What do you think?
Rate this book
Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters
“Ridley leaps from chromosome to chromosome in a handy summation of our ever increasing understanding of the roles that genes play in disease, behavior, sexual differences, and even intelligence. . . . . He addresses not only the ethical quandaries faced by contemporary scientists but the reductionist danger in equating inheritability with inevitability.” — The New Yorker The genome's been mapped. But what does it mean? Matt Ridley’s Genome is the book that explains it what it is, how it works, and what it portends for the future Arguably the most significant scientific discovery of the new century, the mapping of the twenty-three pairs of chromosomes that make up the human genome raises almost as many questions as it answers. Questions that will profoundly impact the way we think about disease, about longevity, and about free will. Questions that will affect the rest of your life. Genome offers extraordinary insight into the ramifications of this incredible breakthrough. By picking one newly discovered gene from each pair of chromosomes and telling its story, Matt Ridley recounts the history of our species and its ancestors from the dawn of life to the brink of future medicine. From Huntington's disease to cancer, from the applications of gene therapy to the horrors of eugenics, Ridley probes the scientific, philosophical, and moral issues arising as a result of the mapping of the genome. It will help you understand what this scientific milestone means for you, for your children, and for humankind.
344 pages, Paperback
First published May 30, 1999
About the author
Matt Ridley
30 books2,004 followersMatthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley DL FRSL FMedSci (born 7 February 1958, in Northumberland) is an English science writer, businessman and aristocrat. Ridley was educated at Eton and Magdalen College, Oxford where he received a doctorate in zoology before commencing a career in journalism. Ridley worked as the science editor of The Economist from 1984 to 1987 and was then its Washington correspondent from 1987 to 1989 and American editor from 1990 to 1992.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,202 reviews
July 27, 2011
I wish I could give this book 6 stars! It's really fantastic, and I want to recommend it to EVERYONE, but in my heart I know the tone would bore some of my friends... I suggest thinking of the author/narrator as a cool guy you'd be friends with telling you all this information, instead of a nerdy/haughty *scientist* ...He's not a scientist, he's a writer & former editor, & this isn't a textbook, but it could be--he's done his research & includes all his references. Just slightly out-of-date (published in 1999) since genetics is such a fast-progressing area of knowledge but overall not "dated" or off-base.
As for the content, WOW! Changed the way I think about evolution & heredity (duh), human biology, history, & psychology, disease, medicine, food, sexuality, instinct, intelligence, personality, behavior, EVERYTHING. Eye-opening in a way that encourages wonder rather than only prescribing answers.
If you can't stomach the whole book, browse the Table of Contents &/or the Index & pick out a chapter or two--they're fairly self-contained so you can get away with skipping around, and I guarantee you will learn something cool.
As for the content, WOW! Changed the way I think about evolution & heredity (duh), human biology, history, & psychology, disease, medicine, food, sexuality, instinct, intelligence, personality, behavior, EVERYTHING. Eye-opening in a way that encourages wonder rather than only prescribing answers.
If you can't stomach the whole book, browse the Table of Contents &/or the Index & pick out a chapter or two--they're fairly self-contained so you can get away with skipping around, and I guarantee you will learn something cool.
October 16, 2018
I wish I had read this book 19 years ago, when it was first published. Now, it is out of date. In fact, the Bibliography and Notes section mentions that the book was already out of date, as new knowledge is growing at a very fast rate. Nevertheless, the book is fascinating, even if modern genetic technologies are not even mentioned--as they were not yet invented at the time of publication!
We often read that 98% of our genetic letters are in common with chimpanzees, and 97% with gorillas. But, I was amazed to read that humans share exactly the same number and types of bones with chimpanzees, the same chemicals in our brains. We have the same types of immune, digestive, vascular, lymph, and nervous systems. So, it must be the remaining 2% of our gene structures that differentiate humans from chimpanzees.
All sorts of nature-vs.-nurture issues are addressed in this book. The book contains a remarkable table of IQ correlations. For identical twins reared together, the correlation is 86%. For twins reared apart, 76%. For biological siblings, 47%. For adopted children living together, the correlation is 0%. These statistics say a lot about the relative importance of nature vs. nurture. And, remarkably, as one ages from childhood to adolescence to adulthood, the importance of heritability of IQ increases!
Evolution by natural selection is about the "competition between genes, using individual and occasionally societies as their temporary vehicles.... The body's survival is secondary to the goal of getting another generation started." Genes act as if they have selfish goals, an idea first proposed and made popular by Richard Dawkins in his famous book, The Selfish Gene.
I learned from this book that men and women are most attracted to body odors of people of the opposite sex who are most different from them genetically, in terms of MHC genes that govern resistance to parasite intruders, by the immune system. Also, I learned how genes can be expressed due to the release of cortisol and other hormones during periods of stress. For example, people living near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant at the time of the accident had more cancers than expected. But, these cancers were not due to radiation exposure, as there was none, but due to heightened cortisol levels, which which reduced the effectiveness of the immune system.
Genes need to be switched on in order to work. External events and free-willed behavior can switch on genes. Genes are not omnipotent; they are at the mercy of our behavior. Another remarkable fact is that the status of a person's job is a better predictor of the likelihood of a heart attack, than obesity or high blood pressure. Someone in a low-grade job is four times more likely to have a heart attack than a high-grade job. The reason is that low-grade jobs lead to the lack of control over one's fate, leading to an increase in stress hormones, followed by a rise in blood pressure and heart rate. This may explain why unemployment and welfare dependency help to make people ill. It is not understood why we and all animals have evolved in such a way that stress suppresses our immune systems.
The most important lesson from the book is repeated over and over again, "Genes are not there to cause diseases." Gene mutations can lead to disease, and sometimes there is a balancing effect between resistance to one disease at the expense of being susceptible to another disease.
This is an excellent book, very readable, and quite engaging. The author gets into some technical detail at times, without getting too bogged down in jargon. I recommend this book for anyone interested in genetics. My only reservation about it, is the fact that it is already quite out of date due to the rate of increasing knowledge about genetics.
We often read that 98% of our genetic letters are in common with chimpanzees, and 97% with gorillas. But, I was amazed to read that humans share exactly the same number and types of bones with chimpanzees, the same chemicals in our brains. We have the same types of immune, digestive, vascular, lymph, and nervous systems. So, it must be the remaining 2% of our gene structures that differentiate humans from chimpanzees.
All sorts of nature-vs.-nurture issues are addressed in this book. The book contains a remarkable table of IQ correlations. For identical twins reared together, the correlation is 86%. For twins reared apart, 76%. For biological siblings, 47%. For adopted children living together, the correlation is 0%. These statistics say a lot about the relative importance of nature vs. nurture. And, remarkably, as one ages from childhood to adolescence to adulthood, the importance of heritability of IQ increases!
Evolution by natural selection is about the "competition between genes, using individual and occasionally societies as their temporary vehicles.... The body's survival is secondary to the goal of getting another generation started." Genes act as if they have selfish goals, an idea first proposed and made popular by Richard Dawkins in his famous book, The Selfish Gene.
I learned from this book that men and women are most attracted to body odors of people of the opposite sex who are most different from them genetically, in terms of MHC genes that govern resistance to parasite intruders, by the immune system. Also, I learned how genes can be expressed due to the release of cortisol and other hormones during periods of stress. For example, people living near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant at the time of the accident had more cancers than expected. But, these cancers were not due to radiation exposure, as there was none, but due to heightened cortisol levels, which which reduced the effectiveness of the immune system.
Genes need to be switched on in order to work. External events and free-willed behavior can switch on genes. Genes are not omnipotent; they are at the mercy of our behavior. Another remarkable fact is that the status of a person's job is a better predictor of the likelihood of a heart attack, than obesity or high blood pressure. Someone in a low-grade job is four times more likely to have a heart attack than a high-grade job. The reason is that low-grade jobs lead to the lack of control over one's fate, leading to an increase in stress hormones, followed by a rise in blood pressure and heart rate. This may explain why unemployment and welfare dependency help to make people ill. It is not understood why we and all animals have evolved in such a way that stress suppresses our immune systems.
The most important lesson from the book is repeated over and over again, "Genes are not there to cause diseases." Gene mutations can lead to disease, and sometimes there is a balancing effect between resistance to one disease at the expense of being susceptible to another disease.
This is an excellent book, very readable, and quite engaging. The author gets into some technical detail at times, without getting too bogged down in jargon. I recommend this book for anyone interested in genetics. My only reservation about it, is the fact that it is already quite out of date due to the rate of increasing knowledge about genetics.
March 21, 2015
وأنا غارق في بحر هذا الكتاب, وجدتني لا شعوريا استحضر هذه الأبيات الحكيمة المنسوبة للإمام علي- عليه السلام:
دواؤك فيك وما تشعر *** وداؤك منك وما تُبصر
وتحسب أنّك جرم صغير*** وفيك انطوى العالم الأكبر
وأنت الكتاب المبين الذي*** بأحرفه يظهر المُضمَر
العجيب في الأمر أن المؤلف استخدم نفس التشبيه-الكتاب- للإشارة إلى الجينوم
لغير المتخصصين, مثلي, الكتاب يفتح بابا من المعرفة لم أكن أعلم أنه أصلا موجود
قد يكون مستغربا تقييم الثلاث نجمات, ولكنها الترجمة, وما أدراك ما الترجمة؟! روعة الكتاب تعتمد على أسلوب المؤلف البارع في توصيل المعلومة بأسلوب قصصي مشوق. وأعتقد أن المترجم لم يتمكن من ترجمة الأسلوب
فيما عدا ذلك, فالكتاب كنز, وسأسعى للحصول على نسخته الإنجليزية
يتحدث المؤلف عن أحد أهم إنجازات العلم في التاريخ, اكتشاف خريطة الجينوم البشري, الذي كان يعتقد أنه سيجيب على جميع الأسئلة المتعلقة بالإنسان, ولكن اتضح بعد حين أن الاكتشاف لم يقم إلا بتفجير فيضا من الأسئلة الجديدة
الكتاب مقسم إلى 23 فصلا, وفي كل فصل يختار جينا من الجينات من كل زوج من الكروموسومات ويحكي عن قصة اكتشافه والأبحاث المتعلقة به ورؤيته لمستقبل جين هذا الزوج من الكروموسومات
بالطبع, المؤلف لن يكتب عن كل الجينات, فجسم الإنسان - حسب المذكور في الكتاب - يحتوي على 60 إلى 80 ألف جين. وما يذكره هو مجرد نماذج لتلك الجينات
اضطرني الكتاب إلى مشاهدة العديد من الفيديوهات على اليوتيوب عن الجينوم/ الدنا/ الرنا/والكثير من الشخصيات المذكورة في الكتاب. الكتاب لم يكن نزهة, ولكنه كان ممتعا...تماما كالذهاب إلى النادي
بعض الفصول استوقفتني كالوقاية والعلاج, وأخرى مررت عليها مرور الكرام لجهلي وتعقيدها, أما الفصل الأكثر إثارة وسوداوية فكان بلا منازع فصل اليوجينيا
كثير من الناس ينظر إلى الجانب المشرق من العلم والجانب المظلم من الدين, فيمجد الأول ويزدري الثاني؛ أدعو أصحاب هذه العقلية أن يقرأوا هذه الفصل بتمعن ويعلموا أن العلم والدين بلا أخلاق يتحولان إلى وحش كاسر بلا رحمة. عادة ما تكون السياسة هي المسؤولة عن هذا التحول...أو بالأحرى الاستبداد السياسي - كما هو الحال مع سياسات اليوجينيا المرعبة في ألمانيا والسويد والولايات المتحدة والنرويج وفنلندا أوائل القرن الماضي
كتاب رائع, ولكنه يحتاج إلى أساسيات قوية...أتمنى لكم رحلة ممتعة
دواؤك فيك وما تشعر *** وداؤك منك وما تُبصر
وتحسب أنّك جرم صغير*** وفيك انطوى العالم الأكبر
وأنت الكتاب المبين الذي*** بأحرفه يظهر المُضمَر
العجيب في الأمر أن المؤلف استخدم نفس التشبيه-الكتاب- للإشارة إلى الجينوم
لغير المتخصصين, مثلي, الكتاب يفتح بابا من المعرفة لم أكن أعلم أنه أصلا موجود
قد يكون مستغربا تقييم الثلاث نجمات, ولكنها الترجمة, وما أدراك ما الترجمة؟! روعة الكتاب تعتمد على أسلوب المؤلف البارع في توصيل المعلومة بأسلوب قصصي مشوق. وأعتقد أن المترجم لم يتمكن من ترجمة الأسلوب
فيما عدا ذلك, فالكتاب كنز, وسأسعى للحصول على نسخته الإنجليزية
يتحدث المؤلف عن أحد أهم إنجازات العلم في التاريخ, اكتشاف خريطة الجينوم البشري, الذي كان يعتقد أنه سيجيب على جميع الأسئلة المتعلقة بالإنسان, ولكن اتضح بعد حين أن الاكتشاف لم يقم إلا بتفجير فيضا من الأسئلة الجديدة
الكتاب مقسم إلى 23 فصلا, وفي كل فصل يختار جينا من الجينات من كل زوج من الكروموسومات ويحكي عن قصة اكتشافه والأبحاث المتعلقة به ورؤيته لمستقبل جين هذا الزوج من الكروموسومات
بالطبع, المؤلف لن يكتب عن كل الجينات, فجسم الإنسان - حسب المذكور في الكتاب - يحتوي على 60 إلى 80 ألف جين. وما يذكره هو مجرد نماذج لتلك الجينات
اضطرني الكتاب إلى مشاهدة العديد من الفيديوهات على اليوتيوب عن الجينوم/ الدنا/ الرنا/والكثير من الشخصيات المذكورة في الكتاب. الكتاب لم يكن نزهة, ولكنه كان ممتعا...تماما كالذهاب إلى النادي
بعض الفصول استوقفتني كالوقاية والعلاج, وأخرى مررت عليها مرور الكرام لجهلي وتعقيدها, أما الفصل الأكثر إثارة وسوداوية فكان بلا منازع فصل اليوجينيا
كثير من الناس ينظر إلى الجانب المشرق من العلم والجانب المظلم من الدين, فيمجد الأول ويزدري الثاني؛ أدعو أصحاب هذه العقلية أن يقرأوا هذه الفصل بتمعن ويعلموا أن العلم والدين بلا أخلاق يتحولان إلى وحش كاسر بلا رحمة. عادة ما تكون السياسة هي المسؤولة عن هذا التحول...أو بالأحرى الاستبداد السياسي - كما هو الحال مع سياسات اليوجينيا المرعبة في ألمانيا والسويد والولايات المتحدة والنرويج وفنلندا أوائل القرن الماضي
كتاب رائع, ولكنه يحتاج إلى أساسيات قوية...أتمنى لكم رحلة ممتعة
October 11, 2019
Ridley takes on a number of controversial topics. These include the genome’s influence on intelligence, sexual orientation, personality and free will; genetically modified foods, eugenics and testing for incurable diseases. He explains how genes function, their structure, and how they shape our bodies and minds. The book was written in 1999 so some of it may be dated. Below are my notes.
Genes are turned on and off throughout our life often dependent on environmental factors. Some genes code for proteins but many are simply switches dictating when another gene will be active. A good example of this is asthma driven by a variety of genes in different combinations all dependent on environmental stimulus. Huntington’s disease is an example of a genetic defect that doesn’t show up until late in life.
Every cell contains a complete set of genes. This is evident in the growth of a fertilized egg. It grows into a blob and then differentiates. There is no central control. Each cell independently knows where it should go, what it should become. Specialized developmental genes turn on and off at each step often repeating the processes of our evolutionary ancestors. That we are self-assembled from a single cell is perhaps the most remarkable feat in genetics.
In some sense the cells of the body act like a colony of ants or bees. Each has a specialized role and each may sacrifice itself for the good of the others, but not always. In cancer, cells have gone awry and there are tumor suppressor genes to take care of them. One is the well-known P.53 gene. However it too can become mutated and ineffective and virulent cancer results.
Genes can be imprinted from their source, either paternal or maternal. Paternal and maternal genes may have distinct roles. Some areas of brain development come from the father’s genes, other areas from the mother’s. It is not an equal or random mix. Also just as physical sex is determined by genes so are many of the attitudes consistent with that sex. Girls like dolls and boys like trucks, not just because of their upbringing, but because it is in their genes
Two ways genes affect personality and behavior are through the production of dopamine and serotonin and their receptors. An extreme shortage of dopamine causes Parkinson’s, an extreme over abundance, schizophrenia. Dopamine is important to feeling pleasure. Many addictive drugs increase dopamine levels. People with fewer dopamine receptors take more risks. They need more stimulation to feel pleasure and thus have more adventurous personalities. Serotonin is a similar brain chemical that when very low can lead to impulsiveness and when very high lead to OCD. Increasing serotonin levels leads to a pleasure response. One way to increase serotonin is to increase insulin levels thus eating a bag of chocolate chip cookies can do the trick.
