Bleeding-heart liberal? Die-hard conservative? It’s in the genes… maybe

voting.jpgUS voters head to the polls today in a midterm contest that most number-crunchers believe will result in Republicans taking control of at least one house of Congress. Messages have been calibrated in order to snare that mythical election-season beast: the “swing voter”. But no amount of campaigning might sway some members of the electorate, because it turns out that how voters pull the lever today is written, in part, in their DNA.

According to research conducted by University of California–San Diego behavioral scientist James Fowler, certain genetic factors can predispose some people to be more liberal, provided that they’re social butterflies as well. Fowler’s previous work has found that alcoholism is contagious among social networks, and that researchers can track the spread of infectious diseases by monitoring people’s Facebook friends. His most recent study of 2,000 adults, published in the Journal of Politics, found that people who possessed the 7R variant of the DRD4 gene and had a lot of friends in adolescence were more likely to self-identify as liberal. DRD4, which codes for a dopamine receptor, has also been linked to attention deficit disorder, impulsivity, gambling and heroin addiction. The train of reasoning goes something like this: people with DRD4-7R are more likely to seek out new experiences and new friends, thus exposing them to lots of different lifestyles and making them more likely to hold opinions and support policies that are friendly to the poor, dispossessed, ethnic minorities, etc.

Continue reading →

US government says genes shouldn’t be patented

redbarcode.jpgOn Friday, the US Department of Justice said that genes should not be patentable, a significant reversal of longstanding policy. The opinion was delivered in an amicus brief filed in an ongoing legal battle that kicked off when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the validity of patents held by Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah on the breast cancer-linked genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. (The ACLU won the first round when a federal court ruled in its favor in March.) The new brief opines that isolating a gene does not fundamentally change its nature, much like extracting coal from the earth does not change the material.

However the chips may eventually fall in the Myriad appeal, gene patenting is still standard operating procedure. The US Patent Office has issued more than 40,000 patents for the alleles of more than 2,000 human genes. Should these patents stand, there’s a host of legal, scientific, and philosophical issues to be resolved. For instance, if a patent is issued for a gene, does that mean that the RNA transcript and the protein are patented as well? And how much wiggle room is there on the DNA sequence itself? One could imagine enterprising competitors introducing silent mutations in order to make the sequence just different enough to avoid patent infringement. Can a company use portions of patented genes to create their own sequences, the way rap artists sample other musicians? The legal precedent for the latter question doesn’t look favorable, as US courts have ruled that even a sequence of 3 musical notes can be copyrighted.

Image by kevinspencer via Flickr Creative Commons