The Human Genome Project Was a Failure
Summary
TLDRThe video script discusses the Human Genome Project, a landmark genetics endeavor aiming to sequence the human genome. Despite initial overhyped expectations of revolutionizing disease treatment by 2016, the project faced challenges due to the complexity of genetic influence on diseases, which often involves multiple genes rather than single mutations. The script highlights the project's success in advancing sequencing technology and contributing to a better understanding of genetic diversity and disease patterns, emphasizing its role in scientific progress rather than immediate medical breakthroughs.
Takeaways
- 𧏠The Human Genome Project (HGP) aimed to sequence and publish the entire human genome for the first time, starting in 1990 and concluding in 2003.
- đ The project was an international collaboration costing approximately 2.7 billion dollars and was considered a major scientific achievement.
- đ Despite high expectations, such as curing diseases by tweaking genes, the practical applications of the HGP did not fully meet initial hype and promises.
- đ§ Early claims that single genes could cause major conditions like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia were not supported by later research, revealing that most diseases are influenced by many genes and environmental factors.
- âïž While the HGP did not revolutionize disease treatment as expected, it did enhance understanding of some genetic conditions and led to improvements in personalized medicine for certain diseases.
- đ The complexity of the human genome, with only 1-2% coding for proteins and the rest involving regulatory or non-coding regions, challenged initial assumptions and required more in-depth research to understand its functions.
- 𧩠The HGP's greatest success was in developing techniques for genome sequencing, significantly reducing the cost and time required for genetic analysis, which now benefits a wide range of scientific fields.
- đ„ Subsequent projects, such as the 1000 Genomes Project, expanded the genetic diversity represented in genomic studies, providing a broader understanding of human genetics.
- đŹ Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) emerged from the HGP era, helping to identify genetic patterns associated with various diseases and leading to better understanding and treatment options.
- đ The HGP laid the groundwork for modern genetics research, proving to be a technical success and a foundation for future scientific advancements, even if it did not immediately transform medical practice as initially anticipated.
Q & A
What was the primary goal of the Human Genome Project?
-The primary goal of the Human Genome Project was to decipher and publish the entire human genome for the first time ever.
What was the time frame and cost of the Human Genome Project?
-The Human Genome Project ran from 1990 to 2003 and cost approximately 2.7 billion dollars.
What was the initial hype surrounding the Human Genome Project?
-The initial hype suggested that the project would revolutionize the care of almost every disease, with predictions like personal genomes being carried in wallets and doctors prescribing specific gene therapies.
Why did the hype about the Human Genome Project not fully materialize?
-The hype did not materialize because most diseases are not caused by a single mutated gene but are influenced by many different genes, making a 'magic bullet' cure unlikely.
What are Mendelian conditions in the context of genetics?
-Mendelian conditions are diseases that follow Gregor Mendel's basic rules for inheritance, where a single mutation is enough to cause the disease, such as Huntingtonâs or sickle cell.
How does genome sequencing impact medicine today?
-Genome sequencing can help in specific cases like identifying cancer genes or choosing treatments based on specific mutations in cancer cells, but it is not a routine practice for general disease treatment.
What is the significance of the genome being more than just a sequence of letters?
-The genome is complex, with most of its sequences not coding for proteins but playing roles in gene expression, cellular structure, and other functions, making it more akin to a library than a simple book.
What is the role of non-coding DNA in the genome?
-Non-coding DNA includes sequences that affect gene expression, introns that are cut out of mRNA, and other elements that contribute to cellular function and structure, rather than coding for proteins.
How has the Human Genome Project influenced modern sequencing technologies?
-The Human Genome Project developed techniques that paved the way for modern sequencing technologies, making it cheaper, faster, and more reliable.
What are genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and their significance?
-GWAS involve analyzing a large number of genomes to find patterns or associations between diseases and genetic variants, which can lead to discoveries about diseases and their treatment.
Outlines
𧏠The Hype and Reality of the Human Genome Project
The first paragraph introduces the Human Genome Project, which aimed to sequence the entire human genome by 2003 at a cost of 2.7 billion dollars. It discusses the exaggerated expectations surrounding the project, such as the prediction by U.S. President Bill Clinton that it would revolutionize disease treatment. The paragraph acknowledges that while the project was a success in sequencing the genome, it did not live up to the promises of revolutionizing disease treatment. It also touches on the reasons behind these overpromises, including initial findings of single-gene causes for complex diseases that later could not be replicated. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing the complexity of diseases influenced by multiple genes rather than single mutations.
đ The Metaphorical Misunderstanding of the Genome
The second paragraph delves into the metaphorical comparison of the genome to a book and challenges this notion by highlighting the complexity and non-protein-coding aspects of DNA. It reveals that the majority of the human genome does not code for proteins, contrary to initial assumptions. The paragraph describes various non-coding DNA sequences, such as promoters, enhancers, repressors, silencers, introns, and other structural elements like telomeres. It also mentions pseudogenes and the 3D architecture of the cell's nucleus, which affects gene expression. The paragraph concludes with an alternative metaphor, likening the genome to a library with various components beyond just informational texts, to better capture its complexity.
đ The Technical Triumph and Scientific Legacy of the Human Genome Project
The third paragraph refutes the idea that the Human Genome Project was a failure by emphasizing its significant technical achievements and its lasting impact on scientific research. It discusses how the project's methodologies have led to modern, cost-effective, and rapid sequencing technologies. The paragraph also highlights the benefits of sequencing multiple genomes, such as understanding genetic diversity and conducting genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which have contributed to discoveries related to diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and schizophrenia. It concludes by acknowledging that while the project did not directly revolutionize patient care as initially expected, it has indirectly supported scientific advancements that will eventually benefit medicine.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄHuman Genome Project
đĄGenome sequencing
đĄGene therapy
đĄMendelian conditions
đĄGenome-wide association studies (GWAS)
đĄProteins
đĄMutations
đĄGenetic diversity
đĄSingle-gene disorders
đĄNon-coding DNA
Highlights
The Human Genome Project aimed to sequence the entire human genome for the first time.
Hyped as a revolutionary tool for disease treatment, it was compared to the moon landing.
The project was an international collaboration costing 2.7 billion dollars from 1990 to 2003.
Despite sequencing the genome, the promise to revolutionize disease treatment did not materialize.
Early findings of single-gene causes for major diseases could not be replicated.
Most diseases are influenced by many genes, not just one, complicating the idea of a 'magic bullet' cure.
Mendelian conditions, like Huntingtonâs or sickle cell, are caused by single gene mutations.
Genome sequencing is used in specific cases, such as identifying cancer mutations for targeted treatment.
The Human Genome Project was a technical achievement that paved the way for modern sequencing technologies.
The project revealed that 98-99% of our DNA does not code for proteins, challenging initial assumptions.
DNA sequences affect gene expression in various ways, such as promoters, enhancers, and silencers.
The genome includes non-coding RNA, cellular scaffolding, and structural elements like telomeres.
Some DNA sequences are considered 'junk', such as pseudogenes.
The genome is more complex than a book; it's more akin to a library with various functions and structures.
Knowing a patientâs entire genome sequence has limited practical applications in medical care.
The Human Genome Projectâs sequencing techniques have made significant contributions to scientific research.
The project helped understand the diversity of the human gene pool through broader sample sizes.
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified genetic patterns linked to various diseases.
The Human Genome Project was a success in technical terms, despite not meeting all initial promises.
Transcripts
Back around the year 2000, there was this thing that was
kind of a big deal in genetics:Â the Human Genome Project.
Its goal was to decipher and publish the
entire human genome for the first time ever.
And people, including some scientists and politicians,
really hyped it up. U.S. President Bill Clinton claimed
it would revolutionize the care of almost every disease, for example.
One kind of sky-high prediction even said that, by 2016,
weâd all carry around our own personal genomes on a card
in our wallets next to our driverâs licenses and that doctors would be
able to prescribe specific gene therapies to anyone who needed them.
