>But if we can get away from genetic determinism, there does not seem to >to be anything wrong studying the genome. Jim Devine. It depends. genetics is a higly political issue, and I would add, biology can not be seperated from ideology. If we once start studying the genome, then we have to encounter the question of for what use and purposes. if i am not mistaken at the moment, and I am pretty sure about it, the US department of health or another state department has been conducting the "human genome project" lately. so there is something fishy there, even though the liberal democratic type researchers seem to take control over the issue. Basically, the "human genome project" is the product of a combined effort initiated between the US government and university based research institutions and think thanks, aiming to serve the purposes of "genetic medicare". Thus, they heavily rely on the socio-biological assumption of the genetic transmission of certain illnesses such as mental and physical disorders. So their solution is "treat the genes rather then changing the social environment". This, in socio-biological jargon, is called "eugenics". To my knowledge, Roger Pearson, the famous socio-biologist and the editor of _ManKind Quarterly_, who also dominates the Washington based think thank _Center for Political and Economic Studies, must have an interesting finger in this project. The man, together with Lynn and Rushton, publishes articles in the same journal, and is a self-proclaimed fascist for he has a book called _Eugenics and Race_. He has also in the editorialship of several scientific magazines such as _Reason_, and occupy several critical positions in Heritage and Pioneer foundations. I would remind geneticists the Lewontin proverb "Not in Our Genes"! Mine
