Search

The role of sex chromosomes in sex determination has been well studied in diverse groups of organisms. However, the role of the genes on the sex chromosomes in conferring sexual dimorphism is still being experimentally evaluated. An unequal complement of sex chromosomes between two sexes makes them amenable to sex-specific evolutionary forces. Sex-linked genes preferentially expressed in one sex over the other offer a potential means of addressing the role of sex chromosomes in sexual dimorphism. We examined the testis transcriptome of the silkworm, Bombyx mori, which has a ZW chromosome constitution in the female and ZZ in the male, and show that the Z chromosome harbors a significantly higher number of genes expressed preferentially in testis compared to the autosomes. We hypothesize that sexual antagonism and absence of dosage compensation have possibly led to the accumulation of many male-specific genes on the Z chromosome. Further, our analysis of testis-specific paralogous genes suggests that the accumulation on the Z chromosome of genes advantageous to males has occurred primarily by translocation or tandem duplication.

What can a group of white professional people do to improve the availability of health care to the ethnic minorities in Britain ? Should the system be changed because 4-5% of the population have problems caused by language and social and cultural barriers ? It was generally agreed at the Junior Members Forum last month that access was inadequate and that the medical profession must bear some responsibility for this. The topic had been chosen as a result of some remarks made by His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales when he was installed as president of the BMA.1 "I believe," he said, "that we should not expect people to have to alter their lives drastically to be able to fit into the system that happens to exist." But as soon as a particular group, particularly if coloured, is picked out for special treatment then there are accusations of racism. The forum was told, for example, of a gynaecologist who had conducted a separate clinic for immigrant women and was reported to the Commission for Racial Equality. Yet he had acted on entirely altruistic grounds, believing that in this way he could devote time to them because of language and other difficulties. The deputy chairman of the commission, Mr Clifton Robinson, pointed out all the disadvantages that ethnic minorities faced. He refuted the widespread but inaccurate assumption that because the National Health Service was free to all at the time of use it was equally available to all. Many sections of society found the NHS insensitive, inappropriate, and often irrelevant. The Service's response was to label them as problems rather than admit that the system was at fault. Ignorance, compounded by linguistic difficulty and social and cultural differences, made it difficult for them to avail them? selves of the service. When they did they often faced prejudice and racism. It was estimated that 70% of Pakistani women in this country did not speak English. Mr Robinson pointed out that, as a large proportion of the ethnic minorities were young, the women were of childbearing age and used the general practitioner, paediatric, and maternity services. But many disliked being examined by men or women. He put to flight two commonly held myths. Firstly, there was the myth that the NHS could not discriminate against coloured people because so many of its employees were Afro-Caribbean or from the Indian subcontinent. But most of them were among the lowest paid workers and suffered discrimination themselves. Secondly, it was believed that members of the Health Service professions who belonged to ethnic groups were repositories of information about the countries from which they had come; often, however, there were wide social gaps between the professional workers and the patients. What would happen to the immigrants when they got older, Mr Robinson asked. In their countries of origin they were accorded more respect the older they got: in this country they might be placed in homes for the elderly, and that might cause psychological problems. Turning to unemployment, Mr Robinson said that doctors had long been worried about its effect on health; they ought also to consider the effect on health of belonging to an ethnic minority. He hoped that the weekend's discussion would lead to doctors reappraising their attitudes and perceptions; otherwise the meeting would have been a waste of time.

The truth is an early casualty in every general election campaign, and it is not one that the health service can do much about?being itself one of the worst victims of political overkill. The reason is not hard to find. According to th? Gallup poll, the health service ranks second only to unemployment as the most important issue of the 1987 election. Compared with 1983, and especially since 1979, the National Health Service has displaced inflation and strikes as the issue that people tell pollsters will be most important in deciding their vote. And when they were asked which party had the best policies to deal with the problems of the health service 41% said Labour and 24% Conservative. That difference in perception in Labour's favour is twice as large as it was in 1983. It was no surprise, therefore, that Labour should focus attention on an issue judged so important by the voters and on which it was held to have the best policies. The surprising aspect is the uninspired way in which the subject is treated in the Labour manifesto. Far from driving home its advantage on a potentially election winning issue with radical and coherent proposals, Labour's section on the health service is the thinnest of the three main party manifestos. In the second week of the campaign Labour did produce a supplementary manifesto, Restoring the National Health, which adds a few details. Thus Labour would have a "bed manager" in every district to allocate hospital beds. It would monitor the performance of consultants to maximise their NHS workload. Patients would have a guaranteed right to a second medical opinion. A "fairer system" would be introduced to decide NHS pay. And there would be more provision for alternative medicine on the NHS. Yet even in this second attempt the same element is missing as in the first. Quite simply, the omission is the ? symbol. Nowhere does it intrude to show even roughly how much more a Labour government would spend beyond the ?21 billion presently com? mitted to the NHS. No more elucidation was forthcoming when questions were put directly to Labour's health spokesman, Michael Meacher. He insisted that Labour would spend more on the health service than the Conservatives and the Alliance (which pledges ?1 billion more in five years). But instead of a figure Mr Meacher goes for a formula. This is to increase NHS spending by 3% a year in real terms. Mr Meacher also has a rather more ambitious target, which is to raise the proportion of the gross domestic product spent on health from Britain's 5*5% to nearer the 8% or 9% in France and Germany. On present calculations that might amount to an extra ?10 billion a year, so Labour is quick to add that the difference can be made up only gradually. Examined on Labour's proposals to abolish prescription charges and phase out NHS pay beds, Mr Meacher could not be precise on timing, even within five years. He said: "We will increase resources in health approximately in line with economic growth and within that we can make a significant reduction in prescription charges." At the final reckoning Labour may regret that its disappointingly superficial policies on health do not withstand rigorous examination in terms of costs and resources. For what it is worth, the Conservatives obliged when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, estimated a loss of revenue of ?630m on charges and a cost of ?400m a year on extra resources. The debate, so far, has been almost entirely on the government's record, with predictable contributions from both sides. So we have Mr Meacher proclaiming: "The health service is on a remorseless treadmill of decline, and will not survive a third Thatcher term." While declaring that Labour is committed to a "real boost in health spending and services," the aim is to highlight existing deficiencies to the point of exaggeration and distortion. All's fair in war and elections, perhaps, but there is a danger that ill founded criticism and denigration of the health service, whether by politicians or professionals, can not only affect morale within the NHS but cause distress to patients and their relatives. The government for its part is content to stand by its record, which it confidently projects also in a supplement to its manifesto, under the title Health into the Nineties.

On 7 December the presidents of the Royal Colleges ofPhysicians, Surgeons, and Obstetricians and Gynaecologists issued the following joint statement Each day we learn of new problems in the NHS?beds are shut, operating rooms are not available, emergency wards are