ethics

Whether we are likely to cheat or not is (partly) written in our genes.

The media promotes sexual promiscuity and freedom as empowering and contemporary, however it turns out that people can be either monogomous or polygamous. Alot of people will fall into one of the two categories; either you form deep attachments to people and prefer just one person, or you enjoy the freedom to be with whoever you want and get a thrill out of multiple sexual partners.

Time to shrug off the guilt and see through the misconceptions about what you should or shouldn’t be doing. This works both ways! If your monogomous but single, you may feel pressured by the media to explore your sexuality and enjoy multiple partners. Moreover if you’re polygamous, you may feel labelled or branded as someone who sleeps around or is anti-commitment. There’s no winning!

Or is there? I think the only way to truly win in situations like this is to be your self, and to be honest about how you feel with other people to decrease the likelihood of those around you getting hurt! That comes after deciding to feel proud and content with who you are, and maybe after reading this article, you’ll feel more ready to be your true self.

Oxytocin (in women) and vasopressin (in men) are the hormones which enable you to bond and to feel attached and close to people around you. Recent research has shown that there are different versions of these genes which contribute to your phenotype (observable characteristics of a gene). If you’re more monogamous, then these hormones are released in response to interactions with your partner encouraging feelings of closeness and bonding, and the receptors are more frequent and located near dopamine receptors which trigger the reward pathway making you more likely to go back for more. However if you’re more polygamous, then you get less oxytocin/vasopressin release and don’t get the same reward pathway stimulus, leaving you looking elsewhere for the hit.

A study from the University of Queensland shows that our genes are only partly to do with whether we’re more likely to cheat on a partner; there are so many environmental and emotional factors which also play a part. In this study, they tested the correlation between cheating partners and their genes, and they found that genes linked to infidelity were present in 65% of cases of men who cheated in past relationships, but only present in 40% of women; showing that men are more at mercy to their genotype than women.

I think they key is to embrace who you are; and be honest about who you are to yourself and to others in the kindest way. Actually quite a hard and courageous thing to do, I’ve found.

So the picture with this article is me at a full moon party on Koh Phangyan in Thailand a couple of years ago! I try and only use my own pictures on my blog, and this was the closest I could find that has anything to do with being promiscuous haha – even though it’s just a picture of me dancing! Below me pulling a funny face is my aussie friend Zan.

To edit or not to edit? Science is making major advances by the second, and with all this new-found power and knowledge comes responsibility, but where do we draw the line? As with subjects like Law and Philosophy, science is having to answer a difficult question along a very thin line; and us black and white, right or wrong scientists are going to have a pretty hard time finding a universal, one-fits-all solution that we strive so hard to achieve in our research.

CRISPR, a gene-editing tool, has opened up many doors for scientists, inside and outside of the lab, and is a revolutionary new way to explore life, and change it. It’s a technique used by bacteria to edit DNA. Now that we have sequenced the human genome, we can edit in or out any gene that we want, thus enabling us to change life at its core. For those with little scientific knowledge: a gene codes for a protein. A gene is made up of DNA, which is transcribed into RNA, which is translated into a protein. Everything in our body is made up of proteins; our hair, skin, blood, heart.. everything. So with the power to alter genes, we can change anything in the human body.

The science bit

CRISPR was first discovered in the immune systems of bacteria to fight infections.

Surprisingly, bacteria get infections too by even smaller organisms called bacteriophages. Bacteriophages to Bacteria, are viruses to people.

Bacteriophage inject small sections of DNA into its host bacteria in order to recruit the mechanisms present in bacteria in order to make new proteins for the bacteriophage, eventually killing the bacteria, and enabling the bacteriophage to reproduce.

40% of bacteria (and 90% of archaea) have a specific defence mechanism against bacteriophage that allow them to target foreign DNA inside the bacterial cell and cut it so it’s unusable.

This is CRISPR.

The bacteria incorporate the foreign DNA (injected by the bacteriophage) into their own DNA, in between genes that code for enzymes and proteins that are used to target and kill foreign DNA.

This section of DNA is called Clusters of Regularly Interspaced Palindromic Repeats (hence CRISPR).

One of these genes codes for an enzyme called cas9 which is used to cut DNA.

The inserted foreign DNA is transcribed into RNA (which can be used as a complimentary code for DNA) which pairs up with cas9 to form an RNA-enzyme complex.

The RNA finds the DNA it codes for (the foreign, harmful DNA) and cas9 cuts it up. It’s the perfect team. So now scientists are able to extract the cas9 enzyme, and pair it with any RNA sequence they like, thus being able to target any gene they know the sequence of (most genes) and cut it.

The DNA will automatically try to fix itself by activating the repair pathway which will result in mistakes and ultimately silence or disrupt the gene, making it redundant.

Taking this one step further, if you inject the correct, functional sequence of a gene you want to replace it with (making sure it has complementary ends to the cut section of DNA) the repair pathway will incorporate this new gene into the DNA.

Back to normal

The practical application of this with regards to people, is that we now have a relatively easy and cheap way of altering DNA. We can replace a faulty gene with a new gene of our choosing. Absolutely fantastic when it comes to hereditary diseases caused by the mutation of a single protein, such as Huntington’s Disease (a mutant version of the protein Huntingtin causes brain damage in the areas that control movement, thinking and motivation) and Cystic Fibrosis (a sufferer has to have inherited a faulty gene from both parents because the cause of symptoms is a lack of function of a particular protein that acts as an ion channel. If one normal gene is present, the functional protein is produced and symptoms are not seen, this person would be a carrier). The potential is incredible and is limited only by our knowledge of genes and their function.

At present, all of this is only possible in embryos as they are a single cell. Once the embryo starts dividing exponentially to become a whole organism, we no longer have the technology to insert CRISPR into every cell. So the only way this technology works is by changing the DNA of an embryo before its even a person. Making the choice on behalf of a potential human being. Having the technology to edit out or in ANY protein of your choosing. Choosing a gender. Choosing hair and eye colour. Curing a disease. Making a mistake and causing a new disease. Producing unknown and unwanted consequences.

Enter: the Medical Ethics society, Religious groups, Scientists, Feminists, Lawyers, Parents, Human Rights Activists, Politicians and anyone else who’s interested.

Go.

It’s an awfully big debate with a million right answers. And the scary thing is that every time an answer gets decided and a line drawn, it will become obsolete with every new discovery. In the future we may have the technology to edit genes in adults. Do we draw the line before mental illness and anxiety disorders? Do children decide their own fate? Do we use this technology to enhance normal people?

I’ll repeat a point I made at the start of this article: with great power, comes great responsibility. Who’s given scientists the right to play God? Food for thought.