When they weren't competing to map the human genome, it often seemed like James Watson and Craig Venter were vying for the title of world's most candid scientist. Now their genomes are doing battle, and the loser seems to be the biological concept of race.
A new comparison of the scientists' publicly available genome sequences indicates that, although Watson and Venter are both white men, they will react to some drugs quite differently.
Watson's genome hosts a mutation in a drug-metabolising gene rarely found in Caucasians. "It shows that James Watson has some Korean blood in him, or some Asian blood anyway," says Howard McLeod, a pharmacologist at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. "He wouldn't get good pain relief from codeine."
Nor much effect from antipsychotic drugs, some antidepressants and a drug commonly used to treat breast cancer, say Venter and Pauline Ng, of the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, who compared the scientists' genomes. Venter used the analysis to make a simple point:
"Race-based medicine doesn't have any real basis in science," he told New Scientist. "You can look at somebody's skin colour, but it doesn't necessarily tell you much about the rest of their genome or how they'll respond to drugs or which drugs they'll respond to."
Consensus view
Last year, Watson quit his job as head of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York after a British newspaper quoted him making disparaging remarks about the intelligence of people from Africa. He later apologised and noted: "There is no scientific basis for such a belief."
The latest analysis supports the conclusion that skin colour doesn't convey as much medically useful information as knowledge of individual genomes.
"That became a consensus view back in the pre-Cambrian, or perhaps a tad earlier," says David Goldstein, a geneticist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.
Yet the availability of cheap genetic testing - and soon complete individual genome sequencing - means that such personalised information will become increasingly important in developing, testing and prescribing medicines.
Although the concept of a drug for every genome is more fiction than fact, our genes will help customise drug treatments by grouping people into categories for specific diseases, Venter says. One set of genes may dictate a particular treatment for hypertension, whereas another set will influence which drugs are prescribed for cancer.
Saving lives
Many of those connections remain weak and medically useless for now. By contrast, scientists have made big strides in understanding how the body breaks down drugs, a key criterion that determines dosing.
For instance, a blood-thinning drug called warfarin breaks down slowly in patients with a certain gene mutation, putting them at risk of haemorrhaging. Knowing the sequence of a gene called CYP2C9 before prescribing warfarin can cut down on haemorrhaging and save lives.
Watson and Venter have different mutations in CYP2C9, but this difference doesn�t seem to affect how they break down warfarin. But other drug-metabolism genes vary between the two genetic pioneers.
Most notably, Watson has two copies of a mutation in the gene CYP2D6 that affects the break down of some heart drugs, as well as antipsychotics and antidepressants. Ng and Venter note that 3% of Caucasians have this mutation, which is far more common among East Asians.
And although Venter seems to have the same drug metabolism as the average white male, genes that influence other traits will tell another story, McLeod, says.
Journal reference: Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2008.114)
Evolution - Learn more about the struggle to survive in our comprehensive special report.
Genetics - Keep up with the pace in our continually updated special report.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Aren't You Belaboring The Obvious?
Wed Aug 20 12:51:23 BST 2008 by Anonymous
Of course having a complete genome for an individual will give you much more information than just noting the person's race. However, if you do not have the person's complete genome, which will be the case 99.99% of the time, knowing the person's race can give you some medical information. For example, African's are much more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia than Caucasians. Caucasians, on the other hand, are more susceptible to skin cancer.
There are differences between the races. Trying to say there aren't is counter productive. Yes, there is racism and many racists try to argue that one race is superior or inferior to another. That racist notion of superiority of a particular race should be rejected, but you can't just say there are no differences at all. Doing so is disingenuous, and hurts science and medicine.
Aren't You Belaboring The Obvious?
Wed Aug 20 13:39:43 BST 2008 by Andrew
I absolutely agree. This article might as well have read, "Scientists create world's biggest strawman".
Aren't You Belaboring The Obvious?
Wed Aug 20 15:59:22 BST 2008 by Peter M
Agreed. Genetic testing may be 'cheap' these days, but 'cheap' is relative, and while a few people with expensive private medical care may benefit from it, the rest of us will have to settle for using race and family history as a primary indicator of our genes for quite some time yet. It's no different from the standard diagnostic practices of doctors; it would be great if everyone could have a full-body MRI scan, and a suite of blood tests done every time they went to the doctor, but resources are limited and the process starts with a 5 minute Q&A session and ends there unless there's compelling evidence that more is required, at least here in the UK on the NHS.
