WAVING red flags and chanting anti-fascist slogans, about 40 protesters disrupted a meeting held last weekend to debate whether the roots of violent and criminal behaviour can be traced to a person鈥檚 genes. The protesters took over microphones, made speeches and shouted at scientists before marching out again.
The meeting was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health as part of its programme to examine the ethical issues generated by the Human Genome Project. It brought researchers who believe their work shows that genes can lead to violent or criminal behaviour face to face with their critics and people worried about the political uses to which such findings might be put.
For David Wasserman of the University of Maryland鈥檚 Institute of Philosophy and Public Policy, who organised the conference, the meeting marked the end of a long ordeal. The conference was originally scheduled to be held three years ago, but was cancelled after objections that it was racist and smacked of eugenics. Last week鈥檚 meeting was held far away from Washington DC in rural eastern Maryland, where demonstrators were less likely to shut the town down, Wasserman said. 鈥淲hat this conference provides is a place for people with divergent views to listen to each other,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 expect to reach a consensus here 鈥� but I hope to clarify the issues.鈥�
Advertisement
But the protesters were adamant that the issues should not be discussed at all. 鈥淚t will be used for genocide,鈥� predicted Rob Cook, a protester from Rutgers University New Jersey. Many cited the National Institute of Mental Health鈥檚 鈥渧iolence initiative鈥� which was at the heart of protests three years ago. At that time, dissenters claimed that the institute was planning to test inner-city schoolchildren 鈥� most of whom are black 鈥� for genetic markers that might predispose them to violence (This Week, 26 September 1992). The institute denied these charges.
Garland Allan, a biologist from Washington University in St Louis, joined protesters outside the conference hall. He agreed that the research being discussed should not be funded. 鈥淚鈥檓 not antiscience,鈥� he said, 鈥渂ut I鈥檓 opposed to vastly inflated claims that are not matched by the level of data. I鈥檓 opposed to ignoring political implications under the guise of pure science.鈥� Even holding the conference threatened to lend the research more credibility than it deserved, he added.