From Darwin to the Human Genome Project

Since Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species the world of biology has made many advances. These advances in biology, specifically in genetic research, would not have been possible without the use of the microscope. Improvements in the microscope lead to the ability to actually view reproductive processes, which eventually lead to genetic research. Upon the discovery of the structure of DNA the birth of the Human Genome Project occurred. Although the intentions of this project were to better society, capitalism and prejudice have twisted this project into something that our society is not prepared to deal with.

This paper traces the evolutionary steps of genetic research from Darwin to Watson and Crick. Advancements made by the Human Genome Project will also be discussed in addition to problems that society faces as a result of genetic research.

Introduction

For the past few decades molecular scientists have been arduously working on a project that has the potential to revolutionize the world. The goal of this project is to determine the precise location and molecular details of all of the genes and interconnecting segments that make up the human chromosomes. This quest for the location of human genes is referred to as the Human Genome Project (HGP). The HGP is the most promising yet controversial undertaking ever attempted by the biological sciences.

The possibilities that may result from the HGP seem endless. Geneticists are now able to identify genes that control diseases, aging, and other specific traits. This enhances the opportunity for the human race to rid itself of disease and unwanted genetic traits. On the other hand, the discoveries made by geneticists bring controversial issues to the forefront. The moral and ethical issue that arose regarding Darwin's On The Origin of Species pales in comparison to the magnitude of the ethical dilemma that the HGP presents. The ethical and moral problems that the HGP faces are probably the most complex and important issues that will ever be addressed by the world.

This paper will explore the Human Genome Project by first giving a historical overview of the individuals that influenced the scientific path that lead to genetic research. Second, this paper will discuss the discoveries made by James Watson and Francis Crick which lead to the birth of the Human Genome Project. The historical background of genetic research will be followed by a discussion of some of the discoveries that the HGP has made, and how these discoveries affect mankind. The goals that HGP are attempting to accomplish raise a number of moral and ethical questions which will also be discussed in this paper. Finally, this paper will discuss the future possibilities of the Human Genome Project

In the Beginning

As is well known, Charles Darwin's publication On the Origin of Species (1859) was a foundation piece of work for the biological sciences. However, there were other individuals who were thinking along the same biological lines as Darwin. One of these individuals was Gregor Mendal, an Augustinian monk who lived in Brunn, Austria. Mendel, born in 1822, was the first mathematical biologist who statistically arranged the results of crosses between a variety of pea plants whose characteristics could clearly be identified. Mendel's work (in addition to Darwin's) was influenced by his scientific ancestor, Joseph Kohlreuter, the founder of systematic plant breeding, who in 1760 produced the first documented plant hybrid from a variety of tobacco.

In 1865, Mendel presented the results of his eight years of research to the Brunn Natural Science Society. The minutes of this meeting still exist which show that not a single question was asked in regards to Mendel's work. Instead, member's quickly began discussing the topic of the day-- Darwin's On the Origin of Species (which was published six years prior) (Lee 1991:46). After Mendels's work was introduced to the scientific world the field of biology became silent. This silence lasted until major advances were made with the help of the microscope.

Because the microscope played a major role in the advancement of biology, it is important to recognize the developmental history of this scientific instrument. By the seventeenth century crude microscopes were already in use. In 1665, with the aid of a microscope, Robert Hooke invented the term "cell" to describe the pores that he observed in slices of cork tissue. The microscope played a rather minor role in science until the nineteenth century when improvements were made to the lens system by Joseph Lister, Giovanni Amici, and Ernst Abbe (Lee 1991:38-39).

Due to improvements made to the microscope and the publication of Darwin's On the Origins of Species (1859) interest was aroused in analyzing the actual process of reproduction. Because of this intrigue in reproduction, three major avenues of investigation were produced: one dealt with differences in species and attempts at hybridization in domesticated plants; another dealt with details of cells, body structure, and embryological development; and the other was interested with the transmission of characteristics from one generation to the next (Lee 1991:39). It was the third (interest in heredity) that eventually led to the HGP.