Perhaps the most controversial area of genetics is its relationship to intelligence. The issue is especially problematic since no one can really define intelligence. IQ is a notoriously deficient indicator. But the discussion persists particularly with respect to race so here is the author’s take. Whatever IQ measures, it is 50% heritable. The rest is due to the environment including time spent in the womb, time at home, time at school and with peers. Blacks do score lower on IQ tests than whites, but to conclude that this is due to genes is fallacious. There is no evidence showing the difference is due to heritability and in fact blacks raised among whites perform just as well as whites on IQ tests.
Taking on another controversy, Ridley cites studies indicating sexual orientation is 50% due to genes. A male child is much more likely to be gay if the mother’s brother is. Another factor in males according to Ridley is birth order. The more elder brothers the more probable a child is gay. This is likely due to antigens produced by three genes on the Y chromosome. Only males have the Y chromosome. These three genes are similar to one that codes a protein essential to masculinize the brain. The mother may build up an immune response to the antigens increasing with each successive male child. Genes responsible for genital development are not affected.
How much of our behavior is hard wired? What is learned and subject to free choice and what is due to instinct? Language provides a good example of how both factors are at play. We learn language, hundreds of different ones, but their grammar is remarkably similar. People, particularly in childhood, have an instinct for grammar, an inherent ability to arrange words in a meaningful way. This ability diminishes after childhood making learning second languages harder.
Who is in charge: the genes, the body or the mind? In fact it is chaos as each impacts the other. Genes predispose our behavior, but environmental factors activate genes. Take stress which causes the hormone cortisol to be produced. The mind becomes anxious, say because of an impending exam, and this causes the body to release the hormone cortisol. Cortisol switches on many genes in cells with receptors to it. Some of these genes dim down the immune system leaving us more vulnerable to infection. The feeling of stress can depend on our outlook, but the release of cortisol is an involuntary response by the body. Constant release of cortisol can lead to heart disease. Those who lack control over their life by being at the bottom of the economic pecking order suffer more from heart disease than those at the top.
Do we have free will? The author believes genes predispose us to behaviors but we are still free to make choices. If a gene gives us an unhealthy craving for sweets we can still choose to overcome it, perhaps with the help of another gene that makes us want to look good or enjoy good health. Ridley attacks those who replace genetic determinism with social determinism. He points to the belief that children grow up to be child abusers because they were abused. Ridley says none of the studies supporting this have controlled for genetic influences, that the child of an abuser would have the same genetic disposition to be an abuser. He cites studies comparing the disparate outcomes of biological and adopted children of abusers to make his case.
Genetically modified food has become very controversial despite many benefits. Partly this is for agricultural practices that some modifications encourage such as increased pesticide use. On the other hand increased productivity and nutrition can save many lives particularly in developing countries. Modified animals such as chimeric mice facilitate the testing of human genes to find out how they work. This can lead to new disease treatments which may be quite traditional such as altered diet.
Would you want to be tested for an incurable disease? Huntington’s patients face this choice and soon Alzheimer’s patients may as well. Genetic screening is also a controversial issue because of the potential inappropriate use of information by insurance companies and employers.
Eugenics gained steam in the early twentieth century. The US and many European countries sterilized the “feeble minded.” The idea was endorsed by prominent politicians and members of the scientific community. Sweden sterilized 60,000. Germany sterilized 400,000 of its psychiatric patients. It subsequently murdered 70,000 of them to provide beds for wounded soldiers in WWII. The German scenario did serve to wake up the rest of the world to eugenics’ end game. People were seen as cattle. There is no more appalling example of the misuse of science.
If these topics catch your interest, it would be well worth your time to read the book. Ridley keeps the technical stuff to a minimum and has an engaging style. He also stakes out his own point of view on some controversial issues which encourages you to think through how you feel.
Genes are turned on and off throughout our life often dependent on environmental factors. Some genes code for proteins but many are simply switches dictating when another gene will be active. A good example of this is asthma driven by a variety of genes in different combinations all dependent on environmental stimulus. Huntington’s disease is an example of a genetic defect that doesn’t show up until late in life.
Every cell contains a complete set of genes. This is evident in the growth of a fertilized egg. It grows into a blob and then differentiates. There is no central control. Each cell independently knows where it should go, what it should become. Specialized developmental genes turn on and off at each step often repeating the processes of our evolutionary ancestors. That we are self-assembled from a single cell is perhaps the most remarkable feat in genetics.
In some sense the cells of the body act like a colony of ants or bees. Each has a specialized role and each may sacrifice itself for the good of the others, but not always. In cancer, cells have gone awry and there are tumor suppressor genes to take care of them. One is the well-known P.53 gene. However it too can become mutated and ineffective and virulent cancer results.
Genes can be imprinted from their source, either paternal or maternal. Paternal and maternal genes may have distinct roles. Some areas of brain development come from the father’s genes, other areas from the mother’s. It is not an equal or random mix. Also just as physical sex is determined by genes so are many of the attitudes consistent with that sex. Girls like dolls and boys like trucks, not just because of their upbringing, but because it is in their genes
Two ways genes affect personality and behavior are through the production of dopamine and serotonin and their receptors. An extreme shortage of dopamine causes Parkinson’s, an extreme over abundance, schizophrenia. Dopamine is important to feeling pleasure. Many addictive drugs increase dopamine levels. People with fewer dopamine receptors take more risks. They need more stimulation to feel pleasure and thus have more adventurous personalities. Serotonin is a similar brain chemical that when very low can lead to impulsiveness and when very high lead to OCD. Increasing serotonin levels leads to a pleasure response. One way to increase serotonin is to increase insulin levels thus eating a bag of chocolate chip cookies can do the trick.
Perhaps the most controversial area of genetics is its relationship to intelligence. The issue is especially problematic since no one can really define intelligence. IQ is a notoriously deficient indicator. But the discussion persists particularly with respect to race so here is the author’s take. Whatever IQ measures, it is 50% heritable. The rest is due to the environment including time spent in the womb, time at home, time at school and with peers. Blacks do score lower on IQ tests than whites, but to conclude that this is due to genes is fallacious. There is no evidence showing the difference is due to heritability and in fact blacks raised among whites perform just as well as whites on IQ tests.
Taking on another controversy, Ridley cites studies indicating sexual orientation is 50% due to genes. A male child is much more likely to be gay if the mother’s brother is. Another factor in males according to Ridley is birth order. The more elder brothers the more probable a child is gay. This is likely due to antigens produced by three genes on the Y chromosome. Only males have the Y chromosome. These three genes are similar to one that codes a protein essential to masculinize the brain. The mother may build up an immune response to the antigens increasing with each successive male child. Genes responsible for genital development are not affected.
How much of our behavior is hard wired? What is learned and subject to free choice and what is due to instinct? Language provides a good example of how both factors are at play. We learn language, hundreds of different ones, but their grammar is remarkably similar. People, particularly in childhood, have an instinct for grammar, an inherent ability to arrange words in a meaningful way. This ability diminishes after childhood making learning second languages harder.
Who is in charge: the genes, the body or the mind? In fact it is chaos as each impacts the other. Genes predispose our behavior, but environmental factors activate genes. Take stress which causes the hormone cortisol to be produced. The mind becomes anxious, say because of an impending exam, and this causes the body to release the hormone cortisol. Cortisol switches on many genes in cells with receptors to it. Some of these genes dim down the immune system leaving us more vulnerable to infection. The feeling of stress can depend on our outlook, but the release of cortisol is an involuntary response by the body. Constant release of cortisol can lead to heart disease. Those who lack control over their life by being at the bottom of the economic pecking order suffer more from heart disease than those at the top.
Do we have free will? The author believes genes predispose us to behaviors but we are still free to make choices. If a gene gives us an unhealthy craving for sweets we can still choose to overcome it, perhaps with the help of another gene that makes us want to look good or enjoy good health. Ridley attacks those who replace genetic determinism with social determinism. He points to the belief that children grow up to be child abusers because they were abused. Ridley says none of the studies supporting this have controlled for genetic influences, that the child of an abuser would have the same genetic disposition to be an abuser. He cites studies comparing the disparate outcomes of biological and adopted children of abusers to make his case.
Genetically modified food has become very controversial despite many benefits. Partly this is for agricultural practices that some modifications encourage such as increased pesticide use. On the other hand increased productivity and nutrition can save many lives particularly in developing countries. Modified animals such as chimeric mice facilitate the testing of human genes to find out how they work. This can lead to new disease treatments which may be quite traditional such as altered diet.
Would you want to be tested for an incurable disease? Huntington’s patients face this choice and soon Alzheimer’s patients may as well. Genetic screening is also a controversial issue because of the potential inappropriate use of information by insurance companies and employers.
Eugenics gained steam in the early twentieth century. The US and many European countries sterilized the “feeble minded.” The idea was endorsed by prominent politicians and members of the scientific community. Sweden sterilized 60,000. Germany sterilized 400,000 of its psychiatric patients. It subsequently murdered 70,000 of them to provide beds for wounded soldiers in WWII. The German scenario did serve to wake up the rest of the world to eugenics’ end game. People were seen as cattle. There is no more appalling example of the misuse of science.
If these topics catch your interest, it would be well worth your time to read the book. Ridley keeps the technical stuff to a minimum and has an engaging style. He also stakes out his own point of view on some controversial issues which encourages you to think through how you feel.
February 23, 2015
I gave Ridley's The Red Queen five stars when I read it half a decade ago, and The Rational Optimist one (and a longish review) when I read it in 2011. Genome, his most famous book, isn't quite as awful as the latter, but Ridley's godawful politics shine through often enough to irritate.
His insistence on lauding free entreprise (even where it only exists in his imagination) and condescendingly cautioning against ``big government'' at every turn isn't even the most obnoxious part this time; if anything, that just neatly serves as a cautionary tale of the deleterious effects of American politics on an impressionable Tory.
His stereotypically regressive views on sex and gender (which include not only a complete denial that trans people exist, but also views on gender roles and things boys inherently like versus things girls inherently like so comically extreme and poorly defended I would have believed them to be satire in any other context) are considerably more grating, and make me question whether the score I gave Red Queen—which is, after all, entirely about those things—wasn't a result of an excess of faith in humanity and red wine.
The hypocritical chapter on eugenics, which decries the practice despite being sandwiched between two chapters implicitly defending it, is likely to annoy even people who don't particularly care about gender issues, and any remaining patience I had for Ridley he lost when he quoted Gould on IQ.
There isn't enough of interest in the rest of the book to begin to salvage it, or to recommend it over any book on roughly the same subject. Skip it.
His insistence on lauding free entreprise (even where it only exists in his imagination) and condescendingly cautioning against ``big government'' at every turn isn't even the most obnoxious part this time; if anything, that just neatly serves as a cautionary tale of the deleterious effects of American politics on an impressionable Tory.
His stereotypically regressive views on sex and gender (which include not only a complete denial that trans people exist, but also views on gender roles and things boys inherently like versus things girls inherently like so comically extreme and poorly defended I would have believed them to be satire in any other context) are considerably more grating, and make me question whether the score I gave Red Queen—which is, after all, entirely about those things—wasn't a result of an excess of faith in humanity and red wine.
The hypocritical chapter on eugenics, which decries the practice despite being sandwiched between two chapters implicitly defending it, is likely to annoy even people who don't particularly care about gender issues, and any remaining patience I had for Ridley he lost when he quoted Gould on IQ.
There isn't enough of interest in the rest of the book to begin to salvage it, or to recommend it over any book on roughly the same subject. Skip it.
October 3, 2011
A really great introduction to genetics. One of my friends, who studied chemistry in college, recommended the book to me. The book is divided into 23 chapters, representing the 23 different sets of chromosomes in the human body. The concept fascinated me, and I thought that if the author had enough of a sense of humor to write a book this way, why not give it a try?
I'm not going to pretend that I understood 100% of the book, but the parts I did understand, I appreciated. While the writer does provide an introduction on how genes and DNA work, for most people who don't have a background in genetics, the amount of material will be overwhelming. My best advice is to skim to get the general idea and continue on. The principles will be repeated as you progress along the book, and this time they'll stick because they are illustrated using real life occurrences (for example, I now have a clearer understanding of how stress biologically affects our bodies). The concepts are intricate, but Matt Ridley does a great job breaking things down into digestible portions.
Despite the title, each chapter does not go into a detailed account of the function of each set of chromosomes. Good thing, too, since each chromosome serves a variety of different functions. Instead, each chapter is divided up into themes. For example, the chapter Fate, which I found the most fascinating, sought to prove that a good portion of our lives is written in our genetic code. Ridley uses Huntington’s Disease to prove this point: he explains how Huntington’s is caused, why it happens in some people and not in others, and describes in detail how a repeating sequence of CAGs can determine at what age you start to show symptoms. What I appreciated the most, though, was that Ridley also pushes further to describe the ramifications of the disease—should doctors tell a patient that they have the disease and that they will develop symptoms at a certain age? Should patients inquire about whether or not they have the incurable, unavoidable disease?
The book, while informative and intellectually stimulating, encourages us to ask very difficult questions that result from such issues. Rather than the detached scientist studying life through a microscope, Ridley actively engages with life, challenging and observing and questioning. Instead of the coldly yet carefully studied discourse on genetics it could have been, the book joins human life and genetics together in a compassionate way.
Definitely recommended, and not just for the science-y people.
I'm not going to pretend that I understood 100% of the book, but the parts I did understand, I appreciated. While the writer does provide an introduction on how genes and DNA work, for most people who don't have a background in genetics, the amount of material will be overwhelming. My best advice is to skim to get the general idea and continue on. The principles will be repeated as you progress along the book, and this time they'll stick because they are illustrated using real life occurrences (for example, I now have a clearer understanding of how stress biologically affects our bodies). The concepts are intricate, but Matt Ridley does a great job breaking things down into digestible portions.
Despite the title, each chapter does not go into a detailed account of the function of each set of chromosomes. Good thing, too, since each chromosome serves a variety of different functions. Instead, each chapter is divided up into themes. For example, the chapter Fate, which I found the most fascinating, sought to prove that a good portion of our lives is written in our genetic code. Ridley uses Huntington’s Disease to prove this point: he explains how Huntington’s is caused, why it happens in some people and not in others, and describes in detail how a repeating sequence of CAGs can determine at what age you start to show symptoms. What I appreciated the most, though, was that Ridley also pushes further to describe the ramifications of the disease—should doctors tell a patient that they have the disease and that they will develop symptoms at a certain age? Should patients inquire about whether or not they have the incurable, unavoidable disease?
The book, while informative and intellectually stimulating, encourages us to ask very difficult questions that result from such issues. Rather than the detached scientist studying life through a microscope, Ridley actively engages with life, challenging and observing and questioning. Instead of the coldly yet carefully studied discourse on genetics it could have been, the book joins human life and genetics together in a compassionate way.
Definitely recommended, and not just for the science-y people.
August 18, 2019
Предопределено ли е всичко от гените ни? Абе...сложно е! И Мат Ридли ентусиазирано се заема да хвърли светлина по въпроса.
Радвам се, че има “преводачи” на научни концепции като Ридли, които да ги разпространят до възможно най-широк кръг читатели - все пак малцина следят специализираните издания. Дори и в този си популярен вид обаче (с безброй улесняващи сравнения и асоциации) книгата ме накара да осъзная колко малко се поднася и разбира в часовете по биология или из страниците на “Нешънъл Джиографик”... Буквално ме изхвърли отново на училищната скамейка, и ме накара с нетърпеливо любопитство да разгръщам всяка следваща страница.
Хареса ми сравнението на ДНК като книга с рецепти, чието реално изпълнение обаче зависи до голяма степен от заобикалящите ни среда, култура и общество. Ридли определено е противник на теорията на детерминизма и предопределеността, дори и в ситуации, където наличието на мутации в някои гени, или липсата на съответния ген, води до съвсем предопределена тежка и неизличима болест или други не по-малко вредни последствия. Спорът между привържениците на детерминизма (социален, религиозен и всякакъв друг) и на еволюцията (с всичките и течения) съвсем не е от вчера, и страстите в наши дни ни най-малко не са стихнали. Ридли балансира, не винаги успешно според мен, като на моменти дори избягва по-ясна позиция и залита във витиевата политкоректност. Но балансът и отчитанетото на противоположни по произход, но сходни по степен на влияние фактори, лично за мен плавно води в правилната посока, избягвайки високоскоростните капани на различнит�� видове фундаментализъм.
Детерминизъм определено има във факта, че генетично човек е 98% шимпанзе и 97% горила. Както и че гените ни предопределят факта, че ако езикът не се научи в програмираното за това време от живота на детето, не се научава в по-късна възраст. Инстинктът за учене се губи, тъй като обуславящите го гени спират действието си. Немалко детерминизъм има и в теорията за себичния ген, представена в една от главите на книгата: гените могат да се разглеждат и като ненужни репликатори, които умело използват телата ни за носител и последващо възпроизводство. Гениален е и механизмът на ембрионалното развитие, което е напълно децентрализирано: никоя клетка не чака указания от властта (политиците да четат внимателно!), всяка самостоятелно носи копие от генома, а гените отключват в строго опредена последователност и географска локация други гени с различни функции.
