Letter: Twins take terror out of clone debate
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Professor Richard Dawkins ("What your genes reveal about you", 24 February) is quite right to chide Polly Toynbee for underestimating the influence of genes upon our physical health and intelligence.
He is correct, too, in pointing out that environmental factors may interact with genes to produce either enhanced effects or perhaps "double jeopardy".
However, he implies that if insurance companies are aware of the genetic characteristics of lives proposed for insurance, the inevitable result would be a double loss. First an individual loses out because the genetic make-up is perverse; then, says Professor Dawkins, this is compounded by being refused insurance.
There is another scenario which Professor Dawkins ignores. If people are shown to have deleterious genes, there can first be a consideration of any positive intervention to prevent future problems. Next, the option of private insurance (on a commercial basis) may still be possible.
Finally - the element missed out by Professor Dawkins - is that our society might strive to ensure that people with such genetic problems are not disadvantaged. If the community was prepared to support people who could not do this themselves, whether by insurance or other means, then the double jeopardy of having, for example, a gene predisposing to early onset cancer, would not occur. Society, not just insurers, could take responsibility.
SANDY RAEBURN
Professor of Clinical Genetics, Nottingham University
The writer is part-time, independent genetics adviser to the Association of British Insurers.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments