XYY AND MEDICAL ETHICS

To the Editors of The Crimson:

My recent debate with Jonathan Beckwith, under the auspices of the Harvard Medical Society, was intended to clarify some of the issues raised by his attack on the study of children with an extra Y chromosome (XYY). Your reporter unfortunately added to misconceptions about the study by stating that "A Boston study began in 1969 to inform the parents of babies with XYY chromosomes that males with two Y chromosomes may exhibit criminal tendencies." This distortion is large enough to require correction.

The problem arose not in the Boston study but in some sensational news articles, which misinterpreted other studies as showing that an extra Y chromosome predestined the bearer to criminal behavior. In fact, as I emphasized, the investigators in the local study have taken pains to reassure the parents that this conclusion is totally unjustified, and that the developmental effects of the extra Y chromosome remain to be determined. One of the tragic features of Dr. Beckwith's attack is that it opposed the kind of study that will be required to correct the popular misconception about the significance of XYY.

Your reporter also exhibited considerable bias, for he ignored the main, novel issues that were discussed and that provided the framework for the inquest. These included the question whether the criticisms of the study were so serious and so firmly grounded as to justify an appeal to the general public; the obligation of a professor, in generating such an appeal, to see that alternative views are presented; the significance of the precedent of regulating research by one-sided adversel publicity; and the question whether the university should remain passive in the face of such inroads on intellectual freedom. It is curious that your reporter preferred to repeat in some detail Dr. Beckwith's allegations, which have already been reported many times.

One of our real issues today is that of determining how much and in what way the public should be involved in questions of medical ethics. While recognizing the inadequacy of the paternalism of the past, many professionals are concerned about the danger of public responses based on emotional appeal and on inadequate information and perspective. It is sad and discouraging that a meeting held to discuss this problem should be reported in terms that reinforce the bias that is under discussion. Bernard D. Davis   Adele Lehman Professor   of Bacterial Physiology