When we look back at those kinds of news stories, itâs clear that
the potential of the Human Genome Project was overpromised.
In this episode, weâll talk about what
the âHuman Genome Projectâ was and why so much
of the hype that was promised didnât come to pass.
But also, how it still kind of revolutionized science anyway?
[âȘ INTRO]
I donât know about you, but I do not have my genome in my wallet.
Though, to be fair, the Human Genome Project was,
in many ways, a success.
The project was an international collaboration that
ran from 1990 to 2003 to the tune of 2.7 billion dollars.
They did end up sequencing the genome, or just about
all of it anyways, which was an incredible accomplishment.
But as the years rolled on, it became obvious that
the promise to revolutionize how we approached
every disease just hadnât panned out.
There was no magic bullet for all our ills hidden in our genes.
Why did some advocates promise this, then?
Some of it was no doubt hype or excitement.
Even scientists and science communicators can get caught up.
But there was also some reason to buy in.
A couple of papers in the late 80s claimed to find single-gene
causes for some pretty big medical issues.
That included mental health conditions like bipolar disorder,
schizophrenia, and alcohol use disorder.
If these conditions really did come down to just a single gene,
all we needed to do to treat them was tweak that one gene, right?
Unfortunately, many of those papers later came under scrutiny
and their findings couldnât be replicated.
The truth is, most diseases are not caused by a single mutated gene.
A lot of diseases, especially the big, common problems
like diabetes or the aforementioned mental health conditions,
are influenced by genetics.
But theyâre the result of a lot of tiny nudges from
many different genes, not just one big mutation.
Today, we know that dozens or even hundreds of genes
may affect your risk of developing diabetes, for instance.
This means those genes do not lend themselves
to a magic-bullet cure, because just changing one of them
probably wonât have any observable effect.
Worse, it may have unexpected side effects.
Especially when you consider that a personâs environment
and life history also play a role in their risk for diabetes.
And scientists and doctors, well, they kind of knew
this was the case, even back in the 90s.
So youâve probably noticed doctors donât routinely screen your DNA!
Now, to be fair, there are some conditions,
what weâd call Mendelian conditions since they follow
Gregor Mendelâs basic rules for inheritance,
where a single mutation is enough to matter.
Diseases like Huntingtonâs or sickle cell are
caused by mutations in a single gene.
There are certain cancer genes, like the BRCAs,
where certain mutations make it much, much more likely
for you to get breast cancer.
And there are some medicines, like the blood-thinner warfarin,
that work significantly better or worse in people with certain mutations.
Also, and this is cool, if you already have certain cancers,
doctors will sometimes do genome sequencing on samples
of the cancer cells themselves, since screening for specific mutations
can help your care team spot weak points and choose treatments.
So there are times genome sequencing really
does make a big difference in medicine.
But itâs worth noting that, in all these cases,
scientists already know specific things to look out for.
Doctors donât really just blindly sequence an entire personâs
DNA and then go looking for oddities.
Because, to be honest, knowing that a DNA mutation is
there doesnât really help until you figure out what that mutation does.
Like, letâs say you have a single nucleotide
difference between two peopleâs DNA.
Even if you know itâs part of a gene â which weâll come back to â
it doesnât necessarily tell you what the gene does
or whether the mutation matters.
At this point, itâs all still T-A-G-C gobbledy-gook.
Itâs possible that a scientist could look at that
and make a guess about what that change would do.
But unlike computer code, the genetic code doesnât
contain helpful annotations to say âthis part does this.â
You canât tell what the genome does by reading it.
You have to sit down and do experiments to see
what a change functionally does.
Itâs much easier to start with a known disease â like diabetes â
and then work backwards, looking for mutations in proteins we
already know are important or comparing and contrasting
a lot of sequences from people with and without the disease.
So thatâs what we mean when we say people back
around the year 2000 probably overpromised things
about the Human Genome Project.
The project did successfully sequence the genome,
but saying it was going to revolutionize how we treat
nearly every disease was skipping a lot of steps in the middle.
