Illustration by
Wally
Niebart |
Hopkins' Kathy Hudson was the principal investigator for
the study, funded by a grant from the Pew Charitable
Trusts. Researchers conducted 21 focus groups designed to
identify the beliefs and values that shape Americans' ideas
about the use of RGTs. (RGTs in use include testing
prospective parents to see whether they are at risk of
having a child with a genetic disease; prenatal testing for
chromosomal and other genetic abnormalities;
preimplantation testing on embryos created through in vitro
fertilization; and sperm sorting for sex selection, which
is possible, but awaiting FDA approval.)
They found that a majority of the participants supported
the use of these technologies to avoid disorders like Down
syndrome, cystic fibrosis, and other serious health
conditions. Many even thought prescreening for sex
selection was acceptable. But the large majority feared
that a human inclination toward envy and greed makes
genetic modification for things like hair or eye color
(which is, at this point, hypothetical) a pretty scary
prospect.
Take this California woman's view of the subject for
instance:
"To me, if I have a kid, they can read, sing, dance, smile,
I'm happy. But some people, they push their kid, you know,
they want them to be the best. So what? IQ what, 100, 200,
300? What's the level? And if everyone in here, we all say,
OK, we want our kid more intelligent. So your kid is 150
[IQ]. I find out, I want mine 180. Oh my God, that would be
a world war around the medical thing. Eech, no, don't go
there. That's too far."
Or this, from a man from Tennessee:
"You're trying to get rid of this terrible burden on your
children, but at the same time, I don't put as much faith
in humanity because people are greedy. I mean, we're just
inherently greedy people and it's never going to be
enough."
For the small minority of people who thought that it was
never acceptable to use RGTs, it came down to pride, says
Kalfoglou. "My interpretation of the focus group data is
that many participants are concerned that pride is
motivating people to think that it is OK to 'play God' or
change the natural order," she says. The concern?
"Individuals miss out on important life lessons like
compassion, and the world misses out on extraordinary
people — like Van Gogh, Helen Keller, or
Beethoven."
Interestingly, even among those who support the use of RGTs
to treat disease, there was great suspicion of scientists
working in the areas of genetics and reproduction. "You
have to introduce [new technology] in a way that's helpful,
from a perspective that's going to allow people to accept
it," said one Massachusetts man. "But then, once you open
that door, then there is the money that begins to drive the
process. So, I think although there is good in it, there is
the overwhelming evil that usually takes control because
it's all driven by money in the end."
A woman from Massachusetts said of researchers, "They're
brilliant and they do amazing things, but some of what
drives the medical community is ego and accomplishment."
And finally from another Massachusetts woman: Genetics "is
moving so fast and it's also owned by companies that have
to make a profit. . . . I don't think it's possible for us
to stop scientists. They'll do whatever they want wherever
they want to do it."
The focus groups were conducted in 2003 as part of a larger
research project that included surveys, interviews, and
"Genetic Town Halls." The study was published in the June
2005 issue of Fertility and Sterility. For more
information about the research, visit
www.DNApolicy.org. —CP
The Ones That Got Away
By spring each year, the
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine has sent out about 200
acceptance letters to 4,000-plus med school candidates who
have applied from across the country and around the world.
About 50 percent accept the invitation to earn their MDs
(or MDs/PhDs) at Johns Hopkins. The other 50 percent do
not.
Where do these aspiring doctors opt to go instead? About
one-third choose Harvard, according to Paul T. White,
assistant dean of admissions at the School of Medicine, who
adamantly denies feeling any envy for his chief
competition. "Sure I want to win them over," he admits.
"But some people are going to go for the Harvard name no
matter what you do."
After Harvard, Hopkins' other big competitors in 2003–2004:
Penn (10 percent), Columbia (8 percent), UCSF (8 percent),
Yale (7 percent), Cornell (5 percent), Washington
University in St. Louis (5 percent), other (26 percent).
The primary reason given for declining Hopkins School of
Medicine? Location. But another reason that tops the list
is "mindset/culture," White notes. Prospectives will say,
"I hear it's a very competitive environment, and that
Hopkins med students seem 'stressed out.'"
This is after they've come for an on-campus interview,
spent time in the dorms with students, and talked about how
they've been "blown away by the collaborative atmosphere"
they've found. "They think it's all been an act!" White
says. Evidently, the cutthroat perception dies hard, he
says, adding, "That's where my frustration lies."
—SD
Will Consumerism Cool Off?
Throughout most of the free-spending 1990s, the
motto shared by many Americans was: If you've got it,
flaunt it. Make your neighbor sick with envy. Show off your
wealth by "throwing your money around stupidly," says
Hopkins business professor Erik Gordon, a product of the
Baby Boom Generation and a self-acknowledged adherent to
that generation's "I want more" mantra. But Gordon sees
some ominous signs ahead.
"We have a sense today that it's our manifest destiny that
our lives will be materially better and better — my
last car was a Honda; my next car will be a Lexus," notes
Gordon, who serves on the faculty of the
School of Professional
Studies in Business and Education. "We expect a
45-year-old to be doing a lot better than a 30-year-old.
And we've been taught and learned to substitute material
things for being there with our spouse and kids. If you're
a guy who works 80 hours a week, your kid turns 16 and gets
a BMW for her birthday."
But there are clouds forming on the horizon of America's
consumerism, Gordon believes, fueled primarily by economic
globalization. He predicts that economic growth in the
United States will begin to increase at a slower rate, or
perhaps level off completely, "as the local GM plant closes
while the people of Bangladesh begin to make more
[money]."
"There's a real social psychological trauma ahead for us,
and you're starting to see the leading edge of that," he
says, pointing to those in their 20s and 30s, many of whom
are much less ambitious and less willing to work the long
hours their parents did. "While some are truly lazy, there
are others who looked out there and got the message —
maybe all this working and striving didn't lead anywhere,"
Gordon says. "They say, 'I'll do the minimum. I don't see
the material path forward.'" He adds, "I actually think
they have the right idea and that my generation missed a
lot and damaged our country by elevating materialism over
traditional civic and family values."
If the U.S. does enter into a period of much slower growth
in wealth, America's materialism won't dissipate overnight,
Gordon believes. "But I think you will see some changes at
the edges," he says. In particular, he forecasts a "growing
cachet" being attached to "smart" spending — so that
you'll be most apt to inspire envy in your neighbor by
getting the best value for your money, rather than by
extravagance.
Predicts Gordon, "You'll see people with a good amount of
money [saying] I bought this $40,000 car because it's a
good buy — better than a $60,000 Mercedes."
—SD
Don't It Make My Blue Jay Green
In sports, your rival is the contestant you most
want to defeat. Losers in a rivalry envy the victors and
mark the time until a rematch. Here's a sampling of the
major rivalries that inspire passion among Hopkins'
athletic teams.
Baseball
Franklin & Marshall College
Consistently the second-best team in the Centennial
conference, behind the Blue Jays, and always eager to knock
off No. 1.
|