DNA

DNA

does get to the central issue of what makes us tick.

這確實觸及了是什麼讓我們心動的核心問題。

It's perhaps too determinist to say that your genes determine everything you do.

如果說你的基因決定了你的一切，這也許是過於決定論了。

They don't, but, if you like, it's like the deck of cards that you're dealt at birth.

他們沒有，但是，如果你喜歡，這就像你出生時發的那副牌。

What you do with that deck, like any card game, depends a lot on your choices, but it

你用這套牌做什麼，就像任何卡牌遊戲一樣，在很大程度上取決於你的選擇，但它

is influenced by those cards, those genes that you got when you were born.

是受那些卡片的影響，那些你出生時得到的基因。

What I've enjoyed about genetics is looking to see what it tells us about where we've

我喜歡遺傳學的原因是看它告訴我們什麼是我們所處的位置。

come from because those pieces of DNA, they came from somewhere.

因為這些DNA片段，它們來自某處。

They weren't just sort of plucked out of the air.

他們並不是從空氣中拔出來的。

They came from ancestors.

他們來自祖先。

And it's a very good way of finding out about your ancestors, not only who they are, but

這是瞭解你的祖先的一個非常好的方法，不僅是他們是誰，還有

just imagining their lives.

只是在想象他們的生活。

You're made up of DNA from thousands and millions of ancestors who've lived in the past, most

你是由過去生活過的成千上萬的祖先的DNA組成的，其中大部分是

of them now dead, but they've survived, they've got through, they've passed their DNA onto

他們中的一些人現在已經死了，但他們活下來了，他們通過了，他們把自己的DNA傳給了

their children, and it's come down to you.

他們的孩子，而這一切都發生在你身上。

It doesn't matter who you are.

你是誰並不重要。

You could be the President.

你可以成為總統。

You could be the Prime Minister.

你可以成為總理。

You could be the head of a big corporation.

你可能是一家大公司的負責人。

You could be a taxi driver.

你可以成為一名計程車司機。

You could be someone who lives on the street.

你可能是住在街上的人。

But the same is true of everybody.

但每個人都是如此。

I can see a time, long after I've gone but when, in fact, everyone will know their relationship

我可以看到一個時間，在我走了很久之後，但事實上，每個人都會知道他們的關係。

to everybody else.

對其他所有人。

It is possible, if anybody wants to do it or can afford it, you could actually, I think,

這是有可能的，如果有人想做或能負擔得起，你實際上可以，我想。

draw the family tree of the entire world by linking up the segments of DNA.

通過連接DNA片段來繪製整個世界的家譜。

So you could find out in what way everyone was related to everybody else.

是以，你可以找出每個人與其他人有什麼關係。

No doubt, most of the funding for the advances in genetics, for example, the complete sequencing

毫無疑問，遺傳學進步的大部分資金，例如，完整的測序

of the human genome, has come from ambition to learn more about health issues.

人類基因組的研究，來自於對健康問題進行更多瞭解的雄心。

The technology for exploring that, which is making leaps and bounds, has come through

探討這個問題的技術，正在取得飛躍性的進展，已經通過

the healthcare benefits.

醫療保健的好處。

Those are the two main things that people are learning about themselves and who they're

這是人們瞭解自己和自己是誰的兩件主要事情。

related to, where they've come from.

與之相關，他們來自哪裡。

And that does, and I know from experience, that does add a lot to people's sense of identity.

而這確實，我從經驗中知道，這確實給人們的身份感增加了很多。

It's not for everybody, not everyone's very interested in it, but a lot of people are

這不是每個人都能做到的，不是每個人都對它很感興趣，但很多人都是如此。

and I think that's a very good thing.

而且我認為這是一件非常好的事情。

FRANCIS COLLINS: It's too bad that you can't actually see DNA easily under a microscope

弗朗西斯-科林斯：太糟糕了，你實際上不能在顯微鏡下輕易看到DNA。

and scan across the double-helix and read out of the sequence of bases that amounts

並掃描整個雙螺旋，讀出的鹼基序列的數量是

to the information content because it would be easier, I think, to explain then how a

因為我認為，在這種情況下，要解釋一個人是如何從一個人的角度來看待這個問題，會更容易。

geneticist goes about tracking down the molecular bases of a disease at the DNA level.