And there was something else they
couldnât really have known just yet.
Brilliant and SciShow have a lot in common.
Weâre both excited about fun and accessible science.
And we both prioritize accuracy in our online learning opportunities.
We also like to branch out and try learning about new fields.
Like when we made the SciShow Psych and Space channels.
And Brilliant just came out with new courses
on data, programming, and large language models.
The same way you could spend hours going
through SciShowâs back catalog,
you can spend hours on Brilliantâs online learning platform,
going through their thousands of lessons
in science, math, and computer science.
So for pretty much all of the reasons that you like SciShow,
youâll probably like Brilliant too.
You can check them out at Brilliant.org/SciShow
or the link in the description down below. That link also gives you 20% off
an annual premium Brilliant subscription.
And youâll get your first 30 days for free!
Now back to the show!
Hereâs part two of the video, because what scientists
didnât know was what all those letters in the genome actually do.
Now stop me if youâve heard this one before,
but itâs a really common metaphor to refer to DNA
as a kind of writing and the genome as a book.
Metaphors are good!
Theyâre a good starting point our brains can hold onto
as we learn something new and complicated.
But metaphors are also at least a little bit fiction.
And it turns out the real genome is much weirder than a book.
The human genome is about 3 billion letters long.
At the time, it was assumed that most of
those letters would code for proteins.
As a quick reminder, DNA gets read out
or transcribed into messenger RNA,
which gets processed and then further read out
or translated into protein, and proteins are what
do much of the work of being alive.
So it was not actually a stupid assumption to think most of
the genome would code for protein.
But, hoo boy, it does not.
The sequence of the genome revealed that
the vast majority of our DNA â something like 98 or 99 percent â
doesnât code for proteins.
It was as if most of the pages of the book were filled with nonsense,
what some scientists called âdark matterâ or, more pejoratively, âjunkâ.
Firstly, for instance, thereâs DNA sequences that affect
how genes are expressed without actually being genes themselves.
Promoters, for instance, are stretches of DNA
just ahead of the protein-coding part of a gene.
They are where a bunch of cellular machinery will come sit down
to read that gene out, a little like markings on a runway.
There are also enhancers, repressors, and silencers,
which are sequences of DNA that either
increase or decrease expression of a gene.
There are also parts of the DNAÂ sequence that are transcribed
into mRNA, but, for some reason, do not end up in the protein.
Introns are DNA sequences that get cut out of
the mRNA before it gets translated into a protein.
Sounds weird, but itâs actually a flexible system
that can lead to different versions of the same protein
by chopping the RNA up in different ways.
Sometimes DNA codes for RNA that has
a specific job other than becoming a protein.
For instance, the ribosomes that translate mRNA into protein are,
ironically, themselves mostly made out of RNA!
There are also bits of DNAÂ that seem to be more like
cellular scaffolding or structure than instructions.
Like telomeres, which are long sequences of repetitive DNA that kind
of cap off the end of a chromosome and keep it from unravelling.
And, finally, yes, some of it does seem to actually be junk.
There are things known as pseudogenes, which seems
to essentially be âbrokenâ genes that no longer function.
Even the 3D architecture of the cellâs nucleus
can affect gene expression.
Like very long noodles in the worst plate of spaghetti ever,
chromosomes have to be arranged in 3D space in order to work.
The enhancers I mentioned earlier loop around
from really far away to affect the genes they regulate.
In contrast, DNA thatâs packed up really tightly is harder
for cellular machinery to get at, so itâs expressed less.
And all thatâs just scratching the surface.
Thereâs more weird stuff going on, as well as stuff
we still donât quite understand yet.
But the point is that the genome is really complicated,
and itâs about a lot more than reading letters from beginning to end.
Basically, our book is making House of Leaves look straightforward.
So hereâs an alternate metaphor. Itâs still a bit of a fiction,
because all metaphors are a bit of fiction, but humor me.
The genome may be less like a book and more like a library.
There are books with blueprints, and
people copying down what they see inside.
