Curated Paper 2 - Derek Baker

It is often remarked that every subject is simply comprised of another. For example, sociology is psychology, psychology is biology, biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics, and physics is just math. Through this common chain, we can determine that there are infinite connections between certain academic disciplines. In this paper, we will explore the connections of biology through cognitive disorders, anabolic steroids, and genetic editing to other subjects like sociology, ethics, economics, and medicine. 

Cognitive disorders and brain injuries are some of the most complicated disruptions in human pathologies to deal with. This difficulty usually stems from multiple reasons. The brain is complicated to understand and to observe scientifically. It is not something that we can dissect and prod to analyze while still grasping its full potential as a part of a living organism. To study the brain in vivo we must use other tools that merely guide us in a certain direction regarding function. We can see which areas of the brain consume the most glucose, have the most blood flow, or are most electrically stimulated during certain mental tasks, but we have yet to scratch the surface of mapping the true anatomy and physiology of the human brain. 

When studying the brain it is hard to determine the main goal of such an organ. It is obvious that the objective of the cardiovascular system is to supply blood to the body, and anything that impedes that would be considered a disorder of that system. So, what is the function of the brain? Is the brain made to communicate, to survive, to create, to ponder, to argue, to love, or to hate? Such a multifaceted organ makes it difficult to determine what a deficit or a disorder is, especially when every brain is so different. With no one true objective, there is no saying whether it is better or worse to be left or right-brained for example. Many of these cerebral variations that we perceive are concepts that only exist in the context of human society. 

This last point brings me to the reality of the cognitive disorders of ADD and ADHD. A lesion in the brain that disables an organism to move, breathe, eat, or sleep is quite obviously a disorder as they are all based on primal biological functions. What happens however when the symptoms of a disorder look more like an inability to sit still for a long time, focus their attention on a lecture, or have “time blindness”. None of these “problems” are ever seen outside of the context of human cultures where they are considered important. Furthermore, they are only a tool (or a list of symptoms) that helps us label something we can’t fully explain by cause, but rather by effect.

Key symptoms of ADHD are constituted as the following: Inattention1, which may present as difficulty organizing tasks, general forgetfulness, and being easily distracted. Hyperactivity2, which can manifest as rambunctious energy, inability to sit still, and excessive talking. Impulsivity3, usually seen as acting without thinking, disregarding the consequences of actions, interrupting others, and making rash decisions. Once again these behaviors are key in making a diagnosis of ADHD with our general lack of knowledge on what causes this neurodivergency. 

Given all of the biological symptoms and science-related interventions, there are also many societal impacts of ADHD. ADHD can have a significant impact on education and employment in general. An additional study published by the National Library of Medicine found that ADHD diagnosis correlated with lower levels of secondary education graduation and tertiary education attainment. They also found that ADHD was tied to higher levels of unemployment and being a recipient of state benefits. These lower levels of educational attainment create financial strain on these individuals and strain on the economy for those who need certain benefits and financial assistance. In this same study, ADHD was also found to correspond with increased imprisonment by a factor of 10, increased homelessness, and an increased inability to maintain long-term relationships. 

In addition to ADHD we can also see connections to other fields through drugs. One of the more controversial and debated topics in the realm of drug use is the abuse and safety of anabolic-androgenic steroids. AAS better known as steroids are synthetic molecules that are made to mimic the effects of testosterone and create an overall “masculinizing effect” on the body. 

Abuse and overuse of anabolic-androgenic steroids is most prevalent among athletes, bodybuilders, and post-pubescent males (typically ages 20 - 30). Extreme pressure to perform a certain way or look a certain way is what propels these demographics to misuse AAS. Due to their non-medical illicit use, it is hard to determine exactly what demographics are affected by this drug abuse. We do know however that muscle dysmorphia (an obsession with one's muscle mass typically characterized as seeing oneself as smaller than they are) is a contributing factor to people seeking out this drug. For athletes, steroids have helped them push the barrier of what was considered humanly possible in an athletic sense. This is also where most of the controversy stems from surrounding AAS because of their legal and ethical considerations in professional sports competitions. 

