SCIENTISTS at a conference in Edinburgh yesterday warned against placing unrealistic expectations on genetic therapy as a cure for disease at the expense of lifestyle and diet.
Young smokers, in particular, were cautioned that gene-based cures for cancer were a long way off.
Professor Elizabeth Russell, of Aberdeen University, told the conference most diseases had more than one cause: ''The genetic contribution is no more absolute or dominant than that of other causal factors.''
She said Scotland could learn from the Finnish experience where a community-based approach to lifestyle and environment had brought good results in preventing heart disease.
Cancer prevention would also benefit from a more social approach. ''Banning smoking in pubs and restaurants is actually helpful to individuals,'' she said.
Dr Harri Vainio, of the French International Agency for Research on Cancer, said Finland was one of the few countries with a downward trend in smoking-related diseases. He called for political intervention in other countries.
''It is important to have regulations and even laws in order to do something with smoking because we can do something with voluntary campaigns to help people stop smoking, but what really works is still regulation to stop people being exposed to passive smoking.''
The current incidence of 10 million cancer cases worldwide would double in 20 years, he said, and genetic therapy could do little about that.
Dr Harry Campbell, of Edinburgh University, said it was often assumed that, by specifying risks to individuals, genetic tests would motivate them to change their behaviour. ''However, the opposite may be true. By telling people that they are at genetic risk we may demotivate them.''
Professor Sally Macintyre, of the Medical Research Council's Glasgow-based sociology unit, told the conference, organised by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, that evidence collected over the last five years showed that telling people about the health risks of smoking did not automatically change their behaviour.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article