But there is also scaffolding and shelving.
Thereâs Dewey Decimal Numbers and reference maps,
locked-up sections and big open promotional display cases,
and internal documents and memos.
You might be able to see a few librarians reshelving things
or shuffling them around and, yes, even a few tattered
âjunkâ books destined for recycling.
I think thatâs a much cooler concept than a book.
So combining both the points about diseases
and the complexity of our DNA, we arrive here.
In sum, knowing the entire sequence of a patientâs genome
would likely do very little for their care outside of certain situations â
and that probably wonât ever change much in the future.
The big diseases are usually the result of many small nudges, rather
than one big push, and not all of those nudges lie in the genome.
And the genome itself is really complex, so even if you know
of a mutation, that doesnât necessarily tell you that much.
So that specific promise, about being able to sequence everyoneâs
DNA leading to easy cures to everything, never came to pass.
But⊠here comes the twist.
Does that mean that the HGP a failure for science?
No! It does not!
All that stuff I just talked about,
we were able to learn about because the Human Genome Project
provided a scaffold for everyone else to work from!
In many ways, the Human Genome Project, like the moon landing,
was primarily a technical achievement.
The techniques they used paved the way
for modern sequencing technologies.
Today, what once cost billions of dollars and took two years is down
to less than a thousand dollars and can take as little as five hours.
A scientist can whack a sample down in a fancy sequencer,
go have a sandwich and look after a few other experiments,
and come back to results before itâs time to quit for the day.
And this proliferation of cheap, reliable, and fast
genome sequencing did indeed revolutionize science.
The tools we got out of it are used in everything from understanding
basic cellular processes to studying evolution to ancient archaeology.
Whatâs more, going wide and being able to test the genomes
of a lot of different people may deliver some of the benefits
that we didnât get from just doing it once,
because thereâs power in being able to sequence a lot of people.
For one thing, it helped us better grasp
the diversity of the human gene pool.
The original sequence the Human Genome Project published
was a patchwork of just a handful of people â
actually, about 70% of the genome came
from one anonymous sample.
Today, though, subsequent efforts like the 1000 Genomes Project
give us a much broader sample size to work with,
allowing us to understand not just one personâs genome works,
but how genetics affects people all around the world.
The Human Genome Project era also gave way to the era of
whatâs known as genome-wide association studies, or GWAS.
In general, this involves rounding up a bunch of genomes
and looking for patterns or associations between
a disease and a bunch of genetic variants.
Results from GWAS may translate into discoveries for diabetes,
autoimmune disorders, and schizophrenia.
Like, thatâs how we got those hundreds of diabetes genes.
The contribution of each one is so small that a pattern only
emerges when youâre looking at loads and loads of people.
There still will probably never be a single magic bullet gene
therapy-type thing for every disease, but these discoveries
can give us a better understanding of how these
diseases occur and the best ways to treat them.
The Human Genome Project helped scientists at the lab
workbench more than it helped patients in the doctorâs office.
Of course, the scientists at the lab bench do help
the people in the doctorâs office eventually.
Itâs just more roundabout than weâd hoped.
So thatâs the story. The Human Genome Project
was a huge achievement that may have been overhyped,
but which still was a huge technical success
and is still leading to exciting new things.
That said, with the benefit of hindsight,
weâll resist making any huge promises about
whatâll end up in your wallet in the future.
As weâve learned, genetics can be far more
complex than it initially appears.
If you liked this episode about why the Human Genome Project
was a failure but still a good idea, you might also like our video
about why the moon landings were a failure but also a good idea.
Thanks for watching.
[âȘ OUTRO]
Voir Plus de Vidéos Connexes
Genetic Counselling: How much do you want to know? | Roberta Rizzo | TEDxUniversityofMalta
You've Been Lied To About Genetics
Genetics 101 | National Geographic
Next Generation Sequencing - A Step-By-Step Guide to DNA Sequencing.
GCSE Biology Revision "DNA and the Genome"
Is this the banana of the future? | Catalyst
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)