One of Charles Darwin's close friends, Robert Brown, discovered the nucleus of the cell as seen in the epidermis of orchids (Tiley1983:17). Brown ascertained that the nucleus was an essential part of the living cell and unknowingly named the storehouse for chromosomes and genes. Following Brown, in 1838 Matthias Jakob Schleiden established that the growth of a plant was due to the production of new cells. In addition to Schleiden, a fellow German physician and scientist, Theodore Schwann believed that all living things were composed of cells. Previously, in the year 1836, Schwann had established that alcoholic fermentation, a complex chemical process, was a result of the metabolism of yeast (a single-celled living organism). His theory was vehemently opposed by leading chemists who refused to acknowledge that living systems were chemical systems. Twenty years later this idea of life functions as chemistry brought fame to Louis Pasteur (Lee 1991:40).

In 1869, a little over three years after Mendel's paper, a Swiss chemist Johann Friedrich Meischer discovered that white blood cells contained an unexpected compound which was acidic, phosphorus rich, and made of large molecules. Meischer named this new compound "nuclein" . The cells collected by Meischer contained almost pure samples of nucleus material. He felt that this phosphorous may have something to do with heredity. By 1889 other chemists had further purified this nuclein, by removing the last traces of protein. Strangely enough, this white powder which had been isolated and purified was deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA). It would be another 60 years before it was realized that this white powder was human genes (Lee 1991:41; Judson 1979:29; Tiley 1983:3).

The next set of major advances were again only made possible with the aid of the microscope. Because the advances were numerous they will be briefly described. In 1873, Friedrich Schneider discovered the stages of cell division while studying transparent flatworms. In 1875, Edward Strasburger observed this same phenomena within the cells of developing conifer embryos. The occurrence of this in both plant and animal kingdoms suggested to him an evolutionary origin common to both kingdoms. That same year, while studying sea urchins, Oskar Hertwig discovered the actual fusion of the sperm and egg during the process of fertilization. In 1879, Walther Flemming undertook a universal study which confirmed the universality of the cell division process which he named "mitosis". In 1888, Wilhelm Van Waldeyer named the threads or "hereditary particles" in the cell "chromosomes". Improved staining techniques made it possible for Theodore Boveri to determine that the chromosomes were actual individual bodies. He also proved that each new cell had to receive a full set of these threads for proper development (Lee 1991:42-44; Tiley 1983:40).

The turn of the century brought a rediscovery of Gregor Mendal's work. Hugo De Vries, a botanist from the Netherlands (who had met Darwin in 1877 and was deeply impressed) noticed the unpredictable changes that had occurred in primroses. De Vries claimed that these changes were due to changes in the pangenes. He then labeled these changes "mutations", a term which is still used today (Lee 1991:48-49; Tiley 1983:43-45). William Bateson was a Cambridge University biologist who was influenced by Mendel's and De Vries' work. Bateson and co-workers were the first to demonstrate Mendelian principles in animals in 1902. Bateson named Mendel's pairs of factors (actually genes) "allelomorphs" later shortened to "alleles". The cell formed by the union of two gametes, one recessive and one dominant, he called "heterozygote". Cells formed by similar gametes he called "homozygote". In Bateson's inaugural address to the Third Conference on Hybridization and Plant Breeding on July 31, 1906, he suggested "...for the consideration of the Congress the term 'genetics,' which sufficiently indicates that our labours are devoted to the elucidation of the phenomena of heredity and variation..." (Lee 1991:50-51).

In 1903, Theodor Boveri and Walter Sutton both individually discovered that gametes have the same number of chromosomes, but the number of chromosomes of maternal or paternal origin is variable (Lee 1991:52-53). In 1910, Thomas Hunt Morgan began studying the common fruit fly, or Drosophila, because of its ability to produce a new generation every two weeks. Within four years after the "flywork" had begun 85 mutant genes in the Drosophila had been assigned by Morgan and his co-workers (Tiley 1983:49). Morgan, in addition to Betty Stevens, Alfred E. Sturtevant, and Calvin B. Bridges, made a number of accomplishments in the field of genetics using this little fly. It was discovered that the Y chromosome determined the sex of the male fly. In addition, Mendel's 3:1 ratio was proved by observing flies with noticeable mutations. It was also proved that chromosomes do carry the heredity factors. In addition, Morgan and his co-workers also established that genes were arranged on the chromosomes in a linear order, and the phenomenon of crossing-over during gamete formation lead to even greater variability in the offspring. Later in 1933, Morgan received the Nobel prize for developing the chromosome theory of heredity (Lee 1991:53-59).