Race is something that a doctor can immediately use as a clue for various conditions or reactions to medication. Is the patient asian? Use medication X rather than Y then, since 90% of asian people have problems with Y. Is the patient black and suffering from anemia? Test for sickle-cell anemia. Is the patient white and suffering from anemia? Prescribe an iron supplement and don't bother testing for sickle-cell anemia unless the anemia persists. It's foolish to discard race as a source of information about a person.
Aren't You Belaboring The Obvious?
Thu Aug 21 20:30:05 BST 2008 by Peyton
If someone can trace their heritage back through one single pedigree like some over-bred german shepherd - great, fine, wonderful. Newsflash - this is not the case MUCH of the time. Just perceiving someone as belonging to a "race" doesn't mean squat at the genomic level. They have some genes effecting phenotypes that you can easily perceive. Whoop. Pharmaceuticals operate at a much different level - and the only way to conclusively know if a drug is going effectively target some pathway is knowing what is going on at the genomic (and consequently proteomic) levels. That is the point of this article. Watson is perceived to be "Caucasian" - yet a medicine effective for the vast majority of "Caucasians" would not be effective for him.
We may not have the tech to practice medicine like this today - but it is the direction we should move towards - individualized treatment. Who wants to know that a life-saving treatment is not going to work for them 6-months into it after it is too late to look to alternatives? It would be of little solace to hear "well it worked for all the other [insert race here] - sorry about your luck"
Watson Vs Venter: The Loser Is Race-based Medicine
Wed Aug 20 17:25:04 BST 2008 by Leo Morgan
I'd really like to subscribe to a magazine that introduced me to scientific advances. New Scientist doesn't qualify because its editorial spinning for political views obscures evidence and deprives it of credibility.
The story above is a case in point. I share with the New Scientist reporter an abhorrence of racism and the idea of unfair treatment based on race. That does not justify this misreporting. The evidence justifies the claim that superficial racial categorisations can mislead medical staff about appropriate medical treatment. It for sure does not justify the implication that racial differences do not impact upon appropriate medical treatment.
Prior to readin the article, i would have asserted that "racial differences do not affect appropriate medical treatment"
The science in the article shows i would have been wrong, specifically where it suggests that Koreans do not benefit from codeine. The article argues for a political viewpoint contrary to that disclosed by the science.
Shame on you New Scientist!
Watson Vs Venter: The Loser Is Race-based Medicine
Thu Aug 21 10:31:01 BST 2008 by Michael
Don't shoot the messenger: I think it's Venter you should be attacking rather than New Scientist.
That said, Venter's claims should have been treated with the scepticism that anything he says deserves.
Correlation Between Genetic And Geographic Structure In Europe
Wed Aug 20 18:14:17 BST 2008 by Ugly American
The author should read the new study in Current Biology.
Modern tech can differentiate between people of Swedish & Finnish descent and even tell the difference between people of southern Italian & centeral Italian descent.
First we must admit there are differences before we can benefit from individualized care.
Correlation Between Genetic And Geographic Structure In Europe
Thu Aug 21 20:33:21 BST 2008 by Sheesh
So which one is codeine more effective for, Swedes or Fins? What if I'm Swedish, but have a great-great-great grandfather that was Korean?
Correlation Between Genetic And Geographic Structure In Europe
Thu Aug 21 21:09:51 BST 2008 by Ewen Callaway
No one, including Craig Venter, will argue that there are no genetic differences between people from the same region or people of the same ethnicity.
Humans probably migrated out of Africa, beginning some 60,000 years ago, and eventually populated much of the Earth. For most of this time, people mated with people around them, creating geographic pockets of genetic homogeneity.
Some of these pockets have persisted well into the 20th and even 21st centuries -- Iceland for example.
Others, like much of North America, have seen so much immigration and interbreeding in the past 500 years that the average North American's genome -- no matter their "race" -- is a jambalaya of many different genetic histories.
The problem comes when you try to infer population history from a single trait, like skin colour. You may as well try to determine someone's genetic history by their eye colour or immune system.
Thanks for reading.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.



