Events are multiply-determined even at the molecular DNA level. Evidence is beginning to accumulate of the environments affecting what we thought to be purely genetic inheritance. There is no one gene for schizophrenia, but a range of possible contributory factors and possible inhibitory factors. Still less is there a gene for going to sea. We have all these potentialities in our gene pool in indirect form.
In the case of one of the best known genertically inherited disorders, Huntington's chorea, a writhing and ultimately fatal illness which affects only males usually in their thirties, (unfortunately after they have fathered further children), the age of onset seems to be related to the length of the DNA base sequence, which may vary from 4 to 100 bases. (Figures from memory). So even in this disorder there is a probabilistic element.
Philosophically we need to see this as a layered process of causation: the intereraction of genes and amino acids produces another layer of possibilities as the protein level. (And this is an oversimplification too. Presumably with complex feedback systems and non-linear dynamics, chaos theory may sometimes prevail and the organism flips into one of a number of possible characteristic patterns, eg male or female, but there are unusual exceptions to this simple phenotype too.
I would not be quite as forthright as Ted though, about the stupidity of capitalism patenting genes. In terms of probabilities some genes may still be quite important. The battle between one branch of US capitalism and one branch of UK capitalism is more finely balanced than pure intellect would suggest. UK capitalism is not disinterested either but may calculate that by thwarting the patenting of genetic information it may have greater opportunities than if US capitalism can buy up the whole project.
In a sense the complex pattern of indeterminate determinism (ie only approximately and probabilistically determined phenomena) at the molecular level is being fought out by different configurations of national capital.
Long term, this whole process is a powerful argument that all scientific and economic activity must be seen and guided within a social context, and cannot be left to purely private ownership.
The bourgeois attempts to make knowledge private can and will be increasingly undermined.
Chris Burford
London