Further studies of the fruit fly involved isolating specific enzymes controlled by a hypothetical gene from the larvae of the fruit fly. As it turned out this proved to be extremely difficult due the mass of tissue in the larvae. Morgan then introduced his culture of red mold (NeurosporaI) which became a useful tool in genetic studies. The fungus could reproduce thousands of generations of individuals in few hours. As the search for the gene expanded, the living organisms used in this search became smaller. As Lee (1991:68) states "Flowering plants had given way to fruit flies, then to fungi, and finally bacteria... The only thing smaller than bacteria that contained DNA were viruses".

Oswald T. Avery was another individual that did much to advance the study of genes. Avery discovered that certain laboratory rats inherited certain forms of virulent pneumococci when injected with the viruses. This proved that transference of bacteria was possible. In 1944, Avery set out to discover what this transference material was made of. Hours of laborious work yielded positive results for Avery. The transference material was deoxyrobose nucleic acid, or DNA (Judson 1979:34-37).

Another advancement with microscopes made it possible to closely study viruses also known as "bacteriophages" (literally "bacteria eater" or "phages"). This advancement came in the form of the electron microscope which was invented in Germany just before the Second World War. The first models in the United States were built by RCA in 1939 (Lee 1991:69; Judson 1979:54). A group of scientists, headed by Max Delbruck, Salvador Luria , and Alfred Hershey realized that the use of the viruses constituted a system where one could study the activity of DNA. Delbruck and his co-workers discovered that DNA was injected into bacteria by the virus (Lee 1991:72).

Prior to the early 1950's, the origins of molecular biology came from two diverse approaches to understanding the nature of life. The first approach dealt with understanding the function of the gene, both in a biochemical manner as seen with Oswald Avery's work, and in a genetical manner, as seen in the work of Max Delbruck, Slavador Luria, and other phage scientists. The second approach was structural and dealt with the physical make-up of large, long-chain molecules of the cell (Judson 1979:70). It was the structural approach that brought James Watson and Francis Crick to the forefront of genetic research eventually leading to a Nobel Prize.

Watson and Crick

In 1943, at the age of fifteen, James Dewey Watson entered the University of Chicago. Watson was an exceptionally bright young man and had been one of the original Quiz Kids in the wartime radio program. Watson graduated in 1946 and stated that "I managed to escape without knowing any genetics or biochemistry". However, his deep interest in ornithology had given him some introduction to science. His ambition was to become the curator of birds at the American Museum of Natural History, in New York (Judson 1979:46).

Watson's interest in genetics was influenced by a book written by Erwin Schrodinger which speculated about the physical basis of the gene. Schrodinger's book emphasized the principles of quantum mechanics which were made by Max Delburck in 1935. Watson states that "I became polarized towards finding out the secret of the gene". Watson was turned down for graduate work both at Harvard and at the California Institute of Technology. Indiana University, at Bloomington, accepted Watson for graduate work but made it clear that if he was still interested in birds he should go elsewhere (Judson 1979:47).

Watson was interested in attending Indiana University because of Hermann Mullers presence there as a professor. Twenty years earlier Muller had won the Nobel Prize for discovering that X-rays cause mutations. Although Muller had an influence on Watson, it was Salvador Luria, (who was teaching and conducting bacteriophage research at Bloomington) that shaped the direction that Watson's intellect was to take. Through Luria, Watson was introduced to Max Delbruck and his small group of researchers that were scattered across the country and who called themselves the American phage group (Judson 1979:47-49). Luria, in reminiscing on Watson as a student, states that:

"He was a remarkable fellow. Even more odd then, than later...He is a person that looks completely disheveled all the time, a mess-- except in things that mattered. I have never known anybody whose notebooks...were so perfect as Jim's notebooks...Jim makes the very great distinction. If something is not worth doing it is not worth doing well" (Judson 1979:64).

Judson, the author of The Eighth Day of Creation (1979), emphasizes Watson's aloofness to personal tidiness. Judson recalls that during an interview with Watson, he and Watson were walking across the campus of Harvard when Judson noticed that both of Watson's shoes were untied. After alerting Watson to the state of his shoes Watson replied, "never bother with them. Only ten years later will one be able to look back and see how terribly we have oversimplified these things" (Judson 1979:43).