В много случаи обаче не поведението на индивида зависи от биологията, а по-често биологията се влияе от поведението на индивида. Променящите се нива на серотонина и кортизола в зависимост от чувствителността ни към ежедневието са прекрасен пример. А за любителите на млякото (като мен) приятна изненада как поведението може да промени гените, е онази доказана при над 70% от европейците генна мутация, която им позволява и днес да усвояват млякото като възрастни. Тя се е появила в резултат на еволюционенния натиск на скотовъдството и засиленото включване на млякото в диетата - въпреки че съответният ген за преработката на млякото се изключва още в детска възраст. Азиатци и африканци не са имали този “късмет”, но тяхната кухня и до днес не включва особено много мляко.
Някои примери далеч не са толкова вдъхновяващи или безобидни. Тскъв пример е евгениката, доведена до нелепа и опасна крайност не само от нацизма, но и от расизма в САЩ. САЩ приемат свирепи антиимигрантски закони през 20-те години на XX век и стерилизират над 100 хиляди души, класифицирани като умствено изостанали по нелепи от днешна гледна точка критерии. Дано администрацията на Тръмп прочете тази глава.
Бъдещето чертае интересни насоки за цялото това новопридобито познание (над които авторите на научна фантастика вече са разсъждавали в различни вариации):
- Медиците взе още имат желание да лекуват населението, а не индивида. Лечението на един може да не е подходящо за друг, и гените ще помогнат за прецизиране и индивидуализиране на лечението. Лечението на рака вече върви в тази посока, като типична болест на гените, макар и без финален резултат на този етап;
- Генната дискриминация при здравното осигуряване и при наемането от бъдещи работодатели може да се окаже реална заплаха, ако генните тестове се превърнат в неправомерна държавна или социална политика.
Както се казва, прокълнати сме да живеем в интересни времена. Но, и тук съм съгласна с Ридли, в крайна сметка учени и политици трябва да отчетат факта, че геномът на всеки индивид - като се тегли чертата след всички вълнуващи открития, които не трябва да спират - си е негова лична работа.
4,5/ 5.
Радвам се, че има “преводачи” на научни концепции като Ридли, които да ги разпространят до възможно най-широк кръг читатели - все пак малцина следят специализираните издания. Дори и в този си популярен вид обаче (с безброй улесняващи сравнения и асоциации) книгата ме накара да осъзная колко малко се поднася и разбира в часовете по биология или из страниците на “Нешънъл Джиографик”... Буквално ме изхвърли отново на училищната скамейка, и ме накара с нетърпеливо любопитство да разгръщам всяка следваща страница.
Хареса ми сравнението на ДНК като книга с рецепти, чието реално изпълнение обаче зависи до голяма степен от заобикалящите ни среда, култура и общество. Ридли определено е противник на теорията на детерминизма и предопределеността, дори и в ситуации, където наличието на мутации в някои гени, или липсата на съответния ген, води до съвсем предопределена тежка и неизличима болест или други не по-малко вредни последствия. Спорът между привържениците на детерминизма (социален, религиозен и всякакъв друг) и на еволюцията (с всичките и течения) съвсем не е от вчера, и страстите в наши дни ни най-малко не са стихнали. Ридли балансира, не винаги успешно според мен, като на моменти дори избягва по-ясна позиция и залита във витиевата политкоректност. Но балансът и отчитанетото на противоположни по произход, но сходни по степен на влияние фактори, лично за мен плавно води в правилната посока, избягвайки високоскоростните капани на различнит�� видове фундаментализъм.
Детерминизъм определено има във факта, че генетично човек е 98% шимпанзе и 97% горила. Както и че гените ни предопределят факта, че ако езикът не се научи в програмираното за това време от живота на детето, не се научава в по-късна възраст. Инстинктът за учене се губи, тъй като обуславящите го гени спират действието си. Немалко детерминизъм има и в теорията за себичния ген, представена в една от главите на книгата: гените могат да се разглеждат и като ненужни репликатори, които умело използват телата ни за носител и последващо възпроизводство. Гениален е и механизмът на ембрионалното развитие, което е напълно децентрализирано: никоя клетка не чака указания от властта (политиците да четат внимателно!), всяка самостоятелно носи копие от генома, а гените отключват в строго опредена последователност и географска локация други гени с различни функции.
В много случаи обаче не поведението на индивида зависи от биологията, а по-често биологията се влияе от поведението на индивида. Променящите се нива на серотонина и кортизола в зависимост от чувствителността ни към ежедневието са прекрасен пример. А за любителите на млякото (като мен) приятна изненада как поведението може да промени гените, е онази доказана при над 70% от европейците генна мутация, която им позволява и днес да усвояват млякото като възрастни. Тя се е появила в резултат на еволюционенния натиск на скотовъдството и засиленото включване на млякото в диетата - въпреки че съответният ген за преработката на млякото се изключва още в детска възраст. Азиатци и африканци не са имали този “късмет”, но тяхната кухня и до днес не включва особено много мляко.
Някои примери далеч не са толкова вдъхновяващи или безобидни. Тскъв пример е евгениката, доведена до нелепа и опасна крайност не само от нацизма, но и от расизма в САЩ. САЩ приемат свирепи антиимигрантски закони през 20-те години на XX век и стерилизират над 100 хиляди души, класифицирани като умствено изостанали по нелепи от днешна гледна точка критерии. Дано администрацията на Тръмп прочете тази глава.
Бъдещето чертае интересни насоки за цялото това новопридобито познание (над които авторите на научна фантастика вече са разсъждавали в различни вариации):
- Медиците взе още имат желание да лекуват населението, а не индивида. Лечението на един може да не е подходящо за друг, и гените ще помогнат за прецизиране и индивидуализиране на лечението. Лечението на рака вече върви в тази посока, като типична болест на гените, макар и без финален резултат на този етап;
- Генната дискриминация при здравното осигуряване и при наемането от бъдещи работодатели може да се окаже реална заплаха, ако генните тестове се превърнат в неправомерна държавна или социална политика.
Както се казва, прокълнати сме да живеем в интересни времена. Но, и тук съм съгласна с Ридли, в крайна сметка учени и политици трябва да отчетат факта, че геномът на всеки индивид - като се тегли чертата след всички вълнуващи открития, които не трябва да спират - си е негова лична работа.
4,5/ 5.
June 15, 2016
It is interesting to me how, despite our best efforts, our preconceptions can totally shape our experiences. I was impressed when two biology majors in my school independently recommended this to book to me. Must be good, I thought. So, in the interest of honesty, I must disclose that my inflated expectations were probably the biggest contributor to my lackluster reaction. I had high hopes, and Ridley only partially delivered.
In popular science, an easy way to divide books is by the occupation of the writer: scientist or journalist? Dawkins represents, to me, the high point of the scientist end; he does not pepper his books with interesting anecdotes and trivia, but concentrates on real theories and real dilemmas in science. He succeeds in making the reader feel like an insider rather than an outsider. On the other end of the spectrum is Bill Bryson’s wonderful Short History of Nearly Everything, which is overflowing with anecdotes and trivia; read that book, and you’ll be spewing interesting stories and facts to your friends for months. Where Dawkins is focused on the theoretical, Bryson concentrates on the human side of things. Bryson doesn’t pretend to be any kind of expert; rather, his journalistic background has honed his appreciation for the fascinating backstory, the compelling character, the revealing tidbit. He brings the scientists to life, and focuses on their personalities and circumstances. The reader is not left feeling like an insider to the world of science, but a very appreciative outsider.
Ridley walks an uncomfortable medium in this book, and the result is decidedly mediocre. He has clearly spent a great deal of time familiarizing himself with the subject, and it shows; nevertheless, he is no expert. Ridley’s appreciation for the subject matter is not for its theoretical beauty, but for its social significance. He is exclusively interested, apparently, in humans (an unscientific prejudice!). This book combines research findings about the human genome with little biographies of scientists and narratives of their research. By the end, the reader feels neither like an insider nor an appreciative outsider. Rather, the reader feels like she has just read several science sections of the New York Times back to back.
I’m really finding it difficult to say anything concrete about Ridley; it’s far easier to say what he is not. His writing is neither incompetent nor exceptional; the reader is never struck by a malformed sentence, nor do any sentences stick in the mind after the book is put down. His understanding of the material is neither superficial nor deep; the reader is given some discussions of the logic of the theories, but as quick sketches rather than detailed diagrams. His feeling for a good anecdote is neither substandard nor superb; he presents many interesting stories, but none so shocking, hilarious, or dramatic as could be found in, say, Bryson. In sum, this is an eminently mediocre book.
To reiterate my above warning, I think my underwhelmed impression is due as much to my overblown expectations as to the quality of the book. By no means is this a bad book, and I’m sure it could be read by many with great interest; yet I expected a detailed exploration of the field of genetics, and instead got a series of stories about particular discoveries, which didn’t end up adding into a thorough picture of the field. Ridley perhaps stands in a much-needed middle ground between ‘deep’ scientists and ‘superficial’ journalists; but it is a middle-ground that I found fairly uninteresting.
In popular science, an easy way to divide books is by the occupation of the writer: scientist or journalist? Dawkins represents, to me, the high point of the scientist end; he does not pepper his books with interesting anecdotes and trivia, but concentrates on real theories and real dilemmas in science. He succeeds in making the reader feel like an insider rather than an outsider. On the other end of the spectrum is Bill Bryson’s wonderful Short History of Nearly Everything, which is overflowing with anecdotes and trivia; read that book, and you’ll be spewing interesting stories and facts to your friends for months. Where Dawkins is focused on the theoretical, Bryson concentrates on the human side of things. Bryson doesn’t pretend to be any kind of expert; rather, his journalistic background has honed his appreciation for the fascinating backstory, the compelling character, the revealing tidbit. He brings the scientists to life, and focuses on their personalities and circumstances. The reader is not left feeling like an insider to the world of science, but a very appreciative outsider.
Ridley walks an uncomfortable medium in this book, and the result is decidedly mediocre. He has clearly spent a great deal of time familiarizing himself with the subject, and it shows; nevertheless, he is no expert. Ridley’s appreciation for the subject matter is not for its theoretical beauty, but for its social significance. He is exclusively interested, apparently, in humans (an unscientific prejudice!). This book combines research findings about the human genome with little biographies of scientists and narratives of their research. By the end, the reader feels neither like an insider nor an appreciative outsider. Rather, the reader feels like she has just read several science sections of the New York Times back to back.
I’m really finding it difficult to say anything concrete about Ridley; it’s far easier to say what he is not. His writing is neither incompetent nor exceptional; the reader is never struck by a malformed sentence, nor do any sentences stick in the mind after the book is put down. His understanding of the material is neither superficial nor deep; the reader is given some discussions of the logic of the theories, but as quick sketches rather than detailed diagrams. His feeling for a good anecdote is neither substandard nor superb; he presents many interesting stories, but none so shocking, hilarious, or dramatic as could be found in, say, Bryson. In sum, this is an eminently mediocre book.
To reiterate my above warning, I think my underwhelmed impression is due as much to my overblown expectations as to the quality of the book. By no means is this a bad book, and I’m sure it could be read by many with great interest; yet I expected a detailed exploration of the field of genetics, and instead got a series of stories about particular discoveries, which didn’t end up adding into a thorough picture of the field. Ridley perhaps stands in a much-needed middle ground between ‘deep’ scientists and ‘superficial’ journalists; but it is a middle-ground that I found fairly uninteresting.
February 14, 2023
Mr. Ridley's, "Genome," was published in 1999. Needless to say, a lot has gone on since that time, and many dedicated scientists and researchers have greatly advanced our understanding of the twenty-three pairs of chromosomes that make up the human genome, and gene editing has seriously taken off. (Mr. Ridley, in my edition, adds an appendage where he discusses some of the new findings).
I am hesitant to say that this is a good book to start off with if you are interested in the human genome. I say that because after reading a number of books on the subject, there are parts of the book that I had to go back and reread a number of times to fully understand the point he was trying get across.(But then that could just be because am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier).
The analogues he uses to explain the jobs of different genes are wonderful.
I am hesitant to say that this is a good book to start off with if you are interested in the human genome. I say that because after reading a number of books on the subject, there are parts of the book that I had to go back and reread a number of times to fully understand the point he was trying get across.(But then that could just be because am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier).
The analogues he uses to explain the jobs of different genes are wonderful.
January 20, 2024
Тасарчихсан ном байна. Үнэхээр таалагдлаа.
Олон талаар нүд нээхүйц хэрнээ хачин сонирхолтой ч дотор хүйт даам түүх нэг нэгээр цуварна. Анх хэвлэлтээс гарснаас хойш нилээд удсан ч тийм их хоцрогдоогүй. Харин ч генетикийн судалгааны түүхийг олон бодит үйл явдлаар дамжуулан энгийнээр тайлбарласан нь маш сонирхолтой.
Генетикийн салбарт нэг мөсөн дурлачих шиг боллоо шүү.
Recommended reading list (on genetics):
★★★★★ She Has Her Mother's Laugh
★★★★★ The Emperor of All Maladies
★★★★★ The Genome Odyssey: Medical Mysteries and the Incredible Quest to Solve Them
★★★★☆ The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race
★★★★☆ The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
★★★★☆ The Gene: An Intimate History
★★★★☆ The Song of the Cell: An Exploration of Medicine and the New Human
★★★★☆ A Planet of Viruses
★★★☆☆ Lifespan: Why We Age—and Why We Don't Have To
★★★☆☆ Innate: How the Wiring of Our Brains Shapes Who We Are - bit too technical
★★★☆☆ The Telomere Effect
- The Body: A Guide for Occupants
- No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality
Олон талаар нүд нээхүйц хэрнээ хачин сонирхолтой ч дотор хүйт даам түүх нэг нэгээр цуварна. Анх хэвлэлтээс гарснаас хойш нилээд удсан ч тийм их хоцрогдоогүй. Харин ч генетикийн судалгааны түүхийг олон бодит үйл явдлаар дамжуулан энгийнээр тайлбарласан нь маш сонирхолтой.
Генетикийн салбарт нэг мөсөн дурлачих шиг боллоо шүү.
Recommended reading list (on genetics):
★★★★★ She Has Her Mother's Laugh
★★★★★ The Emperor of All Maladies
★★★★★ The Genome Odyssey: Medical Mysteries and the Incredible Quest to Solve Them
★★★★☆ The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race
★★★★☆ The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
★★★★☆ The Gene: An Intimate History
★★★★☆ The Song of the Cell: An Exploration of Medicine and the New Human
★★★★☆ A Planet of Viruses
★★★☆☆ Lifespan: Why We Age—and Why We Don't Have To
★★★☆☆ Innate: How the Wiring of Our Brains Shapes Who We Are - bit too technical
★★★☆☆ The Telomere Effect
- The Body: A Guide for Occupants
- No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality
October 25, 2014
إنتهيت من قراءة أمتع كتاب علمى قرأته حتى الآن... كــ قارئة قبل ان اكون باحثة فى المجال العلمى تطرقت لقراءات متعددة وبأساليب مختلفة عن الجينوم وفى الغالب كنت اجدها تحمل الطابع العلمى البحت الجاف نوعاً ما وبالرغم من استعدادى للمعرفة الا اننى كنت اصاب بالملل ولابد من القراءة على فترات متقطعة .... لكن ان أقرأ كتاب علمى عن الجينوم تفوق صفحاته 400 صفحة وكأنى أقرأ رواية جذابة تأخذنى كل كلمة فيها ... قطعاً انه مات ريدلى القدير فى استعراض موضوع هام كهذا عن الجينوم او المادة الوراثية بإسلوب روائى رائع بدأً من العنوان "الجينوم قصة حياة الجنس البشرى او السيرة الذاتية للنوع البشرى فى ثلاثة وعشرين فصل".... اما فهرس الكتاب انه رائع فعلاً فالفصل يعنى الكروموسوم "الفصل الاول اى الكرموسوم الاول ك1:الحياة - ك2: النوع - ك3: التاريخ - ك4: المصير - ك5: البيئة - ك6 : الذكاء - ك7: الغريزة - ك8: الصراع - ك9: الاهتمام بالذات - ك10: المرض - ك11: التوتر - ك12: الشخصية - ك13: تجميع الذات - ك14: ما قبل التاريخ - ك15: الخلود - ك16: الجنس - ك17: الذاكرة - ك18: الموت - ك19: العلاج - ك20: الوقاية - ك21: السياسة - ك22: تحسين النسل - ك23: الارادة الحرة" .... اما مقدمة الكتاب فهى معبرة جداً عن حقيقة الموضوع
الجينوم كتاب يحتوى على 23 فصلاً تسمى كروموسومات كل فصل به عدة الآف من المقالات وهى الجينات كل مقالة مؤلفة من فقرات هى الاكسونات تتخللها فقرات إعلانية تسمى الانترونات وكل فقرة مؤلفة من مجموعة من الكلمات تسمى كودونات كل كلمة مكتوبة بحروف تسمى القواعد
انه كتاب ضخم مفرط فى الطول وكلها داخل النواه الميكروسكوبية الحجم الموجوده بخلية دقيقة اصغر حجماً من رأس الدبوس
انه الكتاب الوحيد الذى يقرأ من اليسار لليمين وفى نفس الوقت من اليمين لليسار وهذا لا يحدث مع اى كتاب بأى لغة اى كانت
انه الكتاب الوحيد المكون من اربعة حروف فقط يكتب بها مليار كلمة هى المكونة للجينوم وهذه الحروف هى
(A - C - G - T)
اى: أدينين - سايتوسين - جوانين - ثايمين
(DNA) تكتب فى سلاسل طويلة من السكر والفوسفات هى جزيئات الحمض النووى الريبى
التى ترتبط بها القواعد كدرجات سلم حيث ان الكروموسوم هو زوج طويل من جزيئات
DNA
انه الكتاب الوحيد الذى ينسخ نفسه (التضاعف) ويقرأ نفسه (الترجمة).... سبحان الله
اعجبنى الكتاب جداً ولم اعطى النجمة الخامسة لانى لا أعتقد فى نظرية التطور لــ داروين التى تأثر بها المؤلف كثيراً خلال هذا الكتاب
ان هذا الصنع واليد التى خطت هذا الكتاب الذى تحدث عنه ريدلى وتحدث عنه كل المهتمين بالعلم ومازالوا يكتشفوا عنه وعن غيره المزيد انها يد الله الخالق عزوجل القادر على ان يضع لكل كائن حى بصمة وراثية تختلف عن غيره فهذه معجزة من معجزات الله التى لا تعد ولا تحصى ... ليس كمثله شيئ وهو السميع العليم
October 7, 2014
Even though this was written and published over 15 years ago, I found it relevant and revealing. Ridley is one of the better science writers, and this is assuredly his master work. Each chapter highlights a specific gene found on each of the 23 pairs of chromosomes. He repeatedly states that the book is not about disease, but it ultimately becomes a major theme and topic. The final chapters that discuss genetic determinism, eugenics, and nature vs nurture are treated with upmost care, empathy, and altogether brilliant writing. Ridley expresses his views by not expressing his views. How rare is that for a science writer? If he has a bias, it’s hard to tell here. Highly recommended and thoroughly engaging read.
