Living things including humans are wounded deeply from birth, a chasm naked eyes may not see, but it is subject to the extrinsic factor’s temerity to become apparent. An exposure timely fitted to unmask the phenotype of the imprinted genotypic burden we bear. Thus, the inextricable complex ramification with which different organisms are entangled with the environment is the predictive features produced by certain laws of nature guiding the survivability of every organism. This is the natural law of survival of the fittest, a phenomenon involving growth, reproduction and the inheritance of the best fitted traits within an environment (Wine, 2000). Genetic inheritance is an imprinting implied in reproduction and allowed by natural selection. Thus, the genetic component of human behavior or lifestyle is a controversial issue, yet does not negate the relevant of each factor. Perhaps the marriage between molecular tools, electronic methodology measures and public health policies is a powerful union for better healthcare practices (Wine, 2000). Hence, to avoid deleterious repetition of previous scientific research mistakes, genomic link between human behaviors should be a priority for the public health effort in achieving sustainable preventative and control measures for diseases.

Although, some of the health outcomes may be addressed on a case-by case basis, but most, if not all of the human behavior, is genetically linked. Each behavior may have one or multiple stressors (extrinsic factors) to produce an apparent phenotypic effect within an individual. Each individual or population, based on the intrinsic and extrinsic predisposition frequency has different dose response or threshold for a given phenotypic outcomes (Gallagher, et al., 2006). For instance, sickle cell anemia is prevalent in Africa, and malaria associated with the plasmodium parasite kills more than one million children every year in Africa (Chokshi, Parkor, & Kwiatkowski, 2006). Sanitary and behavior modification on maintaining a clean environment will drastically reduce the prevalence of malaria and high malaria related mortality rate. However, behavior and lifestyle changes may not impact any high mortality rate among sickle cell born individuals. Perhaps, introduction of marriage counselling and administering of pregnancy test for detection of sickle cell embryo may achieve another healthy purpose in public health effort. Tay-Sachs prevalence among Jews is another devastating genetic disease which employed the aforementioned program measures in prevention of Tay-Sachs prevalence among Jews. By employing marriage counselling and screening programs within the Jewish population, Tay-Sachs incidence has been significantly reduced by more than 90% among Jewish population in the United States and Canada (Schneider, 2010).

The availability of genetic test and subsequent information could help an individual to make an informed decision and a lifestyle change if possible. However, the ethical qualms surrounding genomic technology is not far from the fear of invasion of individual privacy and the loss of personal liberty. In addition, the cost association with the knowledge of predisposition is not just a financial burden but a psychological challenge. Fortunately, in 2008, the US enacted the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), a law that prohibits discrimination against genetic make-up of an individual and also provides protection against genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment (NIH, 2013). This is an exemplary platform the rest of the world should follow in fostering equitable human right protection in the area of genetic information and genetic predisposition.

Despite this new wave of scientific success in prevention and control of disease through genetic technology and advancement, it is very important to understand scientific research limitations. The possibilities are now presented to researchers to engineer gene therapy as a possible alternative cure for human genetic diseases. Perhaps, more attentions should also be given to the natural extrinsic selective factors in parallel to any scientific innovation. The lack thereof may introduce devastating genetic problems and may introduce more prevalent genetic disorder never seen in humans. The 1900s onset of industrialization revolution is an evident link of high prevalence in chronic diseases. Thus, will genetic disorder follow the genomic/gene therapy revolution in our time? For this reason, we must thoroughly think through the processes and be cautious in its application, which in many cases, are irreversible.

References

Chokshi, D., Parker, M., & Kwiatkowski, D. (2006). Data sharing and intellectual property in a genomic epidemiology network: Policies for large-scale research collaboration. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(5) 382.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com. ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3c6beccb-b5e1-4572-bddb-4260e094308a%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=125

Gallagher, K., Benson, W., Brody, M., Fairbrother, A., Hasan, J., Klaper, R., et al. (2006). Genomics: Applications, challenges, and opportunities for the U.S. environmental protection agency. Human & Ecological Risk Assessment, 12(3) 572-590. Retrieved from http://search .proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/200057721/fulltextPDF? accountid=14872

National Institute of Health. (2013). The genetic information nondiscrimination act (GINA).  Retrieved from http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/spotlight=thegeneticinformationnondiscri minationactgina

Schneider, M.J. (2010). Introduction to public health 4^th ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

Wine, OJ. (2000). Genes and behavior.  Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~wine/202/g-and-b.html