遺傳學家在DNA水準上追蹤一種疾病的分子基礎。

Our methods are indirect.

我們的方法是間接的。

They're very powerful, they're very highly accurate, but they're not as visual as you

它們非常強大，它們非常高度精確，但它們並不像你那樣直觀。

might like.

可能會喜歡。

We do have methods though now that allow you to read out with high accuracy all 3 billion

不過我們現在確實有一些方法，可以讓你高度準確地讀出所有30億。

of the letters of the DNA instruction book.

的字母的DNA指令書。

Those letters are actually these chemical bases.

這些字母實際上是這些化學基礎。

The chemical language of DNA is a simple one.

DNA的化學語言是一種簡單的語言。

There's only four letters in the alphabet.

字母表裡只有四個字母。

Those bases that we abbreviate, A, C, G, and T. And we have methods of being able to compare

那些我們簡稱為A、C、G和T的鹼基，我們有方法能夠比較

then the DNA sequence of people who have a disease versus people who don't and look for

然後將患有某種疾病的人與沒有這種疾病的人的DNA序列進行對比，尋找

the critical differences in order to nail down something that might be the cause.

的關鍵差異，以確定可能是原因的東西。

Well, since, however, we all differ in our DNA sequence by about a half of 1%, you wouldn't

然而，由於我們的DNA序列都有大約0.5%的差異，所以你不會

get very far if you basically sequenced my DNA and the DNA of somebody with Parkinson's

如果你基本上對我的DNA和帕金森病患者的DNA進行測序，就會有很大進展。

disease trying to figure out what the differences were because there would be way too many of

試圖弄清楚有什麼不同，因為有太多的不同。

them.

他們。

But if you're willing to do that for a large number of people, you kind of average out

但如果你願意為大量的人這樣做，你就會有一種平均化的感覺。

all the noise and the difference that matters begins to be more and more clear.

所有的噪音和重要的差異開始變得越來越清晰。

That's an overly-simplified description of how a geneticist goes about zeroing in on

這是對遺傳學家如何進行歸零的一個過於簡單的描述。

the actual molecular cause of a complex or a simple disease.

一個複雜或簡單疾病的實際分子原因。

This worked most readily for diseases that are highly heritable, cystic fibrosis, Huntington's

這對於高度遺傳性的疾病，如囊性纖維化、亨廷頓氏症，最容易奏效。

disease.

疾病。

Those are conditions where a single mutation very reproducibly results in the disease.

這些是單一突變非常可重複地導致疾病的情況。

It's been a lot tougher for diseases where the inheritance is muddy.

對於繼承權渾濁的疾病來說，這已經是很艱難的事情了。

If you take diabetes for instance, which is what my lab primarily works on, or you take

如果你以糖尿病為例，這是我的實驗室主要研究的內容，或者你以

asthma or high blood pressure, that is not a set of conditions where one gene is involved

哮喘或高血壓，這並不是一組涉及一個基因的情況。

in risk.

在風險。

There are dozens of genes involved in that and no single one of them contributes very

有幾十個基因參與其中，其中沒有一個基因的貢獻非常大。

much, but you put it all together and the consequences to that individual may tip them

很多，但你把它們放在一起，對個人的後果可能會使他們失去信心。

over the threshold into having the illness.

超過門檻的人就會患上這種疾病。

We are experiencing right now a remarkable deluge of discovery in terms of the causes

我們現在正經歷著一場顯著的發現大潮，在原因方面

of disease, much of it coming out of genomics, the ability to pinpoint at the molecular level

醫學界對疾病的研究，大部分來自於基因組學，能夠在分子水準上準確定位

what pathway has gone awry in causing a particular medical condition.

什麼途徑出了問題，導致某種特定的醫療狀況。

And that in itself is exciting because it's new information, but what you really want

這本身就很令人興奮，因為這是新的資訊，但你真正想要的是

to do is to take that and push that forward into clinical benefit.

我們要做的是利用這一點並將其推向臨床效益。

Some of that can be in prevention by identifying people at highest risk and trying to be sure

其中一些可以通過識別最高風險的人並試圖確保在預防方面

they're having the right preventative strategy.

他們有正確的預防策略。

But people are still going to get sick and so you want to come up with also better treatments

但人們還是會生病，所以你要想出更好的治療方法。

than what we have now.

比我們現在的情況要好。

And some of it is the ability through personalized medicine to begin to identify individual risks

而其中一些是通過個性化醫療的能力，開始識別個人風險

for future illness to get us beyond the-one-size-fits all approach to prevention, which has been

為未來的疾病，讓我們超越一刀切的預防方法，這一直是個問題。

not that effective.

不是那麼有效。

People haven't necessarily warmed to these recommendations about what you should do about

人們不一定熱衷於這些關於你應該做什麼的建議。

diet, exercise, colonoscopies, mammograms, and so on because it all sounds very much

飲食、運動、結腸鏡檢查、乳房X光檢查，等等，因為這一切聽起來都非常

generic.

一般來說。

But if you could provide people with information about their personal risks and allow them,

但是，如果你能向人們提供有關他們個人風險的資訊，並允許他們。

therefore, to come up with a personalized plan for maintaining health, that seems to

是以，要想提出一個個性化的保持健康的計劃，這似乎是不可能的。

inspire a lot more interest.

激發了更多的興趣。

Personalized medicine is a term that gets used differently by different people.

個性化醫療是一個被不同人以不同方式使用的術語。

In my view, this is an effort to try to take diagnosis, prevention, and treatment and,

在我看來，這是一種努力，試圖把診斷、預防和治療和。

when possible, factor into that individual information about that person in order to

在可能的情況下，將有關該人的資訊納入該個體，以便

optimize the outcome.

優化結果。

I think in some instances, we're not very far along with that.

我認為在某些情況下，我們在這方面走得不是很遠。

In others, we're making real progress.

在其他方面，我們正在取得真正的進展。

Take, for instance, the effort to try to choose the right drug at the right dose for the right

例如，努力嘗試為正確的病人選擇正確的藥物和正確的劑量。

person, what we'd call pharmacogenomics.

人，我們稱之為藥物基因組學。

There are now more than 10% of FDA-approved drugs that have some mention in the label

現在有超過10%的FDA準許的藥物在標籤上有一些提及

about the importance of paying attention to genetic differences in order to optimize the

關於關注遺傳差異的重要性，以便優化

outcome.

結果。

Take, for instance, the drug Abacavir, which is used to treat HIV-AIDS, a very powerful

以用於治療HIV-AIDS的藥物阿巴卡韋為例，它是一種非常強大的

antiretroviral, but a drug that caused a pretty serious hypersensitivity reaction in about

抗逆轉錄病毒藥物，但這種藥物會引起相當嚴重的超敏反應。

6% or 7% of those who took it.

6%或7%的人服用了它。

We now know exactly how to predict that on the basis of a genetic test and so there is

我們現在確切地知道如何在基因測試的基礎上進行預測，是以有了

now a what-called black box label on the FDA, a label for this drug saying you must do that

現在FDA上有一個所謂的黑框標籤，這個藥物的標籤說你必須這樣做

genetic test before you prescribe this drug in order to avoid that outcome.

在你開這種藥之前，要進行基因測試，以避免這種結果。

That was unimaginable a few years ago, that you would have that kind of precision in making

這在幾年前是無法想象的，你會有這樣的精度來製作。

that choice of a drug.

這種藥物的選擇。

GLENN COHEN: Recent set of controversies has to do with the funding by the federal government

GLENN COHEN：最近的一系列爭議與聯邦政府的資助有關。

about research that mixes human and animal genetic materials, sometimes called chimeras,

關於混合人類和動物基因材料的研究，有時稱為嵌合體。

but there's actually a broader group.

但實際上有一個更廣泛的群體。

So again, the method is to think about a large number of cases.

是以，方法還是要考慮到大量的案例。

It's helpful to think about very different cases.

思考一下非常不同的情況是很有幫助的。

So, to use some real cases, imagine you mixed human brain cells, so human brain stem cells

是以，使用一些真實的案例，想象一下你混合了人類的腦細胞，所以人類的腦幹細胞

in the embryonic stage, into a mouse to create a mouse with a humanized brain.

