Dr. Carl Douglas answering questions at a Genome BC forum

Dr. Carl Douglas was a speaker at the forum, he is a a botanist at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and was there to discuss his research and the possibility of using poplar trees as biofuel.  It came up that, as his project is funded by Genome B.C., he is required to have a societal or ethical component to his science research.  As a result, Dr. Thomas Maness, a forest economist at UBC, is doing a feasibility study to determine how likely it is to grow poplar trees in B.C. as a form of fuel.

It occurred to me that this type of question should have always been a component of science, especially science aimed at providing the population with a tool or resource.  It made me question why it was never included before.  For example if Dr. Douglas’ research was wildly successful but no research had been done in the application of his science, how would a decision to fund such a large scale project be made?

On the most general level science is here to satisfy a certain curiosity.  It helps us to understand how our universe works around us.  But, we are only truly understanding how things work if we go beyond the basic science and discover how things work within the context of our society.  If we determine how to best use poplar trees as fuel, we also need to determine if B.C. can afford such a project and if these trees will grow well here.

Simon Baron-Cohen, developmental psychologist and author of the article on which all this hype is based, said that his research is about finding the cause of autism and is not motivated by developing a pre-natal test for autism.

Doesn’t one follow from the other? Regardless of Baron-Cohen’s research motivations, he has no control over the implications of his findings.

A story in Nature today looks at Baron-Cohen’s controversial ‘extreme male brain’ theory of autism, and highlights the opposition from the scientific community.

Another story in the Guardian questions the reliability and safety of such a test, if it were ever developed.

The tools to design are being crafted faster than anyone could imagine.

New research has linked high levels of testosterone in amniotic fluid, the liquid the bathes the fetus, to autism.

Sarah Boseley, health editor at the Guardian, said how it could be used as a pre-natal test for autism in an interview today.

It’s well worth 2:38 of your time. Boseley also squeezes in a few interesting subtleties that could be missed by such a test.

Well, not exactly.

A British baby girl has been born without the BRCA1 gene that is linked to breast cancer. That in itself is not special, however, the embryo she grew from was specially selected for because it didn’t have the defective BRCA1 gene.

Her story made headlines and raised concerns about designer babies. As always, people are asking (or are afraid to ask), what’s next?

Technology is pushing us into unchartered waters where ethical grounds have not been laid down to determine how, and whether at all, people can choose the features of their unborn child.

A story in the Guardian asked, if given the choice, would couples opt to have a child without autism. It then followed with the hypothesis that such a pre-natal test would eliminate future geniuses, citing the example of the briliant British physicist Paul Dirac who was purportedly autistic.

It’s possible to imagine that techniques such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, which was used to select the BRCA1-free embryo, could be used to select against embryos with diseases that we know very little about and whose acceptance is culturally determind.

Science, tread carefully.