Genetics Interview #3: Sara Gottlieb

In our continuing series of genetics interviews, I’m pleased to introduce Sara Gottlieb, a Research Scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology , who will be starting a doctoral program in environmental policy there in the fall. We met a couple of years ago via our personal blogs and I have been always been impressed by Sara’s ability to analyze a wide range of science and other topics. Her interview serves to remind us, as RPM of evolgen did, that humans aren’t the only living organisms on this earth.

1. Can you tell us about your biology background and how genetics figures into it?

My mother is a biologist; she has a PhD in biology with an emphasis in botany and an avocation for ferns. She taught AP biology at my high school, and from a very early age, I helped her with her lab animals and greenhouse. My earliest education in genetics was as a middle-schooler, helping her sex the fruit flies she kept stocks of at home for Mendelian crosses in her lab. In college, I actually majored in environmental science, not biology, and the last and only course in genetics I ever took was in 1990! A lot has changed since then.

Professionally, I have focused on aquatic ecology (I have a Master of Science in fisheries ecology), working on commercially harvested and endangered species of fish for the past decade or so in an academic setting. I have kept up a personal interest in genetics, but I have not kept up with many of the technical aspects of the field.

Interestingly, almost every member of my immediate family is involved in the “new genetics”: my sister-in-law has a PhD from Harvard in genetics from one of the top labs there; my brother-in-law worked with a start-up biotechnology firm that was using genetics to try to develop cancer treatments and recently has published in Science on the drosophila protein interactions; and my husband has been involved in phylogenetic reconstruction from a computational perspective.

Also, my family has been touched personally by genetics. My brother’s wife discovered that her mother and sister had Huntington’s Disease around the time that the genetic test for it first came on the market. She was tested, and it turned out she was positive. She subsequently died from complications of the disease several years later.

2. How does your approach to genetics differ from scientists who work primarily with human data?

Professionally, most of my exposure to genetics has related to conservation genetics and phylogeography. The first topic relates to the genetic fitness of a species or population, especially of organisms with very low population numbers. Often, when a species is nearing extinction, the level of genetic variation among its individuals is very low and this causes them to be quite vulnerable to disease and changes in habitat. Indeed, low genetic variation within a species can be the tipping point for extinction.

The second topic relates to variations in the genetic makeup of populations of species depending on where they live, how isolated they are, and for how long they have been isolated. Many of the theories of evolution and speciation depend on mechanisms of isolation for new species to arise. Many of the taxonomists I have worked with spend a great deal of time determining what, exactly, is a species (as opposed to a population). It’s not as simple as many people think. In fact, the very existence of “species” as a concept may be going the way of the dinosaurs.

Human genetics is mainly concerned with aspects of human health, with occasional uses that are similar to phylogeography. However, using genetics to study variations among people of different races and ethnicities is fraught with ethical issues that are not a problem in the natural history of wild plants and animals.

3. How do you think scientists should help educate the general public about genetics and science in general?

I think that genetics provides a prime topic to get the public interested in science. Like no other topic in science, genetics affects us every day in tangible ways. Also, genetics encompasses many aspects and specialties in science, ranging from biology, chemistry, epidemiology, health sciences, math and even physics at the most basic level. There’s something for everyone in genetics and the applications are directly important to our daily lives and well-being. Hey, it kind of makes me wonder why I didn’t go into genetics.

Science needs to be exciting and applicable and experiential in order for the general public to be interested. It makes me really sad to think about how so many people are turned off by science because of the way it is approached (in the U.S.) as a bunch of useless facts to be memorized.

4. What do you think of genetically modified food?

There are many ethical and environmental issues that must be addressed on a case-by-case basis when it comes to genetically modified food (gmf). My gut feeling, and from what literature I have read (not much) is that there are few, if any, health risks to gmf, and there may be benefits (like potatoes that deliver vaccines or extra vitamins). However, there is a “dark side” in terms of the risk of release of these modified genomes into the wild. In the aquatic realm, fish are famous for their non-selective reproductive strategies and for hybridization. Aquaculture presents a huge risk, because genetically modified fish can easily escape and breed with wild fish, tainting their stocks. There are similar examples with plants. The widespread development and application of gmf needs to be approached with great care and with a moral compass.

5. When you see anything related to genes, genetics, or DNA mentioned in the news, what thoughts usually cross your mind?

I selectively scan the news for stories on the environment, women’s issues, and science generally. Genetics is certainly one of the topics I include in all three of those areas. I try to keep up with major developments in the field, although my ability to fully comprehend the technical aspects is usually inadequate.

One thing that has troubled me about genetics is that it can lead to a “can’t see the forest for the trees” problem among students and even some experienced scientists. Biology departments are taking away resources from traditional taxonomists, ecologists, and natural history collections in order to fund the extremely expensive genetics labs, which no doubt attract more grants and students. However, I’ve seen too many cases of students who have studied the genome of a particular organism, but have never actually seen a live or even a museum specimen of that organism, much less observed it in its wild habitat. This is a loss for science, for students, and for humanity.

Thank you so much for sharing your perspective on genetics with us, Sara! Have a blast in your doctoral program. I know I did. Well, most of the time….

Technorati Tags: genetics, interviews, genes, dna, disease, health, genome revolution, huntingtons disease