Genetics and Health

Genetics Interview #12: Dr. Marie Godfrey of Genetizen

by Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD on August 17th, 2006

The Genetics and Health interview series continues this week with Dr. Marie Godfrey, a fellow Johns Hopkins University alumna and author of Geneforum’s The Genetizen blog. Marie tends to be a little more cautious than me when it comes to embracing the genome revolution, but I think that’s good because we need to provide some balance to the debate instead of rushing headlong into new arenas.

1. When and how did you become interested in genetics?

I was lucky enough to be educated in West Hartford, CT, where having a PhD chemist as my chemistry teacher was a part of the accelerated track I was on. Neither of my parents went beyond elementary school and we were very poor, but this teacher and others convinced me I had a brain and needed to use it. They mentored me through high school, college, and eventually into Johns Hopkins University, where Dr. Phil Hartman set aside a place in his laboratory and sent me to study with Demerec, another renowned Salmonella geneticist. To me, genetics was the challenge I needed for my mind, my hands, and my connection to humanity.

2. Can you tell us about your PhD thesis and how the field has changed since you completed it?

After I completed my thesis, in 1967, I dropped out of genetics and academia when we moved to a small town in Utah. The science of genetics moved on and I didn’t seem to be moving with it. However, several events made me realize that a person can be totally “out of touch” with her academic training and still be a part of the world.

During a visit to Powell’s bookstore in Portland, OR, I decided to check out the genetics section. I found a book on Salmonella genetics and looked up my maiden name in the index. What I found overloaded my mind and sent me to the coffee shop to recover. My thesis was a three-part work on Salmonella typhimurium genetics: creating a cross-species hybrid, mapping a gene for the metabolism of trehalose (a sugar in grapes), and studying a series of mutations in the operator gene for the histidine locus (a group of genes controlling metabolism of the amino acid histidine). My overloaded brain resulted from recognizing that I participated in the early days of recombination genetics and that the theory I had developed to explain the mutations I was studying had been substantiated by later researchers. I had identified the single DNA base change that led to turning off an entire set of genes! My work was part of genetics history.

While working with pharmaceutical companies, I discovered that Bruce Ames, with whom I had worked as a graduate student, was responsible for the “Ames Test” now used to test all new drugs for their ability to cause mutations. He had isolated the mutants I used for my thesis.

And I was lucky enough one summer to attend the Jackson Labs Mammalian Genetics summer course in Bar Harbor, Maine. While I fretted over new ideas such as DNA libraries (this was some time ago), I was delighted to learn about the latest development in Neurospora genetics. At a tap on my shoulder, I turned around to find a former professor sitting there. “You’d better remember this stuff,” he said. “I taught it to you.” He, too, was getting up to date in genetics, having taken time off to be a dean.

I think another Hopkins professor I met at Bar Harbor said it best, “while the field of genetics has been jumping up and down since you earned your PhD, your education and course such as this one, allow you to jump back in and move on. Genetics is about learning and thinking and goes beyond individual facts.”

3. Former Harvard President, Larry Summer, once made some disparaging comments about women’s ability or inability to do science. What did you think of that? Have you encountered similar prejudice in your science career?

Several fellow graduate students and I formally protested to the National Science Foundation about their propensity to fund men more readily than women. The response we received was that—in the long run—men are a better business investment: they put in more years working than women do, which outweighs any advantage women may have in ability. Naturally, we were angry at the response. However, this was in the 1960s and all the women scientists we knew—many of whom were more brilliant than their partners—were only allowed to function as lab assistants. One of the members of my thesis defense committee asked me whether I would leave the lab when my children were born.

When I married, I was not allowed to be on the faculty at Vanderbilt University because my husband was—even though he was in a different department. Many years later, a woman in the laboratory teaching position I initiated wrote me to substantiate her suit against the university that women were given positions of lesser status and pay.

I don’t think the issue is women’s ability or inability to do science. Marie Curie, Eve Curie, Barbara McClintock, Rosalind Franklin are excellent examples of women who had both the ability to do science and the ability to be recognized for it in a work of dominating men. I think the issue is men’s opportunity to focus only on their work. Whether or not we women have spouses or children, I believe we are more often involved in major interests beyond the laboratory or university. I like to think we’re more human.

4. How did you become involved with Geneforum? What do you think of the power of blogs to share science and genetics with the general public? Are there other methods that you think are as good as blogs or better?

I became involved with Geneforum when I was a volunteer editor with Oregon’s Future, a nonpartisan issues-focused publication. I was asked to edit a piece by Greg Fowler, one of the founders of Geneforum, and found a way to re-enter the field of genetics. When he suggested I write a blog, I resisted because I was not a blogger and was put off by the hype surrounding blogs. Because there were so few genetics or genetics/ethics blogs at the time, I decided to try my hand. I’m also involved in lots of other projects through Geneforum.

The recent explosion in science blogs suggests that the general public finds such expression interesting and useful. As with all content on the Internet, however, I think that science and genetics blogs have an obligation to clearly identify their focus and source of information. There’s a place for everyone; we just owe it to our readers to let them know who we are and what our purpose is.

Besides blogs, well-planned, interesting, and regularly updated websites are also very important to the dissemination of accurate and timely genetic information. People learn in different ways and need a variety of sources of information. Organizations that “validate” websites and blogs, such as Health on the Internet, can help keep content accurate.

5. There’s a lot of talk about the genome revolution. What do you think are the biggest concerns that everyone should be aware of?

The college students I have spoken with seem most concerned about privacy. I agree. Identity theft can destroy lives and DNA is perhaps our ultimate identity. Another major concern is the many opportunities for new forms of discrimination—race, gender, insurance, health care, children.
Thirty years ago, the potential for gene therapy was all the rage. We were going to cure terrible diseases and live forever. Then, cancer research: we were going to pour lots of money into it and remove the scourge of cancer from our lives. The same promises are now being made with the genome revolution. We need to generate and enhance these hopes for the future while tempering them with reality.

Thank you, Marie! Your thoughtfulness is what we need most as DNA testing technology advances. I hope we can all get people thinking about the issues surrounding genetics.

Share This

Related Stories

Gene Genie #3: What’s in Our Genetic Future?
Celebrity and Genes
Gene Love
My Interview at The Antidote
My Interview at HealthCareVox

POSTED IN: Genetics Interviews