March 6, 2019
I recently read two other books on the human genome: Siddhartha Mukherjee's The Gene: An Intimate History and Sam Kean's The Violinist's Thumb: And Other Lost Tales of Love, War, and Genius, as Written by Our Genetic Code.
I expected there to be a bit of overlap between them, but I actually found them each to be very different. Mukherjee and Kean focus a lot on the history, while Ridley stays more on the science and less about the history. Kean is a great storyteller, while Mukherjee tries hard to make a grand philosophical message, which falls flat, in my opinion, compared to Ridley.
As for the science, much of it seemed outdated, this book being almost two decades old, and the field of human genetics so quickly changing. Most of the sources are academic papers or articles, and the popular books and textbooks referenced are mostly outdated. However, based what I learned in Muckerjee's book, most of the science in Ridley still seems valid.
I'll admit that the real reason I picked this one up was to read Ridley's political views, and in that, he does not fail. The thrust of Ridley's political philosophy is in complex systems control is not centralized but distributed - a view I fully subscribe to. And this is not only true for biology, but for economics and government too. Ridley makes this very clear and convincing in several places in the book. I'd really like to read his other book - The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge, where he expands on this greatly.
Ridley delves into other contentious political topics as well, such as media hysteria over Mad Cow Disease, eugenics, genetic screening, sex, evolutionary psychology, and luddism. Ridley has a unique, but extremely compelling views on all these topics, and that's where this book really shines. One of the points Ridley quite clearly makes in a couple of places is that your genes belong to you alone, and you alone have the right to decide who you want to share it with. However, you really have to wait for the last few chapters of the book for his to really get started.
Overall, this book is a great addition to the popular literature on genetics. Despite being almost two decades old, the science is still fresh, and the political angle is something you won't get from any other author is such compelling a manner.
I expected there to be a bit of overlap between them, but I actually found them each to be very different. Mukherjee and Kean focus a lot on the history, while Ridley stays more on the science and less about the history. Kean is a great storyteller, while Mukherjee tries hard to make a grand philosophical message, which falls flat, in my opinion, compared to Ridley.
As for the science, much of it seemed outdated, this book being almost two decades old, and the field of human genetics so quickly changing. Most of the sources are academic papers or articles, and the popular books and textbooks referenced are mostly outdated. However, based what I learned in Muckerjee's book, most of the science in Ridley still seems valid.
I'll admit that the real reason I picked this one up was to read Ridley's political views, and in that, he does not fail. The thrust of Ridley's political philosophy is in complex systems control is not centralized but distributed - a view I fully subscribe to. And this is not only true for biology, but for economics and government too. Ridley makes this very clear and convincing in several places in the book. I'd really like to read his other book - The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge, where he expands on this greatly.
Ridley delves into other contentious political topics as well, such as media hysteria over Mad Cow Disease, eugenics, genetic screening, sex, evolutionary psychology, and luddism. Ridley has a unique, but extremely compelling views on all these topics, and that's where this book really shines. One of the points Ridley quite clearly makes in a couple of places is that your genes belong to you alone, and you alone have the right to decide who you want to share it with. However, you really have to wait for the last few chapters of the book for his to really get started.
Overall, this book is a great addition to the popular literature on genetics. Despite being almost two decades old, the science is still fresh, and the political angle is something you won't get from any other author is such compelling a manner.
August 27, 2019
Ridley tells a little about each gene in order & focuses on one specific part of each to discuss their workings & significance. He doesn't limit himself to our physical make up, but discusses the historical, sociological, & political. It's a fascinating tour & he leaves as many questions as he answers.
Huntington's Disease is well known & mapped. Most of us have less than 36 repeated glutamines in a specific spot on chromosome 4. If you have more, you're more likely to get it & they can even pin down when. It's an awful death & they can test for it. Would you? Should a doctor or anyone else tell you? Ridley discusses that at some length.
He comes back to this again with chromosome 21 when dealing with Down Syndrome which is also easily tested for, but he opens the can of eugenic worms. He does a great job reporting the arguments, in which he points out a lot of flaws, & the facts leaving the reader to make up their own mind. Very well done.
He also puts a lot of the fears of genetic tinkering to rest by showing just how the data is being used. Often knowing the genetic code, what works (It usually always does.) & what is broken or different allows medicine to alleviate or even fix the problem with more conventional means. He also briefly explains the various methods used for genetically modifying various organisms.
This book is 20 years old, so there's been a lot of progress, but it is still relevant since he's dealing with a lot of basics & shows how our expanding knowledge is making life better. I can't remember the exact quote, "Scientists live for ignorance; finding the answers. Knowledge is boring." or something like that & adds that every discovery only creates more questions. It was great because he summed up our technological leaps of the past few centuries so well.
Very well narrated & highly recommended in any format.
Huntington's Disease is well known & mapped. Most of us have less than 36 repeated glutamines in a specific spot on chromosome 4. If you have more, you're more likely to get it & they can even pin down when. It's an awful death & they can test for it. Would you? Should a doctor or anyone else tell you? Ridley discusses that at some length.
He comes back to this again with chromosome 21 when dealing with Down Syndrome which is also easily tested for, but he opens the can of eugenic worms. He does a great job reporting the arguments, in which he points out a lot of flaws, & the facts leaving the reader to make up their own mind. Very well done.
He also puts a lot of the fears of genetic tinkering to rest by showing just how the data is being used. Often knowing the genetic code, what works (It usually always does.) & what is broken or different allows medicine to alleviate or even fix the problem with more conventional means. He also briefly explains the various methods used for genetically modifying various organisms.
This book is 20 years old, so there's been a lot of progress, but it is still relevant since he's dealing with a lot of basics & shows how our expanding knowledge is making life better. I can't remember the exact quote, "Scientists live for ignorance; finding the answers. Knowledge is boring." or something like that & adds that every discovery only creates more questions. It was great because he summed up our technological leaps of the past few centuries so well.
Very well narrated & highly recommended in any format.
July 1, 2020
It's scary that this book rife with transphobia and misogyny disguised as "real science" is so critically acclaimed.
December 26, 2017
كتاب صعب جدا ،
ان لمً تكن من أهل الإختصاص
أنهيت أكثر من ثلاثة أرباعه بشق الأنفس
ولم أكمله
التقيم أعلاه
للجزء الذي قرأته فقط
_____ سأعيد قراءة الكتاب
بنسخة أخرى صادرة عن المجلس الوطني للثقافة والفنون والآداب في دولة الكويت _ سلسة عالم المعرفة
ان لمً تكن من أهل الإختصاص
أنهيت أكثر من ثلاثة أرباعه بشق الأنفس
ولم أكمله
التقيم أعلاه
للجزء الذي قرأته فقط
_____ سأعيد قراءة الكتاب
بنسخة أخرى صادرة عن المجلس الوطني للثقافة والفنون والآداب في دولة الكويت _ سلسة عالم المعرفة
October 4, 2012
An interesting idea for a popular book about genetics - 23 chapters, one for each pair of chromosomes - that is realized into a not particularly good book. I appreciate that it's trying to be generalist, but it's generalist to the point of failing to convey ideas. Ridley moves from topic to topic like a student who has been told that he must include a long list of them in his paper. And I'm afraid the writing is just not good enough for any of the briefly discussed ideas to stick in your brain, unless this book is literally your first exposure to the field of genetics at all (like, you didn't even learn about it at a high school level).
Part of the problem is the numerous minor details that are brought up and then discarded as we move on to the next subject. So for example in chapter 9, "Disease," we have a discussion of blood types. Good at first, but then we're told that the blood type gene is 1,062 letters of a section of 18,000, that it creates an enzyme called galactosyl transferase, and that type As have a sequence CGCG where Bs have a sequence called GAAC. In chapter 12, "Self-Assembly," the writing leaps around from a 1970s study on geometry of genes in fruit flies, to cross-species homologies in some of these genes, to a dizzying laundry list of genes within the space of a few pages: "Otx (1 and 2)", "Emx (1 and 2)", "decapentaplegic", "short gastrulation", "BMP4", "chordin", "Hox" and its alleles, "hedgehog" and its alleles.
This level of detail may add some texture, but as a generalist I think you only want as much detail as makes the topic fun to learn about, and then to focus on getting the big ideas across. As it was, I think I would have been better off reading anything in the book's bibliography than this book itself.
Part of the problem is the numerous minor details that are brought up and then discarded as we move on to the next subject. So for example in chapter 9, "Disease," we have a discussion of blood types. Good at first, but then we're told that the blood type gene is 1,062 letters of a section of 18,000, that it creates an enzyme called galactosyl transferase, and that type As have a sequence CGCG where Bs have a sequence called GAAC. In chapter 12, "Self-Assembly," the writing leaps around from a 1970s study on geometry of genes in fruit flies, to cross-species homologies in some of these genes, to a dizzying laundry list of genes within the space of a few pages: "Otx (1 and 2)", "Emx (1 and 2)", "decapentaplegic", "short gastrulation", "BMP4", "chordin", "Hox" and its alleles, "hedgehog" and its alleles.
This level of detail may add some texture, but as a generalist I think you only want as much detail as makes the topic fun to learn about, and then to focus on getting the big ideas across. As it was, I think I would have been better off reading anything in the book's bibliography than this book itself.
August 30, 2011
Sometimes I have to stop after even a paragraph. It's a strong feeling of becoming enraptured by the information, connections and insights afforded by this extremely lucid and stimulating layperson's introduction to the human genome. An extremely compressed three page preface provides a glossary and explanation of key terms, and can be returned to as needed. Each chapter then takes one chromosome and selects from each a particular gene to describe with a much broader emphasis upon what this actually means for human individuality, culture and society.
As always when reading popular science books, as well as becoming enthusiastic and wishing to retrain as an astrophysicist or quantum mechanic for instance, I am very interested in the 'rhetoric' of discourses, what emerges between the lines - often very powerful assumptions and values relating to conceptualising 'human nature'. In the case of biology, neuroscience etc. it strikes me as not at all right that one of the assumptions seems to be treating the hard, material attributes of human animalism on the same logical level as the wider discourses of humanity: thus for instance the nature-nurture division (itself making the same logically precarious distinction) leads at worst to quanitfying the relative influence of each 'side'. The are always ideological and political implication, too, not only within the production of science popularisation but within scientific enterprises generally.
Ridley does not entirely address the identity question. There's an interesting parallel I think between science writing like this which acknowledges "environmental factors' but leaves them as extremely vague, amorphous and subject to filling with whatever a particular thinker or conceptual paradigm requires, and those who consider such questions as occur around socioeconomics, ideology, material poverty etc. who tend to leave the questions about the enormously important weight of human meat, including brain meat, as a passing aside. Both have their essential role, and a synthesis is required. However, Ridley does an excellent job in contrasting Chapter/Chromosome 4, Fate wherein a particular tiny, tiny genetic abnormality is indeed an unstoppable marker which predicts certain terminal illnesses )or, the high risk of) with Chromosome5, in Environment which details the research for asthma related genes: here, he whizzes through the many implicated genes correlating with different demographies and how environment is a very significant, possibly crucial, factor in triggering genetic propensities (among different groups: men, for instance seem more affected by petrol fumes than women who have a weakness for diesel).
I like his conclusion of the chapter on environment (in which he does, by the way, mention the wide open field for interpreters of data to channel explanations through favourite hobby horses, interests or ideology):
The more we delve into the genome the less fatalistic it will seem. Grey indeterminancy, variable causality and vague predisposition are hallmarks of the system.....(S)implicity piled upon simplicity creates complexity. The genome is as complicated and indeterminate as ordinary life, because it is ordinary life. This should come as a relief. Simple determinism, whether of the genetic or environmental kind, is a depressing prospect for those with a fondness for free will.
Well, being a numbskull, I hadn't realised that gene theory has almost died in relation to the context of this book. I shall keep it as an historical text! Still, its great strength remains which is the approach to emphasising the amorphousness of data and theory, the tentative nature of concluding anything, and so thus an antidote to the dread ideologies of the numbskulls all around who use language like lego blocks and words like things to be quantified, measured and sold and bought. Yah!
As always when reading popular science books, as well as becoming enthusiastic and wishing to retrain as an astrophysicist or quantum mechanic for instance, I am very interested in the 'rhetoric' of discourses, what emerges between the lines - often very powerful assumptions and values relating to conceptualising 'human nature'. In the case of biology, neuroscience etc. it strikes me as not at all right that one of the assumptions seems to be treating the hard, material attributes of human animalism on the same logical level as the wider discourses of humanity: thus for instance the nature-nurture division (itself making the same logically precarious distinction) leads at worst to quanitfying the relative influence of each 'side'. The are always ideological and political implication, too, not only within the production of science popularisation but within scientific enterprises generally.
Ridley does not entirely address the identity question. There's an interesting parallel I think between science writing like this which acknowledges "environmental factors' but leaves them as extremely vague, amorphous and subject to filling with whatever a particular thinker or conceptual paradigm requires, and those who consider such questions as occur around socioeconomics, ideology, material poverty etc. who tend to leave the questions about the enormously important weight of human meat, including brain meat, as a passing aside. Both have their essential role, and a synthesis is required. However, Ridley does an excellent job in contrasting Chapter/Chromosome 4, Fate wherein a particular tiny, tiny genetic abnormality is indeed an unstoppable marker which predicts certain terminal illnesses )or, the high risk of) with Chromosome5, in Environment which details the research for asthma related genes: here, he whizzes through the many implicated genes correlating with different demographies and how environment is a very significant, possibly crucial, factor in triggering genetic propensities (among different groups: men, for instance seem more affected by petrol fumes than women who have a weakness for diesel).
I like his conclusion of the chapter on environment (in which he does, by the way, mention the wide open field for interpreters of data to channel explanations through favourite hobby horses, interests or ideology):
The more we delve into the genome the less fatalistic it will seem. Grey indeterminancy, variable causality and vague predisposition are hallmarks of the system.....(S)implicity piled upon simplicity creates complexity. The genome is as complicated and indeterminate as ordinary life, because it is ordinary life. This should come as a relief. Simple determinism, whether of the genetic or environmental kind, is a depressing prospect for those with a fondness for free will.
Well, being a numbskull, I hadn't realised that gene theory has almost died in relation to the context of this book. I shall keep it as an historical text! Still, its great strength remains which is the approach to emphasising the amorphousness of data and theory, the tentative nature of concluding anything, and so thus an antidote to the dread ideologies of the numbskulls all around who use language like lego blocks and words like things to be quantified, measured and sold and bought. Yah!
October 14, 2022
I read "Genome: the Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters" almost as soon as it came out in 2000, which made me more curious as to my own origins. When my father died a couple months later I was left with reams of genealogical records that my mother had collected before she died. A couple of years later I discovered the National Genographic Project, jointly established by IBM and National Geographic, both of which seemed to be the most creditable organizations to have undertaken such a project for the general public.
Genome helped me understand some of the science of what they were reporting with regard to relatives that I would discover. I remember a family from Switzerland contacting me shortly after I had sent my saliva samples to Genographic headquarters for analysis. I did not believe their claim of being related to me, so I mistakenly ignored them. I subsequently found that my father's lineage, unbeknownst to him, was Swiss-German from the Emmental region according to my paternal DNA, and that my mother’s was British-Scandinavian from my maternal DNA. So, from the formal science of genetics being explained to me in popular science fashion in "Genome: the Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters” I have expanded my knowledge of my own origins.
I know from other written sources and Genographic that my father is also partly descended from the Choctaws in Alabama. And my very white mother would have been extremely surprised to see on the map that her forbears wandered around in central and northern Africa for thousands of years before making it up to the Balkans and then to the Baltic Sea and over into Finland and the British Isles. Unfortunately, both parents passed away before we were able to sit down together at the table and share this valuable information with each other. For every new discovery, I add it to the latest version of Reunion—an application that keeps track of one’s findings in family history. I hope that I can leave it as a legacy to my grandchildren, but if they are not curious like I have been then it will have been all for nought.
(For further findings on my maternal side, I have also relied on “Five Years in South Mississippi” by Theophilus Shuck Powell, which I have reviewed on Goodreads.com. The findings are also corroborated on the Genographic database FTDNA.)
Genome helped me understand some of the science of what they were reporting with regard to relatives that I would discover. I remember a family from Switzerland contacting me shortly after I had sent my saliva samples to Genographic headquarters for analysis. I did not believe their claim of being related to me, so I mistakenly ignored them. I subsequently found that my father's lineage, unbeknownst to him, was Swiss-German from the Emmental region according to my paternal DNA, and that my mother’s was British-Scandinavian from my maternal DNA. So, from the formal science of genetics being explained to me in popular science fashion in "Genome: the Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters” I have expanded my knowledge of my own origins.
I know from other written sources and Genographic that my father is also partly descended from the Choctaws in Alabama. And my very white mother would have been extremely surprised to see on the map that her forbears wandered around in central and northern Africa for thousands of years before making it up to the Balkans and then to the Baltic Sea and over into Finland and the British Isles. Unfortunately, both parents passed away before we were able to sit down together at the table and share this valuable information with each other. For every new discovery, I add it to the latest version of Reunion—an application that keeps track of one’s findings in family history. I hope that I can leave it as a legacy to my grandchildren, but if they are not curious like I have been then it will have been all for nought.
(For further findings on my maternal side, I have also relied on “Five Years in South Mississippi” by Theophilus Shuck Powell, which I have reviewed on Goodreads.com. The findings are also corroborated on the Genographic database FTDNA.)
September 23, 2018
Прекрасният генетичен свят на Мат Ридли
http://www.knigolandia.info/2010/09/b...
Книжният пазар у нас като че ли не се влияе от кризата – поне на пръв поглед. В България непрекъснато се издава какво ли не, а тиражите, въпреки че са твърде отдалечени от западните, понякога достигат повече от задоволителни числа. И все пак, под “какво ли не” и под “задоволителни числа” не се има предвид нито разнообразие, нито същински бестселъри. Имаме по-скоро капризни хитове – спорадични, подвластни на социалните настроения и (безсрамно ниските ни) ста��дарти. Предпочитат се преходни и боклучави книжлета: булеварден entertainment, глупава езотерика и таблоидни биографии. На този фон наличието на стабилна литература за еволюция, рационализъм, скептицизъм и науката in general остава някъде назад. Прекалено назад.
Разбира се, има изключения, разчитащи на сигурната популярност (да речем: Карл Сейгън, Стивън Хокинг или Брайън Грийн), но къде са Майкъл Шърмър, Даниъл Денет, Рой Спенсър, Филип Плейт, Сам Харис, Кристофър Хичънс, Джеймс Ранди и по-голямата част от библиографията на Ричард Докинс?
Именно в тази ��оредица от големи имена ще споменем Мат Ридли, британски автор и журналист, който също е от хората, чието отсъствие по родните книжарници е едновременно културно и интелектуално престъпление. Слава Зевсу, поне една от творбите му вече си е проправила път насам. “Геномът” (с подзаглавие “Автобиография на един биологичен вид в 23 глави”) разглежда хем сложна, хем безкрайно обаятелна тема и то под ъгъл, който печели допълнителния читателски интерес със своя нестандартен и дори провокативен подход.
http://www.knigolandia.info/2010/09/b...
Книжният пазар у нас като че ли не се влияе от кризата – поне на пръв поглед. В България непрекъснато се издава какво ли не, а тиражите, въпреки че са твърде отдалечени от западните, понякога достигат повече от задоволителни числа. И все пак, под “какво ли не” и под “задоволителни числа” не се има предвид нито разнообразие, нито същински бестселъри. Имаме по-скоро капризни хитове – спорадични, подвластни на социалните настроения и (безсрамно ниските ни) ста��дарти. Предпочитат се преходни и боклучави книжлета: булеварден entertainment, глупава езотерика и таблоидни биографии. На този фон наличието на стабилна литература за еволюция, рационализъм, скептицизъм и науката in general остава някъде назад. Прекалено назад.
Разбира се, има изключения, разчитащи на сигурната популярност (да речем: Карл Сейгън, Стивън Хокинг или Брайън Грийн), но къде са Майкъл Шърмър, Даниъл Денет, Рой Спенсър, Филип Плейт, Сам Харис, Кристофър Хичънс, Джеймс Ранди и по-голямата част от библиографията на Ричард Докинс?
Именно в тази ��оредица от големи имена ще споменем Мат Ридли, британски автор и журналист, който също е от хората, чието отсъствие по родните книжарници е едновременно културно и интелектуално престъпление. Слава Зевсу, поне една от творбите му вече си е проправила път насам. “Геномът” (с подзаглавие “Автобиография на един биологичен вид в 23 глави”) разглежда хем сложна, хем безкрайно обаятелна тема и то под ъгъл, който печели допълнителния читателски интерес със своя нестандартен и дори провокативен подход.
February 8, 2017
Genome is somewhat out of date by now, published back in 1999. Bearing that in mind, it was a pretty good read; sometimes, the themes Ridley chose for a particular chapter weren’t all that closely tied to the chromosome he chose, and issues like that, but that’s the problem with our chromosomes. The information isn’t distributed neatly across our chromosomes: in fact, those of us with a Y chromosome have one that does almost nothing overall, despite the fact that it affects carriers’ phenotypes so markedly.
It’s mostly informative and tries hard to avoid reinforcing certain misconceptions — like the idea that a gene codes for a disease, or that things are as simple as a single gene coding for a single trait. A lot of the anecdotes are familiar to me from previous reading, but it’s still interesting to see them presented in this way. It’s pretty modern-human-centric: I mean, if you’re going to look at our autobiography of a species, then I think at least a little time needs to be given to the past of our species. People so often want to know how closely we’re related to Neanderthals.
I think Ridley’s tone is a little dry, though; given that and the fact that the book is a little out of date now, I probably wouldn’t recommend it to anyone looking for a quick and up to date whip around of what we know of genetics. If you have a more general, patient interest, though, why not?
Originally posted here.
It’s mostly informative and tries hard to avoid reinforcing certain misconceptions — like the idea that a gene codes for a disease, or that things are as simple as a single gene coding for a single trait. A lot of the anecdotes are familiar to me from previous reading, but it’s still interesting to see them presented in this way. It’s pretty modern-human-centric: I mean, if you’re going to look at our autobiography of a species, then I think at least a little time needs to be given to the past of our species. People so often want to know how closely we’re related to Neanderthals.
I think Ridley’s tone is a little dry, though; given that and the fact that the book is a little out of date now, I probably wouldn’t recommend it to anyone looking for a quick and up to date whip around of what we know of genetics. If you have a more general, patient interest, though, why not?
Originally posted here.
June 18, 2015
محكومٌ علينا بالجينات! ...فما نحن سوى شرائح رقمية!...أو إن شئت قل شفرات: فإما شقيٌ وإما سعيد ..فثمة خيطٌ لولبيّ فريدٌ من ال (دي إن إيه) يحرك الجميع كدُمى من خشب...ومنذ أجيالٍ انتخب العالم كل ما فينا بالقسوة ..فكان "البقاء للأقوى" وللأظلم وللأطغى ..وفي حربٍ ضروسٍ كهذه، لا نسل يبقى للمقتول ..وعليه فإن الحاضرين جميعهم هم أحفاد من قتل ..تلك فكرةٌ مريرة نعم! ...ولكن على اﻷقل بقي لي منها خبر سار ... فلقد صار عندي اﻵن جينٌ لكل ذنب ..للقهر و الضعف ..للمثلية والجنون ..وللعنف والحب ..هب الجميع بقبحهم وآثامهم وضعية الحتمية الكونية، وسيغدو الكل أجمل ...وكأنك واﻵخرين مجرد "بَكَرة" وصلٍ لهذا الخيط اﻷزليّ الممتد فيما بين النفختين ..نفخة الروح اﻷولى ونفخة الصور اﻷخيرة ...كانت تلك فكرةٌ جديرةٌ باتخاذ قرار قطعيّ بالمغفرة : سأحب كل الناس، لن أستثني منهم أحد ..كيف لا و الظالم بها ما هو إلا كسيحٌ آخر قد عرقل مُرغماً مسير العدل ...ثم يكرر (رايدلي) فجأةً بثلث الكتاب اﻷخير هذا القول: " واﻷفضل للقارئ أن يُعوّد نفسه على اللاقطعية، فكلما زدنا توغلاً في الجينوم ، سيبدو لنا أقل جبرية، وتصبح السمات المميزة في المنظومة لا قطعية رمادية، وسببيّة مُتغايرة كنزعاتٍ غامضة، فالجينوم معقد ولا حتميّ، تماماً مثل الحياة العادية ﻷنه نفسه حياةٌ عادية." ..فأجدني وبكل ما فيّ من عزمٍ واندفاع، أُزين لزوجي الإسراع بإجراءت انتقالنا لتلك البلدة النائية الغافية على الخريطة في سُبات: سنعيش هناك في عزلة بلا حد..نتنزه بين الهضاب و الجبال.. نزرع الريحان والورد.. ونشتري مسدس!
" وأنا أنحني فوق كمبيوتر محمول مُتحدثاً إلى (دايفيد هيج) عالم البيولوجيا التطورية، دُهشت قليلاً عندما سمعته يقول إن كروموسوم 19 هو كروموسومه المفضل. وفسّر ذلك بأن هذا الكروموسوم فيه كل أنواع الجينات "اللعوب"! ولم أكن فكرت قبلها قط في أن الكرموسومات لها شخصياتها. فهي على كلِ مجرد مجموعات اعتباطية من الجينات. ولكن ملاحظة هيج العارضة زرعت في رأسي فكرة لم أستطع التخلص منها. لماذا لا نحاول أن نروي ما تكشّف من قصة الجينوم البشري في كل كرموسوم بعد الآخر، بأن نلتقط من كل كروموسوم جيناً يتلائم مع القصة ��ما نرويها؟ لقد فعل (بريمو ليفي) شيئاً مشابهاً بالنسبة للجدول الدوري للعناصر، وبدأت أفكر في الجينوم البشري بما يحق له كنوعٍ من السيرة الذاتية ، كتسجيل مكتوب بنزعة جينية." ..هكذا قال (مات رايدلي)، وهذا بالتحديد ما فعل.
مجدولةٌ بالمجاز لغة (رايدلي ) بلا إفراطٍ في الخيال الأدبي أو تفريط بالواقع العلمي..وكثيرا ما كنت أقف الهُنيهة إجلالاً أمام شروحاته المفعمة بالبساطة والابتكار ، لميكانيزمات الوراثة الموغلة في التعقيد والضجر ..بيد أني لا أرى كتابه مناسباً لغير المتخصصين خلافاً لما رأى، لذا سأحصر اقتباساتي منه- ما استطعت- لتكون أبعد عن الرطانة العلمية أكثر مما حصر..يقول (مات رايدلي) واصفاً الجينوم البشري :
" دعنا نتخيل أن الجينوم كتاب، هناك 23 فصلا تسمى الكروموسومات. وكل فصل يحوي ألافا عديدة من القصص، تسمى الجينات. وكل قصة قد صنعت من فقرات تسمى إكسونات تقطعها إعلانات تسمى إنترونات، وكل فقرة قد صنعت من كلمات تسمى كودونات ، وكل كلمة كتبت بحروف تسمى قواعد. ويوجد في الكتاب بليون كلمة، بما يجعله أطول ب5000 جزء من حجم هذا الكتاب، أو بطول 800 إنجيل. ولو أنني تلوت الجينوم على القارئ بمعدل كلمة واحدة في الثانية لمدة 8 ساعات يوميا، سيستغرق ذلك مني قرنا بأكمله. ولو أنني دوّنت الجينوم البشري بمعدل حرف واحد في كل ملليمتر، فإن النص الذي أكتبه سيكون في طول نهر الدانوب. فهذه وثيقة عملاقة ، كتاب هائل، وصفة طويلة طولاً مفرطاً، وكل هذا يتخذ موضعه داخل نواة ميكروسكوبية لخلية دقيقة الصغر، تتخذ مكانها بسهولة فوق رأس دبوس."
وكغالب علماء البيولوجيا الحيوية، يؤمن (رايدلي) بنظرية التطور ..فبالرغم من استناده العلمي على حقيقة :"أن هناك عملية خلقٍ واحدةٍ فقط، حدثٌ وحيدٌ عند ولادة الحياة " وهو ما عبّر عنه بكونه "حُجةٌ مفيدة للمتدينين" !..إلا أنه أخذ يسوق الدلائل الجينية بالثلث الأول من الكتاب ، لتدعم اعتناقه لعقيدة التطور فيما يختص بسردية الانفجار الكبير وميلاد الكون ونشأة المخلوقات وأسلاف البشر ..ما يعنيني في ذلك هو كراهتي لقدرة بعض قارئيه على بخس كتابٍ كهذا لحقّه انتصاراً فقط لقناعات النفوس...ففي نهاية الأمر ، الحقيقة هي كنز الله لا يشاركه فيها أحد...وقد تُساق المعلومة نفسها فيرى البعض فيها بصمة يمين الله بكل شئ ولا يرى الباقون فيها الله في أي شئ ...يقول (مات رايدلي) بإحدى تلك الحقائق الجينية المذهلة بين الكائنات:
" ولعل ما يُثير الدهشة بالفعل، أن البشر ليس لديهم 24 زوجاً من الكروموسومات: فأفراد الشامبنزيّ لديهم 24 زوج من الكروموسومات، وكذلك الغوريلا والأورانج أوتان، فنحن استثناء بين القردة العليا. وأبرز فارق تحت الميكروسكوب أننا ينقصنا زوجٌ واحد ، والسبب ليس في أن ذلك الزوج مفقودٌ عندنا، وإنما السبب أن اثنين من كروموسومات القردة العليا قد اندمجا فينا ، والحقيقة أن كروموسوم 2 ثاني أكبر كروموسومات الإنسان قد تكوّن من اندماج كروموسومين متوسطيّ الحجم من كروموسومات القردة العليا...ولو اخترنا عشوائيا أي فقرة في جينوم الشمابنزي لنقارنها مع الفقرة المماثلة في الجينوم البشري، فسنجد أن حروفاً قليلة جدا تكون مختلفة، وهذا في المتوسط بمعدل أقل من 2%، فنحن كالشامبنزي بنسبة 98% ، وإذا كان هذا لا ينال من احترام القارئ لنفسه، فليعتبر أن أفراد الشامبنزي هم مثل الغوريلا بنسبة 97%، وبكلمات أخرى فنحن نماثل أفراد الشامبنزي أكثر مما تماثلهم الغوريلا."
ثم كانت هناك فصولا تحكي كيف أصبح علم الوراثة عوناً للظالم وسلاحاً للمستبد، كاختبار(معامل الذكاء) على سبيل المثال، والذي أقُصي به الكثير من المهاجرين إلى أميركا ، وخضع لوطأته ملايين المجندين بالجيش خلال الحرب العالمية الأولى ..يقول (رايدلي) عنه منتقداً:
" تاريخ معامل الذكاء ليس تاريخاً رفيع المستوى ولا يوجد في تاريخ العلم سوى قلة من الخلافات التي جرى التصرف فيها بغباءٍ مثل الخلاف حول الذكاء ، ويدخل الكثيرون منّا في الموضوع ، وأنا منهم وقد تملّكهم تحيزٌ كله ارتياب ، وأنا لا أعرف ما يكون عليه معامل ذكائي، فقد أجروا لي اختبارا في المدرسة ولم يخبروني قط بالنتيجة ، وكنت لا أدرك أن الاختبار يجري إزاء زمنٍ معين ليس فيه بوجهٍ خاص ما يطرح في حد ذاته أي ذكاء ، وجعلتني هذه الخبرة لا أحترم فجاجة أن نقيس ذكاء الناس برقمٍ وحيد، فالقدرة على قياس شئ مراوغ هكذا في نصف ساعة أمر يبدو سخيفاً. والحقيقة أن القياسات الأولى للذكاء كان الدافع إليها مُتحيزا على نحو فجّ . فقد كان (فرنسيس جالتون) رائداً لدراسة التوائم بغرض أن يعزل المواهب الفطرية عن تلك المكتسبة، ولم يتردد (جالتون) في ذكر السبب لقيامه بذلك : " إن هدفي العام هو أن ألاحظ بعناية شتى الملكات الموروثة لمختلف الرجال، وأن ألاحظ الفروق الكبيرة في العائلات الكبيرة والأعراق المختلفة، وأن أتعلم إلى أي مدى قد يُظهر التاريخ الإمكان العملي لأن تَحل السلالات البشرية الأفضل مكان السلالات غير الكفئة، وبالتالي نكرّس الجهد للوصول إلى غايات التطور بسرعة أكبر ومشقة أقل مما لو تركنا الأحداث تجري مجراها الخاص." وبكلمات أخرى كان جالتون يريد أن يغربل الأفراد لانتخابهم وإنسالهم كما لو كانوا ماشية."
ورغم "أن أشهر رائد لاختبارات الذكاء وهو الفرنسي (ألفريد بينيه) ، كان يُحاج بحماس بأن الهدف من الاختبار ليس أن نكافئ الأطفال الموهوبين ، وإنما أن نبذل عناية خاصة بالأطفال الأقل موهبة." إلا أن (رايدلي) سرد العديد من مساوئ هذا الامتحان سواء بصوره القديمة أو الحديثة كتلك الدارجة حالياً ..يقول مثلاً:
" لقد تجاهلوا التأثيرات البيئية على القدرات تجاهلاً كاملا حتى أنهم كانوا يختبرون من لا يتكلمون الإنجليزية باختبارات إنجليزية ويختبرون أفرادا أمُيين باختبارات تتطلب منهم معالجة استخدام القلم لأول مرة. كان إيمانهم بالوراثة مُبالغاً في التمني وأدى عموما إلى أن يفترض ناقدوهم بعدها أنهم لم يكن لديهم مطلقا أي قضية."
ومقاطع كهذه كانت ترفع (مات رايدلي) بعيني ليكون عالماً بدرجة "حقوقيّ " ...يقول مثلا متحدثاً عن مخاوفه إزاء هذه الاختبارات الوراثية المتحيزة:
"ويوجد في الوقت نفسه خطرٌ من أن غول اختبارات التأمين الوراثية واختبارات التوظيف الوراثية سيثير فينا الرعب إلى حد أن يُبعدنا عن استخدام الاختبارات الوراثية لمصلحة الطب المفيد. على أن هناك غُولاً آخر يرعبني رعباً أكثر: وهو الخوف من أن تتحكم الدولة بما يُسمح لي فعله بجيناتي، وأنا ��ريصٌ على ألا تشاركني الشركة التي تؤمّن عليّ في شفرتي الوراثية، وحريصٌ كذلك على أنه ينبغي أن يعرفها طبيبي وأن يستخدمها، ولكنني أصُرّ إصراراً يصل إلى التعصب على أن يكون هذا قراري أنا. فجينومي ملكي أنا وليس ملك الدولة. وليس للدولة أن تقرر ما إذا كان يمكن لي إجراء الاختبار. فهذا قراري أنا. وهناك نزعة أبوية رهيبة للتفكير في أننا يجب أن تكون لدينا سياسة واحدة في هذا الشأن، وأن الحكومة يجب أن تضع القواعد حول مقدار ما يجب أن يراه الفرد من شفرته الوراثية الخاصة به، ومن الذي يجب أن يظهر له الفرد ذلك. على أن هذا قرار يتخذه الفرد لنفسه ، وليس قرار الدولة ، وينبغي دائما أن نتذكر ذلك."
أو كهذا الجزء حيث يقول متحدثاً عن سياسة البحث العلمي : " من المفروض أن العلم يتقدم بإقامة الفروض واختبارها التماساً لتكذيبها، ولكنه لا يفعل ذلك. وبالتالي كان أتباع الحتمية الوراثية في العشرينات من القرن العشرين يبحثون دائماً عما يُؤكد أفكارهم ولا يبحثون أبداً عن أي تكذيب لها، وبمثل ذلك تماماً كان أتباع الحتمية البيئية في الستينات يبحثون دائما عن براهين داعمة ويحوّلون أبصارهم بعيداً عن البراهين المضادة ، وعلى نحوٍ فيه مفارقة ، فإن هذا جانبٌ من العلم حيث يكون "الخبير" عادةً أكثر خطأً من الهاوي. فقد عرف الأفراد العاديون دائماً أن التعليم مهم ، ولكنهم بما يساوي ذلك آمنوا دائماً ببعض قدرة فطرية. أما الخبراء فهم اللذين اتخذوا الأطراف القصوى والمواقف السخيفة عند طرفٍ واحدٍ من طرفيّ الطيف."
وأذكر الآن إحصائية عالمية تم فيها رصد "مرض القلب" كسبب أول للوفيات المبكرة بمصر ...وأعتقد أني وجدت الآن تفسيراً مُقنعا لذلك ...يقول (مات رايدلي): " ومن أحسن التبصرات في الطريقة التي يغيّر بها السلوك من التعبير عن الجينات ما توصلنا إليه من دراسات القرود. فنجد مثلا في قرود حدائق الحيوان، أن الأفراد الذين تكتسي شرايينهم بطبقة فوق جدرانها يكونون في القاع من الترتيب الاجتماعي. وحيث أنه يتهددهم عنف زملائهم الأرقى مرتبة ، فإنهم متوترون باستمرار، فيرتفع الكورتيزول (هرمون التوتر) في دمائهم، وينخفض السيروتونين (هرمون الرضا) في أمخاخهم، وتبقى أجهزتهم المناعية مكبوتة دائما ويزداد تكون الألياف على جدران شراينهم التاجية."
ثم يضيف بمقطع آخر : "يشبه البشر القرود كثيرا. حدث اكتشاف أن القردة ذوي المكانة الاجتماعية المنخفضة يُصابون بأمراض القلب، في وقتٍ أعقب سريعاً الكشف الأكثر إذهالاً الذي يُفيد بأن الموظفين المدنيين العاملين في الحكومة البريطانية يُصابون بأمراض القلب بنسبة تتوافق مع قدر انخفاض مرتبتهم البيروقراطية، فقد أجُريت دراسة ضخمة لمدى طويل على 17 ألف موظف مدني وانبثق عنها استنتاج لايُصدق: وهو أن مرتبة وظيفة الفرد تتيح التنبؤ بدرجة تعرضه لنوبة قلبٍ أكثر مما تتنبأ به السمنة أو التدخين أو ارتفاع ضغط الدم، وإذا كان أحد الأفراد يشغل وظيفة من درجة منخفضة كالساعي مثلا، فسيكون عُرضة إصابته بنوبة قلبٍ باحتمال يبلغ أربعة أضعاف احتمال إصابة من يشغل وظيفة سكرتير دائم في قمة الهرم. بل حتى لو كان هذا السكرتير الدائم في الحقيقة سميناً ومرتفع الضغط ومدخناً، فإنه مازال أقل عرضة للإصابة من نوبة قلب في سنٍ معينة عن الساعي النحيل غير المدخن وذي ضغط الدم المنخفض. وظهرت النتيجة نفسها بالضبط من دراسةٍ مماثلة أجريت على مليون موظف في شركة (بل) للتليفونات في ستينيات القرن العشرين. فقلب الواحد منّا يقبع تحت رحمة مرتبة أجره . ما هذا الذي يحدث بحق السماء؟ حقيقة أن مرض القلب عَرضٌ لنقص التحكم تُفسر لنا الشئ الكثير عن ظهوره في حالات متفرقة . وهي تفسر السبب في أن أفراداً كثيرين من أصحاب الوظائف العالية الدرجة سرعان ما تصيبهم نوباتٍ قلبية بعد أن يتقاعدوا وينتقلوا من إدارة المكاتب إلى مهام مُتدنية كغسل الأطباق وتمشية الكلاب في بيئةٍ منزلية تُديرها زوجاتهم. بل إن هذا قد يُفسر حتى السبب في أن المباني الحديثة التي لا يمكن فتح نوافذها تُمرض الناس إلى حد أكبر من المباني الأقدم ، حيث يكون للناس تحكم أكثر في بيئتهم. سألجأ إلى أن أُكرر كلامي من باب التأكيد: فالسلوك أبعد من أن يكون تحت ر��مة بيولوجيتنا، في حين أنه كثيرا ما تكون بيولوجيتنا تحت رحمة سلوكنا. "
لم تكن هذه المرة الأولى التي أتعرف فيها إلى هذه المعلومة، غير أنها كانت المرة الأولى التي تستدعي في بالي احتمال أثرها البشري كذلك، لي ولزوجي العديد من أصدقاء الصبا المشتركين ، وأذكر جيدا كيف اعترتنا دهشة غامرة حين إدعى أحد أصدقاءنا غيرةً مفتعلة على خطيبته من أحد زملائها المحترمين ليرضيها، فسّر لنا ذلك فيما بعد بكونها طريقته المعتادة هو و العديد ممن يعرف لدرء اتهامات انتقاص حبه لها هذا إن لم يتطور الأمر عندها للطعن في نخوته...لن أستغرب الآن إن تطورت شكوى مثيلاتها من تصرفات أكثر ذكورية وأعتى فجاجة مع مرور الوقت...فلقد كانت تلك بذرتها في بادئ اﻷمر ...تعمد الكثيرات من النساء للأسف بوعي أو بدون إلى تكاثر وتطوير أجيال متتابعة من الرجال ذوي اللزوجة من فرط إدعاءات العاطفة وذوي الخنوثة حينما تتطلب المسؤولية... وكشأن باقي الكائنات ، يبدو أن الرجال هم خبز نسائهم ، بأيديهن طحنوا قمحه ودقيقه ، فليأكلوه إذن هنيئاً مريئاً..يقول (رايدلي):
"طرح داروين في كتابه الثاني عن التطور "تحدر سلالة الإنسان" فكرة أنه كما أن مربي الحمام يستطيع تربية الحمام ، فإن الأنثى هي من تُربي الذكور، فإناث الحيوانات تختار على نحوٍ ثابت نوع الذكور التي تتجامع معها عبر أجيال كثيرة، وبهذا فإن الإناث تستطيع تغيير شكل أو لون أوحجم أو طريقة شدو ذكور نوعها. والحقيقة أن هذا بالظبط ما يقع في حالة طيور الطاووس، ولم يحدث إلا بعد مرور قرن بعد طرح داروين هذا، أن أُجريت سلسلة من دراسات نظرية وتجريبية برهنت على أن داروين كان مصيبا، وأن ذيول وريش وقرون وأناشيد وحجم الحيوانات الذكور ، كلها صفات تتربى فيهم بالنزعات الثابتة للاختيار الأنثوي النشط أو السلبي جيلا بعد جيل. "
كانت أمتع الفصول هو الفصل الذي اختص بالكروموسوم 21 الشهير والخاص تحديدا ب(متلازمة داون) ، وما تلا ذلك من ظهور نزعة (النقاء الوراثي) البغيضة والتي حمل لوائها العالم (فرانسيس جالتون) ، حيث عرّف (رايدلي) أساسياتها كما طرحها (جالتون) بالتالي:
"يجب أن يكون للدولة كلمتها بشأن من الذي ينبغي أن يتوالد، ومن الذي ينبغي ألا يفعل. هكذا لم يكن علم تحسين النسل مُسيّسا ، بل كان عقيدةً سياسية جُعلت علمية، وبحلول عام 1900 كان علم تحسين النسل قد استحوذ على الخيال الشعبي ، على أنه سرعان ما انحرفت بؤرة التركيز عن مجرد تشجيع "تحسين النسل" باستيلاد الأفضل لتتحول إلى إيقاف "سوء النسل" نتيجة استيلاد الأسوأ. وسرعان ما أصبح الأسوأ يعني أساسا "ضعاف العقول" ويشمل ذلك مدمني الكحول، ومرضى الصرع والمجرمين وكذلك أيضا المتأخرين عقليا. "
وكانت تلك إحدى فظائع تطبيقاتها ..يقول (رايدلي) حاكياً: " في أول الأمر كانت المحكمة العليا ترفض الكثير من قوانين التعقيم ، ولكنها غيّرت اتجاهها في عام 1927 ، وحكمت المحكمة بولاية فيرجينيا بتعقيم (كاري بوك) ، وهي فتاة في السابعة عشرة من عمرها ، وأوُدعت مستعمرة لمرضى الصرع وضِعاف العقول حيث كانت تعيش مع أمها وابنتها فيفيان. وبعد إجراء فحصٍ سطحيّ، أعُلن أن فيفيان ابنتها التي كان عمرها 7 أشهر فقط "معتوهة" . فصدر أمر بتعقيم (كاري) ومنعها من الإنجاب للأبد. وكما أثبت القاضي (أوليفر هولمز) في حُكمه المشهور: "إن ثلاثة أجيال من المعتوهين فيها الكفاية" . ثم ماتت الطفلة فيفيان في سنٍ صغيرة ، أما (كاري) فظلت تعيش حتى سن الشيخوخة ، وهي امرأة محترمة ، متوسطة الذكاء، تحل ألغاز الكلمات المتقاطعة في أوقات فراغها. وكانت أختها قد أجُريت لها أيضا عملية تعقيم، وحاولت طوال سنين كثيرة أن تُنجب أطفالا إلى أن تبينت ما صُنع بها من غير موافقتها. استمرت ولاية فيرجينيا على تعقيم "المعوقين ذهنيا" حتى سبيعينيات القرن العشرين، وهكذا فإن أمريكا معقل الحرية الفردية قد عقمت ما يزيد على 100 ألف فرد بسبب ضعفهم عقليا، وذلك حسب ما يزيد على 30 قانونا ما بين قوانين ولايات وقوانين فدرالية صدرت في الفترة بين عامي 1910 و1935. على أنه إذا كانت أمريكا هي الرائدة ، فقد تبعتها بلادٌ أخرى . فعقمت السويد 60 ألفاً من الأفراد. ووضعت بلاد أخرى قوانين رسمية للتعقيم الإجباري ونفّذتها، مثل كندا والنرويج وفنلندا وإستونيا وأيسلندا. أما ألمانيا الأسوء سمعة فقد عقمت 400 ألف ، ثم قتلت الكثيرين منهم، وفي خلال 18 شهراً فقط في الحرب العالمية الثانية أُعدم بالغاز 70 ألف فرد من المرضى النفسيين الألمان المُعقمين من قبل ، وذلك لإخلاء أسرة المستشفيات للجنود والجرحى. "
وكان مهماً جداً عند (رايدلي) أن يوضح الفرق بين (تحسين النسل) سئ السمعة وبين نظيره (الفرز الوراثي) المعتمد على التوعية كعقيدة لحصر الأمراض الوراثية فيما بين الشعوب..يقول رايدلي: " وعلى الرغم من أنه لم تزل هناك قلة من العلماء الهامشيين المنشغلين بالانحطاط الوراثيّ للأعراق والسكان، إلا أن معظم العلماء يُدركون الآن أن مصلحة الأفراد ينبغي أن تكون لها الأولوية على مصلحة الجماعات. وهناك فارقٌ شاسع بين الفرز الوراثي وما كان أنصار تحسين النسل يريدونه أيام مجدهم ، وهو يقع في التالي: إن الفرز الوراثي يدور حول إعطاء أفراد خاصين اختيارات خاصة . أما تحسين النسل فكان يدور حول تأميم هذا القرار لجعل الناس يتوالدون من أجل الدولة وليس من أجل أنفسهم. وهذا تمييز كثير��ً ما نغفل رؤيته في اندفاعنا لتعيين ما يجب علينا "نحن" أن نسمح به في عالم الوراثة الجديد . من نكون نحن؟ نحن كأفراد، أو نحن بمعنى المصلحة الجماعية للدولة أو العرق؟ ..فكما ناقشت الأمر في الفصل عن كروموسوم 13 ، نجد أن هناك في الولايات المتحدة لجنة للوقايةِ من الأمراض الوراثية اليهودية تُجري إختبارات على دم أطفال المدارس ، وتعطي المشورة ضد الزواج لاحقاً عنما يكون كِلا الطرفين حاملاً لنسخة من جينٍ معين يُسبب المرض نفسه. وهذه سياسة اختيار إرادي بالكامل، وعلى الرغم من أن ذلك يُنتقد على أن فيه تحسيناً للنسل، إلا أنه لا يتضمن أي إجبارٍ بالمرة، تُقدم الكثير من السجلات التاريخية لتحسين النسل هذا العلم كمَثلٍ لمخاطر العلم وخاصة الوراثيات من غير سيطرة ، إلا أن فيه مثلاً أكبر أكثر لخطر أن تترك الحكومات من غير سيطرة."
كنت أعلم أني حين أحكي ﻷمي عن جين مرض (الفصام العقلي) الذي أصاب خالي فدمّر حياته وأفقده وظيفته المرموقة وزوجته المُحبة ..أوعن وراثية مرض (الاكتئاب المزمن) الذي أصاب خالتي فيتّم أولادها وهي على قيد الحياة ..أن لن يعنيها كثيراً إحتمالية أن يرث أحدنا نفس الداء ..بقدر ما سيرفع عن كاهل قلبها أحمال قديمة و أنواء ...تقول اﻵن بارتياح :"يعني صحيح جدك كان شديد وقاسي حبتين ..بس كتر خيره والله عمل اللي عليه وزيادة"....لم تكن تلك فائدتي الوحيدة من الكتاب ..فلقد صارت أمي تغمغم الآن عند الخلاف بدلاً من الصياح :"جينات مهببة!" فيضحك أبي ..و تسألني خلسةً بعد نومه عن دواءه في اهتمام ، فتغمرني السعادة ...أما بالنسبة ل "لا قطعية رايدلي" فسُحقاً لها ..وقطعاً لن أخبر بها أمي.
" وأنا أنحني فوق كمبيوتر محمول مُتحدثاً إلى (دايفيد هيج) عالم البيولوجيا التطورية، دُهشت قليلاً عندما سمعته يقول إن كروموسوم 19 هو كروموسومه المفضل. وفسّر ذلك بأن هذا الكروموسوم فيه كل أنواع الجينات "اللعوب"! ولم أكن فكرت قبلها قط في أن الكرموسومات لها شخصياتها. فهي على كلِ مجرد مجموعات اعتباطية من الجينات. ولكن ملاحظة هيج العارضة زرعت في رأسي فكرة لم أستطع التخلص منها. لماذا لا نحاول أن نروي ما تكشّف من قصة الجينوم البشري في كل كرموسوم بعد الآخر، بأن نلتقط من كل كروموسوم جيناً يتلائم مع القصة ��ما نرويها؟ لقد فعل (بريمو ليفي) شيئاً مشابهاً بالنسبة للجدول الدوري للعناصر، وبدأت أفكر في الجينوم البشري بما يحق له كنوعٍ من السيرة الذاتية ، كتسجيل مكتوب بنزعة جينية." ..هكذا قال (مات رايدلي)، وهذا بالتحديد ما فعل.
مجدولةٌ بالمجاز لغة (رايدلي ) بلا إفراطٍ في الخيال الأدبي أو تفريط بالواقع العلمي..وكثيرا ما كنت أقف الهُنيهة إجلالاً أمام شروحاته المفعمة بالبساطة والابتكار ، لميكانيزمات الوراثة الموغلة في التعقيد والضجر ..بيد أني لا أرى كتابه مناسباً لغير المتخصصين خلافاً لما رأى، لذا سأحصر اقتباساتي منه- ما استطعت- لتكون أبعد عن الرطانة العلمية أكثر مما حصر..يقول (مات رايدلي) واصفاً الجينوم البشري :
" دعنا نتخيل أن الجينوم كتاب، هناك 23 فصلا تسمى الكروموسومات. وكل فصل يحوي ألافا عديدة من القصص، تسمى الجينات. وكل قصة قد صنعت من فقرات تسمى إكسونات تقطعها إعلانات تسمى إنترونات، وكل فقرة قد صنعت من كلمات تسمى كودونات ، وكل كلمة كتبت بحروف تسمى قواعد. ويوجد في الكتاب بليون كلمة، بما يجعله أطول ب5000 جزء من حجم هذا الكتاب، أو بطول 800 إنجيل. ولو أنني تلوت الجينوم على القارئ بمعدل كلمة واحدة في الثانية لمدة 8 ساعات يوميا، سيستغرق ذلك مني قرنا بأكمله. ولو أنني دوّنت الجينوم البشري بمعدل حرف واحد في كل ملليمتر، فإن النص الذي أكتبه سيكون في طول نهر الدانوب. فهذه وثيقة عملاقة ، كتاب هائل، وصفة طويلة طولاً مفرطاً، وكل هذا يتخذ موضعه داخل نواة ميكروسكوبية لخلية دقيقة الصغر، تتخذ مكانها بسهولة فوق رأس دبوس."
وكغالب علماء البيولوجيا الحيوية، يؤمن (رايدلي) بنظرية التطور ..فبالرغم من استناده العلمي على حقيقة :"أن هناك عملية خلقٍ واحدةٍ فقط، حدثٌ وحيدٌ عند ولادة الحياة " وهو ما عبّر عنه بكونه "حُجةٌ مفيدة للمتدينين" !..إلا أنه أخذ يسوق الدلائل الجينية بالثلث الأول من الكتاب ، لتدعم اعتناقه لعقيدة التطور فيما يختص بسردية الانفجار الكبير وميلاد الكون ونشأة المخلوقات وأسلاف البشر ..ما يعنيني في ذلك هو كراهتي لقدرة بعض قارئيه على بخس كتابٍ كهذا لحقّه انتصاراً فقط لقناعات النفوس...ففي نهاية الأمر ، الحقيقة هي كنز الله لا يشاركه فيها أحد...وقد تُساق المعلومة نفسها فيرى البعض فيها بصمة يمين الله بكل شئ ولا يرى الباقون فيها الله في أي شئ ...يقول (مات رايدلي) بإحدى تلك الحقائق الجينية المذهلة بين الكائنات:
" ولعل ما يُثير الدهشة بالفعل، أن البشر ليس لديهم 24 زوجاً من الكروموسومات: فأفراد الشامبنزيّ لديهم 24 زوج من الكروموسومات، وكذلك الغوريلا والأورانج أوتان، فنحن استثناء بين القردة العليا. وأبرز فارق تحت الميكروسكوب أننا ينقصنا زوجٌ واحد ، والسبب ليس في أن ذلك الزوج مفقودٌ عندنا، وإنما السبب أن اثنين من كروموسومات القردة العليا قد اندمجا فينا ، والحقيقة أن كروموسوم 2 ثاني أكبر كروموسومات الإنسان قد تكوّن من اندماج كروموسومين متوسطيّ الحجم من كروموسومات القردة العليا...ولو اخترنا عشوائيا أي فقرة في جينوم الشمابنزي لنقارنها مع الفقرة المماثلة في الجينوم البشري، فسنجد أن حروفاً قليلة جدا تكون مختلفة، وهذا في المتوسط بمعدل أقل من 2%، فنحن كالشامبنزي بنسبة 98% ، وإذا كان هذا لا ينال من احترام القارئ لنفسه، فليعتبر أن أفراد الشامبنزي هم مثل الغوريلا بنسبة 97%، وبكلمات أخرى فنحن نماثل أفراد الشامبنزي أكثر مما تماثلهم الغوريلا."
ثم كانت هناك فصولا تحكي كيف أصبح علم الوراثة عوناً للظالم وسلاحاً للمستبد، كاختبار(معامل الذكاء) على سبيل المثال، والذي أقُصي به الكثير من المهاجرين إلى أميركا ، وخضع لوطأته ملايين المجندين بالجيش خلال الحرب العالمية الأولى ..يقول (رايدلي) عنه منتقداً:
" تاريخ معامل الذكاء ليس تاريخاً رفيع المستوى ولا يوجد في تاريخ العلم سوى قلة من الخلافات التي جرى التصرف فيها بغباءٍ مثل الخلاف حول الذكاء ، ويدخل الكثيرون منّا في الموضوع ، وأنا منهم وقد تملّكهم تحيزٌ كله ارتياب ، وأنا لا أعرف ما يكون عليه معامل ذكائي، فقد أجروا لي اختبارا في المدرسة ولم يخبروني قط بالنتيجة ، وكنت لا أدرك أن الاختبار يجري إزاء زمنٍ معين ليس فيه بوجهٍ خاص ما يطرح في حد ذاته أي ذكاء ، وجعلتني هذه الخبرة لا أحترم فجاجة أن نقيس ذكاء الناس برقمٍ وحيد، فالقدرة على قياس شئ مراوغ هكذا في نصف ساعة أمر يبدو سخيفاً. والحقيقة أن القياسات الأولى للذكاء كان الدافع إليها مُتحيزا على نحو فجّ . فقد كان (فرنسيس جالتون) رائداً لدراسة التوائم بغرض أن يعزل المواهب الفطرية عن تلك المكتسبة، ولم يتردد (جالتون) في ذكر السبب لقيامه بذلك : " إن هدفي العام هو أن ألاحظ بعناية شتى الملكات الموروثة لمختلف الرجال، وأن ألاحظ الفروق الكبيرة في العائلات الكبيرة والأعراق المختلفة، وأن أتعلم إلى أي مدى قد يُظهر التاريخ الإمكان العملي لأن تَحل السلالات البشرية الأفضل مكان السلالات غير الكفئة، وبالتالي نكرّس الجهد للوصول إلى غايات التطور بسرعة أكبر ومشقة أقل مما لو تركنا الأحداث تجري مجراها الخاص." وبكلمات أخرى كان جالتون يريد أن يغربل الأفراد لانتخابهم وإنسالهم كما لو كانوا ماشية."
ورغم "أن أشهر رائد لاختبارات الذكاء وهو الفرنسي (ألفريد بينيه) ، كان يُحاج بحماس بأن الهدف من الاختبار ليس أن نكافئ الأطفال الموهوبين ، وإنما أن نبذل عناية خاصة بالأطفال الأقل موهبة." إلا أن (رايدلي) سرد العديد من مساوئ هذا الامتحان سواء بصوره القديمة أو الحديثة كتلك الدارجة حالياً ..يقول مثلاً:
" لقد تجاهلوا التأثيرات البيئية على القدرات تجاهلاً كاملا حتى أنهم كانوا يختبرون من لا يتكلمون الإنجليزية باختبارات إنجليزية ويختبرون أفرادا أمُيين باختبارات تتطلب منهم معالجة استخدام القلم لأول مرة. كان إيمانهم بالوراثة مُبالغاً في التمني وأدى عموما إلى أن يفترض ناقدوهم بعدها أنهم لم يكن لديهم مطلقا أي قضية."
ومقاطع كهذه كانت ترفع (مات رايدلي) بعيني ليكون عالماً بدرجة "حقوقيّ " ...يقول مثلا متحدثاً عن مخاوفه إزاء هذه الاختبارات الوراثية المتحيزة:
"ويوجد في الوقت نفسه خطرٌ من أن غول اختبارات التأمين الوراثية واختبارات التوظيف الوراثية سيثير فينا الرعب إلى حد أن يُبعدنا عن استخدام الاختبارات الوراثية لمصلحة الطب المفيد. على أن هناك غُولاً آخر يرعبني رعباً أكثر: وهو الخوف من أن تتحكم الدولة بما يُسمح لي فعله بجيناتي، وأنا ��ريصٌ على ألا تشاركني الشركة التي تؤمّن عليّ في شفرتي الوراثية، وحريصٌ كذلك على أنه ينبغي أن يعرفها طبيبي وأن يستخدمها، ولكنني أصُرّ إصراراً يصل إلى التعصب على أن يكون هذا قراري أنا. فجينومي ملكي أنا وليس ملك الدولة. وليس للدولة أن تقرر ما إذا كان يمكن لي إجراء الاختبار. فهذا قراري أنا. وهناك نزعة أبوية رهيبة للتفكير في أننا يجب أن تكون لدينا سياسة واحدة في هذا الشأن، وأن الحكومة يجب أن تضع القواعد حول مقدار ما يجب أن يراه الفرد من شفرته الوراثية الخاصة به، ومن الذي يجب أن يظهر له الفرد ذلك. على أن هذا قرار يتخذه الفرد لنفسه ، وليس قرار الدولة ، وينبغي دائما أن نتذكر ذلك."
أو كهذا الجزء حيث يقول متحدثاً عن سياسة البحث العلمي : " من المفروض أن العلم يتقدم بإقامة الفروض واختبارها التماساً لتكذيبها، ولكنه لا يفعل ذلك. وبالتالي كان أتباع الحتمية الوراثية في العشرينات من القرن العشرين يبحثون دائماً عما يُؤكد أفكارهم ولا يبحثون أبداً عن أي تكذيب لها، وبمثل ذلك تماماً كان أتباع الحتمية البيئية في الستينات يبحثون دائما عن براهين داعمة ويحوّلون أبصارهم بعيداً عن البراهين المضادة ، وعلى نحوٍ فيه مفارقة ، فإن هذا جانبٌ من العلم حيث يكون "الخبير" عادةً أكثر خطأً من الهاوي. فقد عرف الأفراد العاديون دائماً أن التعليم مهم ، ولكنهم بما يساوي ذلك آمنوا دائماً ببعض قدرة فطرية. أما الخبراء فهم اللذين اتخذوا الأطراف القصوى والمواقف السخيفة عند طرفٍ واحدٍ من طرفيّ الطيف."
وأذكر الآن إحصائية عالمية تم فيها رصد "مرض القلب" كسبب أول للوفيات المبكرة بمصر ...وأعتقد أني وجدت الآن تفسيراً مُقنعا لذلك ...يقول (مات رايدلي): " ومن أحسن التبصرات في الطريقة التي يغيّر بها السلوك من التعبير عن الجينات ما توصلنا إليه من دراسات القرود. فنجد مثلا في قرود حدائق الحيوان، أن الأفراد الذين تكتسي شرايينهم بطبقة فوق جدرانها يكونون في القاع من الترتيب الاجتماعي. وحيث أنه يتهددهم عنف زملائهم الأرقى مرتبة ، فإنهم متوترون باستمرار، فيرتفع الكورتيزول (هرمون التوتر) في دمائهم، وينخفض السيروتونين (هرمون الرضا) في أمخاخهم، وتبقى أجهزتهم المناعية مكبوتة دائما ويزداد تكون الألياف على جدران شراينهم التاجية."
ثم يضيف بمقطع آخر : "يشبه البشر القرود كثيرا. حدث اكتشاف أن القردة ذوي المكانة الاجتماعية المنخفضة يُصابون بأمراض القلب، في وقتٍ أعقب سريعاً الكشف الأكثر إذهالاً الذي يُفيد بأن الموظفين المدنيين العاملين في الحكومة البريطانية يُصابون بأمراض القلب بنسبة تتوافق مع قدر انخفاض مرتبتهم البيروقراطية، فقد أجُريت دراسة ضخمة لمدى طويل على 17 ألف موظف مدني وانبثق عنها استنتاج لايُصدق: وهو أن مرتبة وظيفة الفرد تتيح التنبؤ بدرجة تعرضه لنوبة قلبٍ أكثر مما تتنبأ به السمنة أو التدخين أو ارتفاع ضغط الدم، وإذا كان أحد الأفراد يشغل وظيفة من درجة منخفضة كالساعي مثلا، فسيكون عُرضة إصابته بنوبة قلبٍ باحتمال يبلغ أربعة أضعاف احتمال إصابة من يشغل وظيفة سكرتير دائم في قمة الهرم. بل حتى لو كان هذا السكرتير الدائم في الحقيقة سميناً ومرتفع الضغط ومدخناً، فإنه مازال أقل عرضة للإصابة من نوبة قلب في سنٍ معينة عن الساعي النحيل غير المدخن وذي ضغط الدم المنخفض. وظهرت النتيجة نفسها بالضبط من دراسةٍ مماثلة أجريت على مليون موظف في شركة (بل) للتليفونات في ستينيات القرن العشرين. فقلب الواحد منّا يقبع تحت رحمة مرتبة أجره . ما هذا الذي يحدث بحق السماء؟ حقيقة أن مرض القلب عَرضٌ لنقص التحكم تُفسر لنا الشئ الكثير عن ظهوره في حالات متفرقة . وهي تفسر السبب في أن أفراداً كثيرين من أصحاب الوظائف العالية الدرجة سرعان ما تصيبهم نوباتٍ قلبية بعد أن يتقاعدوا وينتقلوا من إدارة المكاتب إلى مهام مُتدنية كغسل الأطباق وتمشية الكلاب في بيئةٍ منزلية تُديرها زوجاتهم. بل إن هذا قد يُفسر حتى السبب في أن المباني الحديثة التي لا يمكن فتح نوافذها تُمرض الناس إلى حد أكبر من المباني الأقدم ، حيث يكون للناس تحكم أكثر في بيئتهم. سألجأ إلى أن أُكرر كلامي من باب التأكيد: فالسلوك أبعد من أن يكون تحت ر��مة بيولوجيتنا، في حين أنه كثيرا ما تكون بيولوجيتنا تحت رحمة سلوكنا. "
لم تكن هذه المرة الأولى التي أتعرف فيها إلى هذه المعلومة، غير أنها كانت المرة الأولى التي تستدعي في بالي احتمال أثرها البشري كذلك، لي ولزوجي العديد من أصدقاء الصبا المشتركين ، وأذكر جيدا كيف اعترتنا دهشة غامرة حين إدعى أحد أصدقاءنا غيرةً مفتعلة على خطيبته من أحد زملائها المحترمين ليرضيها، فسّر لنا ذلك فيما بعد بكونها طريقته المعتادة هو و العديد ممن يعرف لدرء اتهامات انتقاص حبه لها هذا إن لم يتطور الأمر عندها للطعن في نخوته...لن أستغرب الآن إن تطورت شكوى مثيلاتها من تصرفات أكثر ذكورية وأعتى فجاجة مع مرور الوقت...فلقد كانت تلك بذرتها في بادئ اﻷمر ...تعمد الكثيرات من النساء للأسف بوعي أو بدون إلى تكاثر وتطوير أجيال متتابعة من الرجال ذوي اللزوجة من فرط إدعاءات العاطفة وذوي الخنوثة حينما تتطلب المسؤولية... وكشأن باقي الكائنات ، يبدو أن الرجال هم خبز نسائهم ، بأيديهن طحنوا قمحه ودقيقه ، فليأكلوه إذن هنيئاً مريئاً..يقول (رايدلي):
"طرح داروين في كتابه الثاني عن التطور "تحدر سلالة الإنسان" فكرة أنه كما أن مربي الحمام يستطيع تربية الحمام ، فإن الأنثى هي من تُربي الذكور، فإناث الحيوانات تختار على نحوٍ ثابت نوع الذكور التي تتجامع معها عبر أجيال كثيرة، وبهذا فإن الإناث تستطيع تغيير شكل أو لون أوحجم أو طريقة شدو ذكور نوعها. والحقيقة أن هذا بالظبط ما يقع في حالة طيور الطاووس، ولم يحدث إلا بعد مرور قرن بعد طرح داروين هذا، أن أُجريت سلسلة من دراسات نظرية وتجريبية برهنت على أن داروين كان مصيبا، وأن ذيول وريش وقرون وأناشيد وحجم الحيوانات الذكور ، كلها صفات تتربى فيهم بالنزعات الثابتة للاختيار الأنثوي النشط أو السلبي جيلا بعد جيل. "
كانت أمتع الفصول هو الفصل الذي اختص بالكروموسوم 21 الشهير والخاص تحديدا ب(متلازمة داون) ، وما تلا ذلك من ظهور نزعة (النقاء الوراثي) البغيضة والتي حمل لوائها العالم (فرانسيس جالتون) ، حيث عرّف (رايدلي) أساسياتها كما طرحها (جالتون) بالتالي:
"يجب أن يكون للدولة كلمتها بشأن من الذي ينبغي أن يتوالد، ومن الذي ينبغي ألا يفعل. هكذا لم يكن علم تحسين النسل مُسيّسا ، بل كان عقيدةً سياسية جُعلت علمية، وبحلول عام 1900 كان علم تحسين النسل قد استحوذ على الخيال الشعبي ، على أنه سرعان ما انحرفت بؤرة التركيز عن مجرد تشجيع "تحسين النسل" باستيلاد الأفضل لتتحول إلى إيقاف "سوء النسل" نتيجة استيلاد الأسوأ. وسرعان ما أصبح الأسوأ يعني أساسا "ضعاف العقول" ويشمل ذلك مدمني الكحول، ومرضى الصرع والمجرمين وكذلك أيضا المتأخرين عقليا. "
وكانت تلك إحدى فظائع تطبيقاتها ..يقول (رايدلي) حاكياً: " في أول الأمر كانت المحكمة العليا ترفض الكثير من قوانين التعقيم ، ولكنها غيّرت اتجاهها في عام 1927 ، وحكمت المحكمة بولاية فيرجينيا بتعقيم (كاري بوك) ، وهي فتاة في السابعة عشرة من عمرها ، وأوُدعت مستعمرة لمرضى الصرع وضِعاف العقول حيث كانت تعيش مع أمها وابنتها فيفيان. وبعد إجراء فحصٍ سطحيّ، أعُلن أن فيفيان ابنتها التي كان عمرها 7 أشهر فقط "معتوهة" . فصدر أمر بتعقيم (كاري) ومنعها من الإنجاب للأبد. وكما أثبت القاضي (أوليفر هولمز) في حُكمه المشهور: "إن ثلاثة أجيال من المعتوهين فيها الكفاية" . ثم ماتت الطفلة فيفيان في سنٍ صغيرة ، أما (كاري) فظلت تعيش حتى سن الشيخوخة ، وهي امرأة محترمة ، متوسطة الذكاء، تحل ألغاز الكلمات المتقاطعة في أوقات فراغها. وكانت أختها قد أجُريت لها أيضا عملية تعقيم، وحاولت طوال سنين كثيرة أن تُنجب أطفالا إلى أن تبينت ما صُنع بها من غير موافقتها. استمرت ولاية فيرجينيا على تعقيم "المعوقين ذهنيا" حتى سبيعينيات القرن العشرين، وهكذا فإن أمريكا معقل الحرية الفردية قد عقمت ما يزيد على 100 ألف فرد بسبب ضعفهم عقليا، وذلك حسب ما يزيد على 30 قانونا ما بين قوانين ولايات وقوانين فدرالية صدرت في الفترة بين عامي 1910 و1935. على أنه إذا كانت أمريكا هي الرائدة ، فقد تبعتها بلادٌ أخرى . فعقمت السويد 60 ألفاً من الأفراد. ووضعت بلاد أخرى قوانين رسمية للتعقيم الإجباري ونفّذتها، مثل كندا والنرويج وفنلندا وإستونيا وأيسلندا. أما ألمانيا الأسوء سمعة فقد عقمت 400 ألف ، ثم قتلت الكثيرين منهم، وفي خلال 18 شهراً فقط في الحرب العالمية الثانية أُعدم بالغاز 70 ألف فرد من المرضى النفسيين الألمان المُعقمين من قبل ، وذلك لإخلاء أسرة المستشفيات للجنود والجرحى. "
وكان مهماً جداً عند (رايدلي) أن يوضح الفرق بين (تحسين النسل) سئ السمعة وبين نظيره (الفرز الوراثي) المعتمد على التوعية كعقيدة لحصر الأمراض الوراثية فيما بين الشعوب..يقول رايدلي: " وعلى الرغم من أنه لم تزل هناك قلة من العلماء الهامشيين المنشغلين بالانحطاط الوراثيّ للأعراق والسكان، إلا أن معظم العلماء يُدركون الآن أن مصلحة الأفراد ينبغي أن تكون لها الأولوية على مصلحة الجماعات. وهناك فارقٌ شاسع بين الفرز الوراثي وما كان أنصار تحسين النسل يريدونه أيام مجدهم ، وهو يقع في التالي: إن الفرز الوراثي يدور حول إعطاء أفراد خاصين اختيارات خاصة . أما تحسين النسل فكان يدور حول تأميم هذا القرار لجعل الناس يتوالدون من أجل الدولة وليس من أجل أنفسهم. وهذا تمييز كثير��ً ما نغفل رؤيته في اندفاعنا لتعيين ما يجب علينا "نحن" أن نسمح به في عالم الوراثة الجديد . من نكون نحن؟ نحن كأفراد، أو نحن بمعنى المصلحة الجماعية للدولة أو العرق؟ ..فكما ناقشت الأمر في الفصل عن كروموسوم 13 ، نجد أن هناك في الولايات المتحدة لجنة للوقايةِ من الأمراض الوراثية اليهودية تُجري إختبارات على دم أطفال المدارس ، وتعطي المشورة ضد الزواج لاحقاً عنما يكون كِلا الطرفين حاملاً لنسخة من جينٍ معين يُسبب المرض نفسه. وهذه سياسة اختيار إرادي بالكامل، وعلى الرغم من أن ذلك يُنتقد على أن فيه تحسيناً للنسل، إلا أنه لا يتضمن أي إجبارٍ بالمرة، تُقدم الكثير من السجلات التاريخية لتحسين النسل هذا العلم كمَثلٍ لمخاطر العلم وخاصة الوراثيات من غير سيطرة ، إلا أن فيه مثلاً أكبر أكثر لخطر أن تترك الحكومات من غير سيطرة."
كنت أعلم أني حين أحكي ﻷمي عن جين مرض (الفصام العقلي) الذي أصاب خالي فدمّر حياته وأفقده وظيفته المرموقة وزوجته المُحبة ..أوعن وراثية مرض (الاكتئاب المزمن) الذي أصاب خالتي فيتّم أولادها وهي على قيد الحياة ..أن لن يعنيها كثيراً إحتمالية أن يرث أحدنا نفس الداء ..بقدر ما سيرفع عن كاهل قلبها أحمال قديمة و أنواء ...تقول اﻵن بارتياح :"يعني صحيح جدك كان شديد وقاسي حبتين ..بس كتر خيره والله عمل اللي عليه وزيادة"....لم تكن تلك فائدتي الوحيدة من الكتاب ..فلقد صارت أمي تغمغم الآن عند الخلاف بدلاً من الصياح :"جينات مهببة!" فيضحك أبي ..و تسألني خلسةً بعد نومه عن دواءه في اهتمام ، فتغمرني السعادة ...أما بالنسبة ل "لا قطعية رايدلي" فسُحقاً لها ..وقطعاً لن أخبر بها أمي.
January 31, 2013
I really enjoyed this book. I would say it is so far the best book I have read this year and a great introduction to genetics. Quite a lot of the stuff in this book has been covered in other books I have read, most notably by Richard Dawkins, however the writing was fresh and I learned a hell of a lot of stuff throughout this book. For example, did you know that the placenta is actually a parasite, the result of male antagonistic genes battling the female's X chromosomes by redirecting more resources to the baby? And in response the female releases insulin in an attempt to counter this intrusion and moderate the resources? I didn't! What about the fact that male sperm has an agenda and that chemicals within enter the female's brain, lowering her sex drive and adjusting the timings of her menstrual cycle in an attempt to stop her mating with others? At the same time, the female's genes have attacked the poor Y chromosome to such an extent that it has all but shut down, being a tiny little stub of a gene. Fascinating!
Many issues are explored in this book, from reproduction, disease to Eugenics and the politics of science and academia. There is also quite a bit of history, and not just the usual mention of Darwin on the Galapagos islands with his finches. There were many occasions in this book when I stopped to read a paragraph out to my wife who was also fascinated.
My only minor criticism of this book would be that the final chapter seems slightly rushed. Additionally, I don't like it when authors start name dropping a lot of people (particularly the self declared intellectuals we call philosophers). I find name dropping is often used as a diversion from fact, and I feel the last chapter lacked some of the magic of the 22 chapters before it. I feel the author did this in an attempt to cover too many topics and round the book with a nice conclusion, one that wasn't needed. You see, each chapter tells the story of a chromosome! The book is accessible but does get progressively more difficult and there is quite a bit of genetic code mentioned, but most people will not have a problem understanding it since the book does educate so well.
Written at the turn of the century, the book is 10 years old and with the exception of the first human genome being transcribed, to a lay person like me it doesn't seem dated at all. I have since ordered more books on the subject and I am once again interested in evolutionary biology! I am now reading The prehistory of the mind : a search for the origins of art, religion, and science By Steven Mithen.
The book just missed 5 stars for me as I feel the final chapter didn't quite gel with the rest, however this book is on par with any book by Richard Dawkins, Bill Bryson, Marcus Chown, Richard Feynman or any other well known popular science writer you can name. If you are interested in science, biology or evolution just a little bit then read this, you won't be disappointed.
Many issues are explored in this book, from reproduction, disease to Eugenics and the politics of science and academia. There is also quite a bit of history, and not just the usual mention of Darwin on the Galapagos islands with his finches. There were many occasions in this book when I stopped to read a paragraph out to my wife who was also fascinated.
My only minor criticism of this book would be that the final chapter seems slightly rushed. Additionally, I don't like it when authors start name dropping a lot of people (particularly the self declared intellectuals we call philosophers). I find name dropping is often used as a diversion from fact, and I feel the last chapter lacked some of the magic of the 22 chapters before it. I feel the author did this in an attempt to cover too many topics and round the book with a nice conclusion, one that wasn't needed. You see, each chapter tells the story of a chromosome! The book is accessible but does get progressively more difficult and there is quite a bit of genetic code mentioned, but most people will not have a problem understanding it since the book does educate so well.
Written at the turn of the century, the book is 10 years old and with the exception of the first human genome being transcribed, to a lay person like me it doesn't seem dated at all. I have since ordered more books on the subject and I am once again interested in evolutionary biology! I am now reading The prehistory of the mind : a search for the origins of art, religion, and science By Steven Mithen.
The book just missed 5 stars for me as I feel the final chapter didn't quite gel with the rest, however this book is on par with any book by Richard Dawkins, Bill Bryson, Marcus Chown, Richard Feynman or any other well known popular science writer you can name. If you are interested in science, biology or evolution just a little bit then read this, you won't be disappointed.
December 15, 2019
[30 September 2019]
I really enjoyed this book, and appreciated it, because it explained basic genetics better than anything else I've ever read. Of course I haven't read Siddhartha Mukherjee's book, but I still suspect this book is better for the genetic novice. Of course, it's 20 years old, but most of what it covers is probably still true.
Some readers might object to how much he injects his personal opinions into the text, but I liked it. And I felt it was usually clear that it was his personal opinion. Another thing a little odd was the number of off topic digressions, often coupled with personal observations. But I mostly liked those too. The last chapter got a bit into the weeds, discussing the apparent controversy over "free will". He disagrees with the common positions that there is no free will because your actions are either dictated entirely by your genome or your actions are entirely random. Ridley does not accept that dichotomy, saying that neither of those control absolutely and free will resides in the interaction between those two extremes. That makes a lot of sense to me.
I do wish there was a way to get an updated and annotated edition. One specific item he mentions is a study that found heart disease is not a function of diet or exercise as much as it is of stress, and particularly the stress related to your status or lack there of. I'd never heard of that. The medical community certainly is still concentrating on diet and exercise. So I wonder if that study is still considered valid.
The book is short and easy to read. The writing style is relaxed and doesn't get too bogged down in scientific detail for the lay reader. I wholeheartedly recommend it.
I really enjoyed this book, and appreciated it, because it explained basic genetics better than anything else I've ever read. Of course I haven't read Siddhartha Mukherjee's book, but I still suspect this book is better for the genetic novice. Of course, it's 20 years old, but most of what it covers is probably still true.
Some readers might object to how much he injects his personal opinions into the text, but I liked it. And I felt it was usually clear that it was his personal opinion. Another thing a little odd was the number of off topic digressions, often coupled with personal observations. But I mostly liked those too. The last chapter got a bit into the weeds, discussing the apparent controversy over "free will". He disagrees with the common positions that there is no free will because your actions are either dictated entirely by your genome or your actions are entirely random. Ridley does not accept that dichotomy, saying that neither of those control absolutely and free will resides in the interaction between those two extremes. That makes a lot of sense to me.
I do wish there was a way to get an updated and annotated edition. One specific item he mentions is a study that found heart disease is not a function of diet or exercise as much as it is of stress, and particularly the stress related to your status or lack there of. I'd never heard of that. The medical community certainly is still concentrating on diet and exercise. So I wonder if that study is still considered valid.
The book is short and easy to read. The writing style is relaxed and doesn't get too bogged down in scientific detail for the lay reader. I wholeheartedly recommend it.
July 9, 2017
This is a really great book - my only qualm is that it might be outdated now, as gene technology and science is moving so quickly forwards. Basically, if you want to know why you are here, what you are and what you´re made of, this book has some pretty convincing answers. Fate, destiny, love, life, death, character, intelligence and illness are all covered and it´s worth pressing on through the quite tough prose to get a better, illuminating, scary but finally comforting picture of the vehicle you´re in for this trip through life. Here´s the thing: even though you´ve got your hands on the wheel, you´re not the driver.
April 20, 2010
This was an interesting and understandable survey of human genetic heritage. There were a few boring pieces that recounted things I'd been taught repeatedly in biology classes - I can see the utility of this as not all readers would have taken those classes, I just didn't enjoy reading about those things again as much as I enjoyed the more specific examples. The last few chapters contained some biased language (calling people who tore up GM crops "eco-terrorists" rather than simply "vandals," for example, is using a contested definition of terrorism) and drew some political conclusions that, whether I agreed with them or not (and there were some of each) neither fit well with the reasonably objective structure established by the preceding chapters nor were especially well defended.
Despite these problems, though, this made me want to find out more about advances in genetic research since it was published. The biggest problem I had with this book, and the reason I'd hesitate to recommend it, is that it's more than a decade out of date. It was worth reading to find out some interesting historical facts, but if I was choosing one book to read about genetics I'd pick something published more recently.
Despite these problems, though, this made me want to find out more about advances in genetic research since it was published. The biggest problem I had with this book, and the reason I'd hesitate to recommend it, is that it's more than a decade out of date. It was worth reading to find out some interesting historical facts, but if I was choosing one book to read about genetics I'd pick something published more recently.
May 11, 2018
Keeping in mind that this book was written 20 years ago -which of course if a short life-span for literature, but a very long one for science - this is very well written, ingeniously presented and fun to engage with. I would definitely still recommend it, even if some of the scientific discussions inside are a little bit dated, because it offers a sound review of how we came to know what we do about genes and what exactly they are.
January 23, 2023
يختص الكتاب بعلم الجينات وتطورها عبر ملايين من السنين وصولًا للحدث الأهم ، اكتشاف خريطة الجينوم البشري
الكتاب مقسم إلى 23 فصل ، في كل واحد منها يتناول الكاتب جينًا من الجينات ويروي كيفية اكتشافه ، والأبحاث المتعلقة به ، ورؤيته الشخصية لمستقبل هذا الجين
كتاب جميل جدًا ، لكنّه يحتاج إلى بعض الأساس القوي إذا أردت أن تفهمه بشكلٍ كامل ، وهو جيد أيضًا لغير المختصين ، وعندهم شغف بالاطلاع على الموضوع دون التعمق فيه
الترجمة للأسف لم ترتقِ للمستوى المطلوب...
الكتاب مقسم إلى 23 فصل ، في كل واحد منها يتناول الكاتب جينًا من الجينات ويروي كيفية اكتشافه ، والأبحاث المتعلقة به ، ورؤيته الشخصية لمستقبل هذا الجين
كتاب جميل جدًا ، لكنّه يحتاج إلى بعض الأساس القوي إذا أردت أن تفهمه بشكلٍ كامل ، وهو جيد أيضًا لغير المختصين ، وعندهم شغف بالاطلاع على الموضوع دون التعمق فيه
الترجمة للأسف لم ترتقِ للمستوى المطلوب...
January 28, 2021
Matt Ridley is able to break down extremely difficult concepts into terms the average reader can understand. This book was fascinating as it took every human genome and added real life in clear, lucid examples. This is a remarkable work and it will make anyone who reads it smarter. It is also highly entertaining, not an easy feat.
January 23, 2021
My review is on Booktube!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,202 reviews