In 1948 Watson moved to Luria's laboratory. Luria assigned Watson a dissertation topic for his Ph.D. The topic dealt with phage exposure to ultraviolet light. In 1951, after receiving his Ph.D., Watson moved to the Cavendish Laboratory, at Cambridge, England. The Cavendish was the best laboratory in the world in the physics of atomic particle. It was at the Cavendish that James Watson met Francis Crick (Judson 1979:70 &104).

Francis Harry Compton Crick came to the Cavendish in 1949. At that time he was an overage graduate student whose work towards a doctorate in physics had been interrupted by the war. Crick spent seven years in the British Admiralty designing mines, and devices for detecting them, and new mines that would evade the devices. Crick was self-educated in biology. He went to a minor English public school, Mill Hill, in northern London; his interest in science was so single-minded that his family thought him odd. When Crick left the Admiralty and physics in 1947, he set out to master the literature of biology. While interviewing with Judson, Crick said that his interests changed to biology because he was an atheist, and was impatient to throw light into the remaining shadowy sanctuaries of vitalistic illusions (Judson 1979:108-109).

Jacques Monod, another great scientific theorist, stated "no one man discovered or created molecular biology. However, one man dominates intellectually the whole field, because he knows the most and understands the most. Francis Crick" Sir Lawrence Bragg was often annoyed by Cricks intelligence. Bragg states:

...I remember one occasion when Perutz and I were worrying about the results he was getting on hemoglobin, I came in one morning very excited with an interpretation to suggest to Perutz; I mention a certain optical principle, and remember Crick coming in rather uninvited...and listening to us and then saying, 'I must go away and see if you're right.' ...If a man had been sweating away at research for some months and then might say to himself 'Now I'll have a little rest over the weekend and I'll come in next week and think what these results mean'--Crick would be very likely to come along on Monday morning and tell him what they meant. Like doing someone else's crosswords, you see. Notwithstanding the fact that of course he is a great genius..." [emphasis in original] (Judson 1979:108-109).

It was exactly this idiosyncrasy of Cricks that led to the discovery of the structure of DNA.

Watson and Crick met at the Cavendish and immediately formed a friendship. Watson and Crick would often spend hours discussing their research. Eventually, Watson and Crick were put into a room together so they could converse without bothering others (which happened on a regular basis). It was only in their spare time that Watson and Crick contemplated the physical make-up of DNA. Rosalind Franklin, who was an x-ray crystallographer at near-by Kings College, had the specific task of unraveling the physical structure of DNA. It was a combination of Rosalind Frankilin's x-rays of DNA and a report on the structure of DNA by Linus Pauling that led Watson and Crick to the famous discovery (Judson 1979:70-197).

Watson and Crick were actually banned from working on the DNA quest after Crick had proposed the wrong structure for DNA. It was not their place anyway to be addressing the DNA issue. This was Franklin's job. After a year of abstinence from the DNA project Crick noticed an error in Paulings paper on the molecular structure of DNA. After discussing this error with Watson, Watson recalled Franklin's X-rays of DNA. After putting the two together they discovered the double helix. It was only because of Pauling's and Franklin's work that the discovery was made. Franklin believed that the structure of DNA was a triple helix. Although Franklin was headed in the wrong direction, she would probably have eventually made the discovery if Watson and Crick had not. Unfortunately Rosalind Franklin died of cancer in 1953. Watson, Crick, and Wilson (because Wilson's laboratory produced the x-ray's) received the noble prize in 1962 for their discovery of the double helix (Judson 1979:70-195). One can only imagine the frustration felt by those scientists who struggled for years to discover the structure of DNA only to have the discovery snatched from them by individuals who looked upon this as a mere hobby of some sort (For an in-depth account of this discovery and those involved see Judson 1979.)

HGP Discoveries and Their Implications

Watson and Crick's discovery has led to a number of biological advancements within the field of genetics. It was in 1989 that the Human Genome Project (which was then known as the Human Genome Initiative) began to receive federal funding. Genetic research had been on-going prior to 1989. However, for the purposes of this paper the birth of the HGP will be regarded as the occurring in the same year that the project began to receive federal funding. As stated earlier, the HGP is an attempt to determine the precise location and molecular details of all of the genes and interconnecting segments which make up the human chromosomes. There are somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 genes in each human cell. The genome is one complete set of these genes. It is the entire code within the genes that the HGP is attempting to discover (Lee 1991:1&7).

