Morphs


Is gene doping coming to the Olympics?
July 18, 2012 | By Jon Bardin | Los Angeles Times 

There are numerous genetic factors known to confer advantages in athletic contests, from mutations that increase the oxygen carrying capacity of blood to gene variants that confer an incredible increase in endurance, and these mutations appear to be especially common in Olympic athletes. 

He`s talking about Michael Phelps.  Here’s what Phelps has going for him:
·       His reach exceeds his height
·       Size 14 feet
·       Big hands
·       A large upper body to power his long arms
·       Excellent lung capacity
·       Low lactic acid production
·       Low body fat
 
Looking at this list it’s as if Phelps was designed to swim.

My friend Michael M. has a genetic mutation too; instead of eighteen gold medals he won a couple of great kids, a successful career and a wheelchair.

So why is Michael P. an Olympian and Michael M. disabled?  Because we see the difference in outcome, not the similarity in process; the destination, not the voyage.   We all have the genetic variation of these two - for most it’s hardly noticeable.  But for the two Michaels it is completely obvious.  Different outcomes, but the same means.  

An evolutionary foundation to our thinking about disability recognizes the diversity built into existence.  Nature is always working on version 2.0 - people with genetic differences are part of a serious experiment.

Evolutionary experiment made us what we are, and we are all here because it worked.  To assert that there is one ideal type of human and one definition of health is to deny our potential as a species and the purpose of diversity.  When we see a person we now call ‘disabled’ we should be reassured that Natural Selection is working on our behalf, and we should honor the person it’s working on.

Michael M. is very much like Michael P.   His life is enviable, and to call him a person with a disability is a disservice.  So what is he?

We need a word that applies equally to both Michaels, is a useful descriptor and is not a judgment.  Language is important, and the right word will help us. When we talk about one Michael, we should be reminded of the other.

The correct scientific term is morph - one of various distinct forms of an organism or species.  The two Michaels are morphs, as are you.

Morph is short and memorable, a bit unfamiliar, ideal for the purpose.  I'd rather be called a morph than disabled, as it implies difference without making a judgement.

Morphs are a way of thinking about disability that identifies the underlying process and includes us all.  When we acknowledge the genetic origins of diversity we see the context of the idiosyncrasies that make us each human and the benefit we derive as a species.

Some people get their disability through accident or contagion.  They’re not genetic pioneers, but they  teach us about adaptability, ourselves and our humanity, challenging our ingenuity to invent Braille and prosthetics and accessible buses.  They bring out the best in us.  

A university that fails to educate a wide variety of students, a political party that fails to attract a wide variety of voters - these represent extinction waiting to happen. For any species, the way to get from today to tomorrow is to maximize adaptability. It's not just a numbers game - Passenger Pigeons were just as vulnerable to change as Dodos. That means understanding every kind of diversity as a kind of collective insurance policy.

In the sense that we are all experiments, the meta-experiment is to see if we can embrace difference and evolve our society as we evolve as organisms. Our ability to mitigate differences while honoring them is the measure of our adaptability as a society.  Building ramps is a small price to pay for the marvel of evolution.

If we can see that Michael Phelps shares genetic greatness with Stephen Hawking, Michael M. and all the rest of us morphs, we see the underlying similarity that manifests difference.

No comments:

Post a Comment