Science
October 13, 2004 8:55 AM   Subscribe

In terms of our genes, we humans are all the same -- except for the ways in which we're different. Pharmacogenomics has for years been touted as the ultimate benefit of the genomics revolution. But to many, this revolution has a troubling side.
posted by semmi (6 comments total)
 
Race-based drugs, as described in the article, are only an intermediate step in the very young field of pharmacogenomics.

Suppose a given drug (A) is found to work well in people carrying gene X, but not that well in people lacking gene X. (This is the essence of pharmacogenomics.) Someday, it will be both possible and economically feasible for people to be tested in a doctor's office to see whether they carry the gene, get back results in a few hours, and get a prescription either for drug A or drug B, depending on the results. But we're not there yet.

So in the meantime, race might sometimes be used as a heuristic. If we know 80% of persons of African descent carry gene X, but only 20% of persons of European descent do, then it might make sense to prescribe drug A to the former, but not to the latter.

Yes, this is fraught with ethical implications. But my point is that it's a temporary measure, until the technology to test directly for the relevant gene(s) becomes common, and it's important not to condemn all of pharmacogenomics for issues which are ultimately not central to it.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:55 AM on October 13, 2004


This is fascinating; thank you for sharing.
posted by headspace at 12:26 PM on October 13, 2004


... dare I be the first to mention the potential for "race based" bio/chemical weapson?
posted by lodurr at 2:21 PM on October 13, 2004


Anyone notice the new anti-stomach pain pill that's only "indicated" for women?

Thought that was pretty weird. And wouldn't it be better to actualy, you know, check the genetic makeup rather then proscribing based on race?
posted by delmoi at 3:28 PM on October 13, 2004


In other news, skin care products have been diffrent for people with diffrent skin color, and hair care products have been diffrent for people with diffrent hair colors.
posted by delmoi at 3:29 PM on October 13, 2004


And wouldn't it be better to actualy, you know, check the genetic makeup rather then proscribing based on race?

i would think time and expense would be two major deterrents.
posted by jessica at 4:54 PM on October 13, 2004


« Older Not approved for protective use   |   Takes all sorts doesn't it? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments