Today brought another reminder that people writing for the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal and the reporters responsible for the rest of the paper aren't necessarily on the same wavelength:
In a Science Journal article, Sharon Begley describes the emerging field of environmental genomics, the effort to figure who, based on their genes, is most likely to be susceptible to various environmental influences. Most of the environmental threats Begley cites are trivial or hypothetical cancer from PCBs, etc. and whether identifying specific genetic triggers related to those chemicals would have a significant impact on disease rates is debatable.
Nonetheless, Begley tells us at one point that finding genes for susceptibility and protection would put an end to the use of probability in risk assessment. "If environmental genomics pans out," she says, "[y]our risk from a particular chemicals [sic] would be 100% (if you carry certain susceptibility genes or 0% (if you lucked into protective ones)." She implies that the specific genetic triggers leading to lung cancer and bladder cancer from smoking have already been identified, making it possible to predict who can smoke without fear (though in fact smoking-related cancers are complex and still only partly understood).
Let us grant, though, for the sake of argument, that environmental genomics offers the potential for complete protection against a host of environmental chemical threats which, unlike smoking, were trivial or hypothetical to begin with. Would Begley be happy? Apparently not, judging by her summation of the resulting future, which rolls about six groundless environmentalist fears into one:
"What will happen when we know who is and who isn't at risk for a specific chemical? Will society let farmers nuke their fields with pesticides and factories fill the air with carcinogens, figuring we can underwrite organic groceries and buy respirators for the sensitive among us? Maybe we should just send them for gene therapy to get their resistance up. No one said the ethical issues raised by genomics would be simple."
If only Begley had read a crucial quote from today's Journal op-ed by Bjorn Lomborg (whose ecologically optimistic book The Skeptical Environmentalist has drawn attacks from green critics and the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty):
"If we fall prey to minor scares and spend a disproportionate share of our resources there, we will have fewer resources left for other areas."
Our position at ACSH precisely.
For a look at other chemical controversies, check out ACSH's new book, Are Children More Vulnerable to Environmental Chemicals?