By 1981 only 5000 genes were assigned approximate locations on chromosomes. Some of the major human genetic diseases that have been located are Cystic Fibrosis, Huntington's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, Neuroperomatosis, some forms of Cancer, and Duchaenne Muscular Distrophy. Gene therapy for some individuals with genetic diseases has already begun. One example of gene therapy already occurring is of a 4 year old girl with ADA. An immune system disorder in which individuals must be kept in a sterile environment or they die. This child received an injection of her own white blood cells which had normal genes put into them by harmless virus vectors. The results were positive and the child has a much better chance of leading a normal life (Lee 1991:202).

In addition to these numerous discoveries, genetic screening for expecting parents and individuals interested in preventative measures against genetic disorders is now more readily available than before. These discoveries and advancements are fascinating, but what does it all mean? How does it affect our quality of life? Most importantly how accurate are these genetic discoveries and advancements?

Since the early 1970's the pendulum has been swinging back and scientists are again emphasizing the importance of heredity in shaping our character and intellect. Genetic research has now become big business. The majority of scientists participating in new genetic research have direct ties to biotechnology companies. Research programs and public scientific pronouncements can effect the economic interests of both scientists and the biotechnology companies. Without new genetic discoveries universities, research center, and biotechnology companies do not receive funding, and pharmaceutical companies have no new drugs to push for the cure. These issues of funding should make every citizen wary of the reports that come from the world of biotechnology (Hubbard and Ward 1992: 117-127).

Genetic screening and prenatal testing are supposedly beneficial to our society. However, these tools offer little help in preventing actual disease from occurring. The majority of prenatal tests that are offered result in little precise information. These tests may suggest the possibility of problems, but not the severity. In addition, similar to all medical tests, genetic predictions require setting arbitrary norms. People and fetuses who fall outside of these norms are considered "abnormal", whether or not they show symptoms or not. Women are aborting fetuses because testing may show chromosomal irregularity, even though it can not be predicted whether the irregularity would have a noticeable effects (Hubbard and Ward 1992: 30).

There are a number of policies, laws, and proposed laws both abroad and in the US that restrict abortion, but do allow eugenic abortions based on fetal disabilities. These policies show the depth of prejudice against people with disabilities by suggesting that people "like that" should not be born. As Hubbard and Ward (1992:31) emphasize "all of us can expect to experience some type of disability-if not now, then sometime before we die...". This bring another issue into question; How accurate are these genetic discoveries?

Genes themselves are not responsible for singularly determining a trait alone. Traits are a result of various genes acting together in response to the environment. An example of this is found with the cystic fibrosis (CF) gene. The CF gene is located on chromosome 7. However, many different mutations appear to be associated with this condition in different individuals. In fact, CF, like other diseases, is not a single entity acting alone but a combination of related conditions with different manifestations that result from a number of various mutations in the DNA sequence. To provide meaningful genetic information, scientists may sometimes need to work out the pattern of mutations separately for different families or even for different individuals that manifest the "same" disease (Hubbard and Ward 1992:37). In other words just whose genes is the HGP going to map?

Moral and Ethical Issues

In 1990, the moral and ethical issues relating to genetic research became a concern for many individuals. There were a number of lawyers that began to establish guidelines for genetic research (Andrews 1990; Annas 1990; Capron 1990; Robertson 1990; Fletcher and Wertz 1990). Some of the issues that were of major concern dealt with discrimination, availability of genetic testing and results, and biohazards. It was claimed that individuals should not and would not be discriminated against due to their genetic make-up. Patient information was to be confidential. In addition, prenatal testing was to be made available to individuals from every social level. Prenatal testing was not to be used for sex selection and the selection other physical characteristics of an unborn child. These guidelines established by the government should be a good safety net for genetic research however, the old saying of ' "laws are made to be broken or changed" holds true in the search for our genes.

Discrimination is occurring in out society as a result of genetic research. Not only do insurance companies require genetic screening prior to coverage some employers require genetic screening prior to employment. Those individuals with that are carriers for specific diseases are denied insurance and sometimes employment. Individuals do not have the ability to alter their genetic make-up even though, the insurance companies are discriminating against individuals due to their genetic make-up. Every person has from 5 to 10 genetic defects, in this respect every person can be discriminated against because of their defects.