在胚胎階段，將其植入小鼠體內，以創造具有人性化大腦的小鼠。

Now, it wouldn't be a human brain.

現在，這不會是一個人的大腦。

It's not exactly the same.

這並不完全相同。

It's much smaller, for example, but has humanized elements.

例如，它要小得多，但有人性化的元素。

Another example is a humanized immune system.

另一個例子是人性化的免疫系統。

Take a mouse, and we do this, we have these at Harvard for example, and created an immune

以一隻小鼠為例，我們這樣做，我們在哈佛大學有這些，並創建了一個免疫的

system in order to test drugs.

系統，以測試藥物。

Think about HIV, for example, that was humanized.

例如，想想艾滋病毒，它被人性化了。

So not the brain, but just the immune system was very human-like.

所以不是大腦，而只是免疫系統非常像人類。

And last example is actually heart valve replacements.

而最後一個例子實際上是心臟瓣膜的更換。

So Jesse Helms, the Senator, had a pig valve placement years ago, so there's a piece of

是以，參議員傑西-赫爾姆斯（Jesse Helms）多年前曾做過一次豬瓣膜置換手術，所以有一塊

an animal in him.

在他身上有一種動物。

So these are some real cases of different kinds of mixing and the question is which

是以，這些是不同種類的混合的一些真實案例，問題是哪一種

are okay, which are not okay, why can we generate some principles?

哪些是可以的，哪些是不可以的，為什麼我們可以產生一些原則？

So what might be wrong with mixing human and animal parts?

那麼，將人類和動物的部分混合起來可能有什麼問題呢？

So one thing that might be wrong is that we think it will confuse the boundaries between

是以，有一點可能是錯誤的，我們認為這將會混亂兩者的界限。

humans and animals, that right now we have a pretty clear distinction.

人類和動物，現在我們有一個相當明確的區別。

While many people love their dogs and their cats like members of the family, they are

雖然許多人把他們的狗和貓當作家庭成員來愛護，但它們是

able to say this is not a member of my family.

可以說這不是我的家人。

This is not a member that has the same rights as my family member.

這不是一個擁有與我的家庭成員相同權利的成員。

In a world where we had a much more of a continuum between animals and human beings, those distinctions

在一個我們在動物和人類之間有更多連續性的世界裡，這些區別

would become difficult.

將變得困難。

Now, just because they become difficult doesn't mean that that's wrong.

現在，僅僅因為他們變得困難並不意味著那是錯誤的。

It would just pose for us a new problem and maybe it would illustrate a problem we should

這只是給我們提出了一個新的問題，也許它能說明一個我們應該的問題

be thinking about altogether.

完全是在思考這個問題。

So I'm not particularly sympathetic to that argument.

所以我對這種說法不是特別同情。

Different argument though is to say human beings are particular kinds of beings with

但不同的論點是說，人是有特殊類型的人，具有

particular kinds of capacities and there's a dignity to being human being.

具備特定種類的能力，作為人有一種尊嚴。

And if we were to mix enough animal material into a human being, the thing that we would

如果我們將足夠多的動物材料混入人體內，我們會發現

have would not be something new, but it would be a human being that could not flourish as

這不是什麼新的東西，而是一個不能像其他國家那樣蓬勃發展的人。

a human being.

一個人。

It would be an undignified human being, a kind of entity that is one that really is

這將是一個沒有尊嚴的人，一種實體，是一個真正的

unable to really experience what it is to be human.

無法真正體驗到做人的意義。

Now, again, you might push on this and say, well, yes, that's true, they would not be

現在，你可能又會推說，嗯，是的，這是真的，他們不會是

a human being and they would not necessarily have all the capacities of a human being.

一個人，他們不一定會有人類的所有能力。

So imagine having some of the capacities of a human being, but being stuck in a rat body,

是以，想象一下擁有人類的一些能力，但卻被困在一個老鼠的身體裡。

for example.

例如：

Sure, there'd be ways in which you would not flourish as a human being, but why not think

當然，會有一些方式讓你無法作為一個人蓬勃發展，但為什麼不想想

of you as flourishing as a new kind of entity?

你是作為一種新的實體而蓬勃發展的嗎？

And in particular you might actually think there might be an obligation to create some

特別是你可能真的認為可能有義務創造一些

kinds of chimeras.

