film, a little disturbed that so much information could be readily available to me if I so wish. Much like in statistics, where newfound information can tell you much about the probability of related events, knowing our genetic information can influence the probability of the actions we take in the future.

In light of this, I would like to consider Nelson Mandela’s words, “May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears.” I am of the belief that fear is a strong motivator for our actions, yet I do not want to reflect on my life decisions knowing they were based on all the worst case scenarios instead of the best of opportunities available to me.  If the fear is there for someone who would like to minimize their risk of certain conditions, life-style choices could be made, independently of genetic information available, to  avoid such conditions. I realize that this theory does not account for certain conditions that we are unaware we are at risk of, but some those conditions are typically a result of family history that most people are generally aware about.

I believe that a little ignorance about our future can go a long way in helping us remain rational, hopeful, and happy. Would you want to know about an imminent condition despite your inability to take action in regards to its prevention? Would this knowledge put avoidable stressors on your life with thoughts of what hurdles may lay ahead in your future? Would you want to worry for the rest of your life about the possibility of developing a condition that you may never get? While I can appreciate the advancements that modern medicine can make with the knowledge of a human’s genome, these are also important things to consider when it comes to the repercussions of our curiosity.