Another issue regarding discrimination deals with the discrimination against the unborn. As explained earlier genetic testing is not able to predict whether an individual will exhibit a trait that they might carry. In addition, do we have the right to discriminate against people with disabilities? In January of this year the Chicago Tribune ran an editorial comment on "China's new law that will 'advise' abortion for any woman carrying a fetus showing abnormalities and require premarital screening for genetic disorders, calling it a repellent expression of super-race thinking". This new law reinforces China's already existing policy which regulates the number of children a couple may have in addition to requiring abortions and sterilization to prevent births of children with disabilities (The Washington Post 1994). It is astounding that our media and government criticize China's policies, yet they are blind to the policies our country is gearing up to make.

In January of 1995 The Wall Street Journal stated that "research into a blood test designed to detect fetal chromosome abnormalities is discussed. The research, sponsored by the National Institute of Health, could make current invasive tests a part of history and lead to much wider prenatal testing". As a society we must be aware that the mandatory institution of genetic testing may lead to mandatory eugenics as it has in China.

Conclusion

The discoveries of genetic research as presented by the media are a far cry from what is really occurring in the field of genetics. Just recently the news media informed the public that the gene for obesity had been found. This gene has not necessarily been found but the general location has been identified. How the discovery of this gene is going to revolutionize the world is yet undetermined. Society must remember that genetic research is being funded by big money, and if more genes are identified more funding is available

Genetic Testing could be beneficial to everyone if used correctly. If genetic research was able to prevent disabilities and save lives it would be beneficial to society. If genetic research was able to successfully use gene therapy and know that the outcome was not going to damage an individual then it would be beneficial to society. However, the ability to actually help individuals is weak. The HGP has turned into something that it was not intended for. Genetic research is now a race to see who can locate the most genes and patent them, thus reaping the rewards for research grants and royalties. The Human Genome Project had lead to minimal benefits and a number of bad policies, such as discrimination and eugenics.

Jessica Matthews wrote an article in The Washington Post (1994) which stated that:

...the mapping of the genome, a federally funded crash effort launched in the mid 1980's to identify every human gene, is beginning to unleash a torrent of information for which society is almost completely unprepared.

Instead of dwelling on the cure for genetic diseases scientists should be trying to determine the environmental causes that trigger our genetic "disabilities".

References Cited

Example of typical paper on the subject of ethics, by:Penni Carmosino ¥ California State University, Chico

Andrews, Lori B.
	1990	The Randolph W. Thower Symposium: Genetics and the Law. Emory Law Journal 39 (3):619-628.
Annas, George J.
	1990	Mapping The Human Genome and the Meaning of Monster Mythology. Emory Law Journal 39(3):629-664.
Capron, Alexander Morgan
	1990	Which Ills to Bear?: Reevaluating the "Threat" of Modern Genetics. Emory Law Journal 39(3):665-696.
Fletcher, John C. and Dorothy C. Wertz
	1990	Ethics, Law, and Medical Genetics: After the Human Genome is Mapped. Emory Law Journal 39(3):747-791.
Hubbard, Ruth and Elijah Wald
	1993	Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers. Beacon Press, Boston.
Judson, Horace Freeland
	1979	The Eighth Day of Creation: The Makers of the Revolution in Biology. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Lee, Thomas F.
	1991	The Human Genome Project: Cracking the Genetic Code of Life. Plenum Press, New York.
Matthews, Jessica
	1994	Ready for Genome? In The Washington Post. November 30, 1994 issue.
McGinley, Laurie
	1995	In the Lab: Tricky Prenatal Tests in Embryonic Stages. In The Wall Street Journal. January 12, 1995 issue.
Robertson, John A.
	1990	Procreative Liberty and Human Genetics. Emory Law Journal 39(3)697-719.
Tilley, N. A.
	1983	Discovering DNA: Meditations on Genetics and a History of the Science. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Unknown
	1995	China's Repellent Eugenics Policy. In the Chicago Tribune. January 18, 1995 issue.
Unknown
	1994	Better Babies in China. In The Washington Post. January 2, 1994 issue.

Click your BACK button to return to MAIN PAGE, Human Genome Society. Thank you.