“Ma’am, a ‘sonic hedgehog’ is causing your facial defects.”

In the November 12, 2006 New York Times article “‘Sonic Hedgehog’ Sounded Funny, at First” (found at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/weekinreview/12schwartz.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin), John Schwartz examines the repercussions of creative titles researchers give to newly discovered genes.

The numerous types of genes in existence provide scientists with the gargantuan task of remembering endless code titles and numbers that identity various genes. Such indistinct tags given to genes can make it extremely hard and boring for researchers continually refer to genes. In order to make names memorable and different, researchers began giving creative and unusual names to the genes they discovered, mostly in flies and other animals. Resulting are genes named “faint sausage,” “smurf,” “sonic hedgehog,” “lunatic fringe,” “death executioner Bcl-2,” and “mothers against decapentaplegia.” However, when applied to human health, the luster of the weird names dissipates. When medical professionals need to explain to patients what gene may be causing brain damage, defects, and other genetic diseases, the funny names for the fatal genes are not funny any longer. Though possible that a doctor with a sense of humor, who can comfortably translate odd names to their ailing patients, can avoid tenseness, many agree that the best route is to simply rename the genes.

Science does not provide an exciting atmosphere one-hundred percent of the time. When boredom sets in, scientists seem to reach into their underutilized creative sides, often stifled by the nature of their work, to alleviate the monotony of their tasks. However, it seems that research scientists and medical scientist view the same issue in different lights. While researchers use odd names to tell genes apart, doctors see the odd names as a hindrance to science and how it can be applied to others. Dr. Susan Povey, a biology professor at the University College London, leads the genome nomenclature committee of the Human Genome project, working to rename the more offensive gene names that have surfaced. Interestingly enough, Povey states that the committee as encountered dissention from researchers extremely fond of the creative names they have bestowed upon their discoveries. She states, “They don’t like somebody who doesn’t know much about it telling them what to call it.”

I can definitely see the benefit of giving unique names to genes. They allow scientists to distinguish similar-looking masses, making genes easier to learn, easier to remember, and easier to explain to other researchers. However, it is comforting that some sort of controls is being set by other scientists, who recognize the possible harmful potential such names have. Though, I find it worrisome that some scientists are so ardent about their weird names that they will proudly not allow others to change them. Such pride cannot be beneficial in keeping scientific research and research ethics pure and rational. While I don’t think the inventive naming of genes should be abolished completely, I do believe mediate naming is essential. Setting guidelines, calling already objectionable titles by their initials, and regulating how abnormal names can help reduce potential offense patients may take.