嵌合體的種類。

So if, for example, we think of Big Bird from Sesame Street, sounds like a silly example,

是以，如果，我們想到《芝麻街》中的大鳥，聽起來是一個愚蠢的例子。

but it's a good one.

但這是一個很好的例子。

Big Bird talks, Big Bird has friends, Big Bird goes to school, been in school a long

大鳥會說話，大鳥有朋友，大鳥上學，在學校裡呆了很長時間

time on Sesame Street, I guess, but he seems to have a pretty good life.

我想，在芝麻街的時間，但他似乎有一個相當好的生活。

Imagine we could take regular birds and turn them into big birds by doing something to

想象一下，我們可以把普通的鳥兒變成大鳥，通過做一些事情來實現

them.

他們。

Would we think of that as improving a little bird's life or would we think about that as

我們會認為這是在改善一隻小鳥的生活，還是會認為這是

hurting a human being's life through this mixture?

通過這種混合物傷害一個人的生命？

Hard questions, but at least it might be possible that we think we're doing animals a favor

困難的問題，但至少可能是我們認為我們在幫動物的忙

by doing this.

通過這樣做。

And other answers might say it depends a lot on the specifics of the case.

而其他答案可能會說，這在很大程度上取決於案件的具體細節。

There are changes we could make to human beings by mixing in animal DNA that might make them

我們可以通過混入動物的DNA對人類進行一些改變，這可能使他們

better and there are changes we can make to human beings that might make them worse and

我們可以對人類做出一些改變，而這些改變可能會使人類變得更糟，並且

worse from a moral perspective.

從道德的角度來看，情況更糟。

So, for example, if it turned out that there was, to use an example in literature, we could

是以，舉例來說，如果發現有，用文獻中的一個例子來說，我們可以

give human beings night vision so they could see at night like some animals through mixing

賦予人類夜視能力，這樣他們就能像一些動物一樣通過攪拌在夜間看到東西。

in a little animal DNA, you might think that would be great.

在一個小動物的DNA中，你可能認為這將是偉大的。

We could do more search and rescue.

我們可以做更多的搜索和救援。

We'd be better drivers.

我們會成為更好的司機。

There'll be less fatalities.

會有更少的死亡。

On the other hand, if the result was to produce human beings that had much stronger aggression

另一方面，如果結果是產生了具有更強攻擊性的人類

or violence or claws or something like that, you might think that's worse because we're

或暴力或爪子或類似的東西，你可能認為這更糟糕，因為我們是

going to do more harm.

將會造成更大的傷害。

And that would suggest the answer about whether we ought to have chimeras or not and what

這將表明，關於我們是否應該有嵌合體的答案，以及什麼是嵌合體？

kind can only be answered in a particularistic way by thinking about a particular case.

這種情況只能通過對特定案例的思考，以一種特殊的方式來回答。

I will say, and this is kind of referencing some work by my friend Hank Greely at Stanford,

我要說的是，這有點參考了我在斯坦福大學的朋友Hank Greely的一些工作。

that there are particular kinds of changes which from a sociological perspective seem

從社會學的角度來看，有一些特殊的變化似乎是

to bother us more.

來更多地打擾我們。

And he describes them as kind of brains, balls, and faces.

他把它們描述為一種大腦、球和臉。

So brains, it turns out we're very disturbed by the idea of human brains or humanized brains

是以，大腦，事實證明，我們對人類大腦或人性化的大腦的想法感到非常不安

in animals.

在動物身上。

Much more disturbed by the humanized brain mice than we are by the humanized immune system

比起我們對人性化的免疫系統，對人性化的大腦小鼠的不安要多得多

mice, for example.

例如，小鼠。

The other is balls.

另一個是球。

We tend to be very nervous when we think about the idea, and this is kind of crazy and out

當我們想到這個想法時，我們往往會非常緊張，這有點瘋狂和出格。

there, imagine you could create an animal that had the ability to reproduce — its

想象一下，你可以創造一種具有繁殖能力的動物--它的

gonads, it's reproductive system, was human.

性腺，它的生殖系統，是人類。

So that you'd have animals mating and producing human beings and animals.

這樣，你就會有動物交配，產生人類和動物。