1034). The ethical quandaries this presents has of course been thoroughly explored in science fiction, but the potential reality of it has only recently been considered (Acem, 2007, p
This is a crucial subject for discussion, because it has bearing not on those who may suffer from a genetic predisposition towards a certain illness, but also those willing and able to augment their genetic code through therapy and treatment. Again, while the idea of someone augmenting his or her self by altering his or her genetic code may seem more in the realm of science fiction than reality, in truth the potential for genetic manipulation is well within reach, because although "direct application of biotechnology to enhance a wide range of specific human traits and capacities in a safe and predictable manner is not proximate," medical advances are proceeding at such an exponential rate that genetic enhancement will likely be possible by the end of the decade (Lindsay, 2005, p
At the time, the assumption was that the sequencing of the human genome would rapidly lead to genetically specific personalized medicine, allowing doctors and patients to have advance knowledge of any complications or disorders that might arise due to the predictive power and individual choice offered by the sequenced genome. This has led to "a growing number of companies [offering] applied genetic technologies over the Internet directly to consumers," with a special focus on "cancer risk assessment, hemochromatosis, cystic fibrosis, and other genetic disease," despite the fact that many of the social and legal questions surrounding genetic information has yet to be decided (Majdik, 2009, p
Craig Venter, President of Celera Genomics, Inc. announced triumphantly that a draft of the human genome sequence had been assembled" (Mitchell & Happe, 2001, p
As mentioned previously, the oppressed minority groups of a future in which individuals do not maintain complete control over their genetic information will likely be ostracized according to certain genetic markers, rather than the more obvious phenotypic distinctions. Because "geneticists may soon be able to hand prospective parents a list of genetic conditions/predispositions present in a given fetus at a very early stage in pregnancy" and "parents will then be asked (and encouraged) to consider what level of disease/disability is acceptable and manageable for them and their families," the notion of disability will take on an entirely new meaning, requiring news ways of thinking about health and diversity, especially because certain conditions, like high-functioning autism, may be more appropriately considered as representative of human cognitive diversity rather than a "disability (Patterson & Satz, 2002, p
Put another way, detailed genetic information reveals that those attributes which humans have historically chosen to categorize themselves by actually bears little resemblance to the diversity seen in the genetic code, and furthermore, that there are likely more legitimate genetic differences between any two members of a previously constructed social group than between any two members of the given population. However, this is not to suggest that widespread genomic sequencing will result in the abolition of bigotry, but rather that the attributes latched on to by bigots as a sign of difference or inferiority will change from the phenotypic to the genomic, such that "the unsettled heuristics of population genetics have the potential to alter the political landscape of [America] and elsewhere with no less force than the Jim Crow laws implemented just about one century ago" (Stevens, 2003, p