Increasing muscle mass at such an incredible rate also leads to many muscular injuries. The tendon growth and support can not keep up with the muscles and will often rupture. If steroids are taken in adolescents it can also stunt growth by prematurely closing the epiphyseal plate in the bones. Increased testosterone also leads to increased sebaceous gland activity, making the skin oily and acne-prone. Testosterone will also increase feelings of aggression (often coined as “roid rage”), depression, anxiety, and paranoia. Other side effects include an increased risk of prostate cancer, kidney failure, sleep apnea, weakened immune system, and abnormally high RBC. 

Overall, the abuse of anabolic-androgenic steroids has led to unrealistic body standards that feed into and perpetuate its misuse. This misuse leads to an incredible amount of health complications that throw the body away from its precious balance in many aspects. 

Lastly we look at how genetic editing extends into fields outside of biology. As it stands, GGE has a long way to go before it is ready for human use. The accuracy and efficiency of gene editing agents must improve dramatically, as well as our knowledge of how undesired traits arise from genetic changes. The biggest mechanical barrier is finding an optimal delivery approach for the newly edited genes. Though difficult, these problems face no challenges like the ethical dilemma of GGE (Zhou et al. 2022).

Many advocates for genetic editing turn to the presence of similar technologies being used today as arguments for its legality. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis is a technology that allows geneticists to see the genetic makeup of embryos and determine which ones are viable for implantation after IVF therapy (Hammerstein et al. 2019). Viewpoints are held that selective abortion after prenatal genetic diagnosis expresses negative and discriminatory attitudes towards the organism, along with the undesired trait itself. If PGD meets the similar criteria for concern as GGE, why is only one legal? Critics of GGE argue that its legality should not be resumed based on PGD because PGD is much safer and allows an option for maintaining the genetic integrity of the child without modification. Proponents argue that GGE can offer genetic therapy for individuals who are both homozygous recessive for a gene, a luxury unoffered with PGD (Flinter, 2001). 

A major argument from the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights by UNESCO states that “The human genome underlies the fundamental unity of all members of the human family, as well as the recognition of their inherent dignity and diversity. In a symbolic sense, it is the heritage of humanity (UNESCO, 2000).” Simply put, our unaltered genetic heritage is what binds us all together. However, supporters of GGE believe that humanity is more accurately defined by our continuous drive for innovation and advancement and that halting the legality of GGE is detrimental to our race. 

Proponents of GGE turn to the major economic implications we would see as a country. To date, no other country comes close to spending the amount that we spend on healthcare and we only rank 11th in overall health as a nation. In fact, we spend $4.5 trillion on health care alone. Elimination of genetic diseases would dramatically reduce the amount spent in our country, especially when considering the tie between genetics and health. For example, 65% of Americans suffer from a genetic-related health problem. Another recent statistic showed that 38% of hospital visits were the cause of a genetic-related disorder and accounted for 50% of hospital costs (Peter G. Peterson Foundation, 2024). Critics of GGE are quick to remind us that it won’t just solve all of our healthcare problems, and the dramatic reduction of healthcare needs would leave many without jobs. But should the negative economic implications hinder the effort to benefit the patient? 

The last argument deals with what is truly considered disadvantaged. If GGE were to be legalized and practiced, what are the parameters, and who gets to decide them? Society would be forced into deep introspection of which characteristics are truly a disablement and which are disadvantageous based on societal biases and perceptions. In other words, is the use of this technology considered just, and when in use, how do we maintain that justice? Take the following rhetorical question as an example. Imagine you were to find that your future child had a gene that made them 6 times more likely to experience depression, 4 times more likely to commit suicide, and twice as likely to experience teen homelessness (University of Utah, 2021). Would you want to remove it from them? What if I told you that gene identity was being gay? Would the difference between true disablement and societal discrimination change your mind? Would you still want to spare your kid from these statistics regardless?

The ethics of GGE are complex and multifaceted. Although the technology is not quite there for regular clinical practice the conversations of its ethics need to happen today. I know that for myself the idea of such a technology is exciting as long as we have the correct measures put into place. The thought of having any eye problems I currently have, edited out 22 years ago, is amazing and would have saved me so much financially between glasses, contacts, and Lasik in the future. That being said it is important to remember that we do not always know what each genetic combination will bring whether good or bad. The genetic diversity that we find today is a product of genes replicating in ways “they aren’t supposed to”. This imbalance or shift to what we perceive as healthy can affect diversity which could be our saving grace in generations to come. 

Overall, we can see that many differing aspects of biology are connected to other fields like sociology, ethics, economics, and medicine through the lens of ADHD, drugs, and genetic editing.