This is a very interesting article, but the core question is completely wrong-headed. There is no “why”. We just do. Evolution is as much about errors in the replication of DNA as anything else; some errors convey serendipitous advantages, others disadvantages. Some make no appreciable difference. Blood types fall into the latter category, having simply arisen as variations which had no impact on successful breeding or survival. Until the advent of blood transfusion techniques, blood type would seem to have had little if any consequence for an organism whatsoever.
Henry Gee (a Senior Editor at Nature) has written in today’s Guardian on the awkward public status of science, stemming from an ongoing but worsening failure of the general public, the media and the political classes to understand how science really works. Jumbo jets, damp-proofing, the arch, plastic, moon landings and nuclear power – not to mention countless other modern achievements and taken-for-granted features of everyday life – owe their utility, reliability, ubiquity or even existence to science, in one form or another. As a result, we see the pronouncements of science in terms of absolute certainty, unquestionable fact, or “Truth”. Continue reading
An interesting article. Though the implications are not straightforward, and the outcome not as clear cut as the headline might suggest, it offers support to those who feel that unmodified DNA should be no more patentable than naturally-occurring minerals or other substances in their natural state.