One argument I've heard a few times is that if we have mapped the human genome, we should not need to do animal research. This is a flawed argument for a number of reasons.
The human genome, for the unacquainted, is the sequence of all of our DNA, or genetic material. At first glance, it might make sense that if we know about all of our DNA, which serves as a blueprint for the body's characteristics and activities, we dot need to do experiments. However, this is far more complicated than it appears. First of all, the sequence of our DNA does not even tell us with 100% accuracy what portions actually encode genes - it's just a sequence of letters, although there is some available software. However, even assuming total accuracy, we don't know when, where, why and how genes are expressed, how long they are expressed or what role they play in physiology. The genome is a marvelous tool for basic predictions and characterization of genes, but it is by no means the end-all; in fact, it's just a beginning. We need to look at a living cell to begin to understand what is taking place, and then, as previously mentioned a whole organism model to determine it's potential relevance in medicine.
No comments:
Post a Comment