Modern genetic methods and techniques have transformed the study of biology and medicine in ways that were quite unimaginable a mere few decades ago. Such methods have allowed researchers and clinicians to investigate and diagnose disease with a clarity and precision that has been revolutionary. No one argues these techniques have uncovered many mysteries and solved many puzzles about how living organisms function, both as individual physiological entities and as examples of evolutionary progress, giving us, on an almost daily basis, new insight into our own human biology. However, Dr. Margaret Lock, professor emerita at McGill University, says genetics and genomics as an anthropological subject is still in its infancy, with much important work yet to be done.

Speaking at the 2009 International Conference of the Society for Medical Anthropology at Yale University, Lock pointed out that the advent of the genomic revolution brings with it important societal, political, and social issues that have the potential to radically change both human life and interaction. In particular, Lock noted that one of the earliest concerns about the genomic revolution was the rise of ?genetic determinism,? or the belief that each person is defined purely by DNA coding.

It was feared by many in the early stages of the genomic revolution that this tendency to simplify and reduce an individual?s physical and behavioral identity to the function of genes alone could potentially result in the rise of a new form of social identity based purely upon the sequence of one?s DNA. This new process of identification has since been coined ?geneticization.?

Indeed, in many practices today, such as the genetically based medical screenings for disease susceptibility, one can imagine how the systematic application of such techniques could quickly degenerate into a cold, empirical method for determining genetic fitness. Such an application, in some darker opinions, could result in a reworking of social perception about human identity into a simple evaluation of the degree of this genetic fitness, spawning new forms of discrimination based upon these genetic techniques, a ?neoeugenics,? so to speak. Some would even go so far as to point out the possibility of the establishment of genetic standards, implemented perhaps by some central authority for the purpose of determining fitness for such activities as conception or citizenship. Such a system would, of course, threaten an individual?s free choice and be of great concern to most anthropologists.

Lock reassured us, however, that genetic discrimination or genetic profiling has so far largely failed to materialize. She believes that one of the reasons for this absence of a cold reworking of human identity is the deluge of recent research that laboriously has demonstrated the DNA coding itself to be only a part of the picture in what constitutes a genome?s function. As is widely understood and accepted now, the genome contains numerous regulatory mechanisms that have an assortment of control pathways that modulate how the actual DNA sequence translates into physiological and likely behavioral characteristics in a living organism.

One of the interesting implications of this regulation, Lock explained, is the interface between the environment and these regulatory mechanisms. Clearly, the presence of regulatory mechanisms by definition means that the genome is being receptive to some external cues that are subsequently processed into some meaningful biological process. This form of receptiveness has been particularly well established in maturing fetuses, where signaling cues from the mother are known to have profound effects on the resulting gene expression patterns of the growing child. But Lock also believes there is likely a strong and constant interplay between the environment and these regulatory mechanisms throughout all stages of life, leaving open a gigantic field of potential research in investigating this relationship between environmental characteristics and genomic function, a field in which anthropologists soon can begin to actively participate.

Other issues that Lock presents as a consequence of the systematic adaptation of genetic techniques for medical screenings and kinship determination revolve around the way in which the media presents information to the public. Too often, Lock believes, research results linking some medical phenomenon to a gene are overly simplified and stripped of their context, resulting in inaccurate and misleading information.

Often, the argument in favor of this simplification is that it makes the information more palatable to a large audience and therefore is seen as one of the media?s services to its audience. However, Lock pointed out two important problems with this view. Citing her own work on the public?s perception of Alzheimer?s disease, Lock said that most people actually prefer a more detailed body of information that provides more depth and context for a given research result. Not only that, but Lock said that the people who are most likely to seek this medical information are those who want that additional detail. So in her mind, the media does its audience a disservice by watering down the results of medical studies.

Lock pointed out that anthropologists historically have shied away from the topic of genetics and genomics because of its highly reductive perspective on human life. But with the more or less permanent integration of genetic techniques and genomic information into our daily lives, Lock believes that it is now time for anthropologists to be more accepting of this reality and even aid the integration of the genomic era by examining the many issues that arise because of its associated activities, such as the social implications of genetic profiling, the ownership and moral dilemmas of engineering hybrid crops and livestock, and the societal perception of the newly formulated concept of man?s own hybridity. These are all areas in which anthropology can begin its examination of the genomic era, perhaps by beginning to write the story of what this new, rapidly expanding field of science means for mankind as a whole.