Our bodies, our ignorance

The New York Times today was a bonanza: not one but two stories relating to reproductive science and Crazy Things Americans Do. Especially when they have a) too much privilege and b) too little accurate scientific knowledge.

Exhibit A, page A1: “Born to Run? Little Ones Get Test for Sports Gene,” about a genetic test designed to “determine which sports suit the talents” of a toddler. One parent of a toddler aiming to sign up for the test thought “it’s good to match them with the right activity.” The test analyzes one gene in the 20,000-strong human genome. Supposedly, the reporter tells us on A1, “a 2003 study discovered the link between ACTN3 and those athletic abilities” for speed or endurance. But gentle readers who make it past the jump find that a scientist says the test may actually be “snake oil,” and that the genes merely “have a role in athletic performance.” A role, as in one role among many, as in a link, not the link.

Always keep an eye on the verbs in sensational stories about genetics: there’s nearly always some very flabby words flapping around in there taking up the slack where clarity and rigor ought to be. “Has a role in” and “link” tell you nothing about what causes what or exactly how it does it.

The problem goes deeper than the usual sensationalism necessary to sell newspapers. To think that any complex human trait or behavior could be controlled by a single gene is terrible science (a scientist quoted in the article said that at least 200 genes affect athletic performance) is to have a totally wrongheaded understanding of genetics. Nor do genes alone determine athletic performance or height or weight or … Never mind the broader environment, like, oh, say, how much encouragement to play baseball a child is given; current genetic science suggests that the precise choreography of hormones and growth that happens in the womb is crucial to the expression of any trait.

Which brings me to Exhibit B, cover of the New York Times Magazine: “Her Body, My Baby,” reads the title, next to an astonishing photo of two women. One, very pregnant, is dressed in slightly rumpled khakis and functional shirt that could have come from Wal-Mart or Sears. The other is slim, taut, hair perfectly upswept, black spike heels tall, jewelry exquisitely understated, and black dress little and perfect.

The small smile on the slim author in the little black dress looks smug. How could it look anything but? Iew, iew, iew. I don’t think I can take anymore of these posts from the New York Times’ bubble of privileged women.

Anyway, it turns out that nowadays most surrogacies involve the surrogate woman carrying a baby that is genetically unrelated to her, created through IVF using the sperm and egg of what the article calls “the intended parents.” (Let’s call it like it is: the paying parents.)

This is a strategy to get around the legal implications of the Baby M case and ensure that the surrogate mother’s legal claim to the baby is as weak as possible. Somebody, however, should call a genetic biologist to the stand to talk about the role of the womb in creating a mammal’s essential nature. (For more on this, see for example my review of The Century of the Gene.) The woman whose womb created the baby may not be the “genetic parent” of the child, but she most certainly is biologically related to it.

If I can make it through this article without gagging so hard I rip the magazine, I’ll have more to say…