Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare?

[Guest guest]

http://davidpratt.info/genetic.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare?

 

Mae-Wan Ho, Dublin: Gateway, 2nd ed., 1999; xiii + 385 pages,

ISBN 0-7171-2980-2, paperback, EUR 13.59

 

 

David Pratt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this controversial and hard-hitting book, geneticist and

biophysicist Mae-Wan Ho argues that

genetic-engineering biotechnology is bad science working with big

business for quick profit, against

the public good. Her in-depth study exposes the serious hazards it

presents to human and animal

health and the ecological environment -- hazards that are still largely

ignored by practitioners and

regulators alike.

Genetic engineering is a set of techniques for isolating,

modifying,

multiplying, and recombining genes from different organisms. It uses

viruses and other infectious

agents to smuggle genes into cells that would otherwise reject them,

and enables genes to be

transferred horizontally between species that would never interbreed in

nature. For instance, a fish

gene can be transferred to tomatoes, and human genes can be transferred

to sheep, pigs, or

bacteria. The insertion of foreign genes into a host genome* has long

been known to have harmful

and even fatal effects, as the transferred genes can recombine with

other genes to generate new

combinations that may cause disease, including cancer.

 

 

 

*A genome is the totality of the genetic material of a cell or

organism.

 

Ho writes:

 

Genetic engineering is inherently hazardous, because it

depends on designing artificial vectors to cross all species barriers,

greatly increasing the potential for generating new viral and bacterial

pathogens by horizontal gene transfer and recombination. This very

danger persuaded the first genetic engineers to declare a moratorium on

their own work in 1975; but pressures to go ahead with commercial

exploitation led to regulatory guidelines that were drawn up largely on

the basis of assumptions. Every one of those assumptions has since been

invalidated by scientific findings. (p. 168)

 

Genetic engineering is based on genetic determinism -- the

belief

that organisms are determined solely by their genetic makeup. It is

assumed that each trait of an

organism is controlled by a separate gene, that by changing a gene we

can change the

corresponding trait, and that by transferring the gene we can transfer

the trait. However, it is

becoming

increasingly clear that instead of one gene determining one

characteristic, genes work together as a

complex, interacting network. And instead of being stable and

unchanging, genes and genomes are

dynamic and fluid; DNA sequences can undergo mutations, rearrangements,

deletions, insertions,

conversions, duplications, and amplifications. Ho adds:

There is, furthermore, no constant 'genetic program' or

blueprint for making the organism, as the genes and the genome itself

can also change during development. ... Heredity ... is the property

not so much of the genes as of the whole system of the organism within

its ecological environment. ... [O]ur fate is written neither in the

stars nor in our genes, for we are active participants in the

evolutionary drama. (p. 65)

The mismatch between the genetic-engineering mentality and

scientific reality explains why genetic-engineering biotechnology not

only fails to deliver its promises

but also poses such risks. Unexpected toxins and allergens have arisen

as side effects in genetically

engineered plants and microorganisms. The success rate in creating

desired transgenic organisms is

low, and very sick, monstrous animals have resulted from having a

single gene introduced. A

genetically engineered soil bacterium, thought to be quite harmless,

turned out to drastically inhibit

the growth of wheat seedlings. Pigs engineered with a human growth

hormone gene to make them

grow faster turned out to be arthritic, ulcerous, partially blind, and

impotent. Although the biotech

industry tries to play down the many failures, it is encountering

widespread opposition in rich and

poor countries alike.

The biotech industry, says Ho, 'is still peddling dreams: cure

for

cancer, designer babies, cloning, and other means to immortality'

(p. 54). She relates that,

following

a debate on genetic engineering, the chief executive officer of a

biotech company confessed to her

that he wasn't too happy about biotechnology, but was unable to do

anything as it was the system,

and mortgages had to be paid. He was coping by practising

transcendental meditation -- unlike his

colleagues, most of whom were on Prozac!

It is claimed that agricultural biotechnology will be able to

'feed the

world'. Crops allegedly need to be genetically modified to make them

resistant to herbicides, pests,

and disease, to improve their nutritional value and shelf life, and to

bring about drought resistance,

frost resistance, and increased yield. The truth is that there is

already enough food to feed the world's

population one-and-a-half times over. Malnutrition stems mainly from

poverty and an inequitable

global economic system rather than overpopulation or deficiencies in

natural crops.

Far from providing cheaper food for all, genetically modified

crops

will strengthen the corporate monopoly on food production and

distribution, and further undermine

the livelihood of family farmers all over the world, as well as posing

risks to human and animal

health. Giant corporations are busy patenting living organisms and

their genes in the interests of

profit-making, so that farmers have to pay royalties on patented seeds.

'At the same time,' says Ho,

'the use of toxic, wide-spectrum herbicides with herbicide-resistant

transgenic crops will result in the

irretrievable loss of the indigenous agricultural and natural

biological diversity on which food security

depends' (p. 147). Resistance campaigns against agricultural

biotechnology are under way in

many

countries, accompanied by efforts to revive sustainable, organic

farming.

 

Microbes are everywhere, including in the air we breathe, on

our skin,

and in our bodies. Most of the time they have a benign, balanced

relationship with us, but if that

balance is disturbed, they can turn virulent and cause debilitating or

lethal diseases. And when we

wage war on them with a succession of increasingly potent drugs and

antibiotics, they may counter

by increasing the mutation rates in those genes that will eventually

give them resistance against the

drugs or antibiotics. It is the prodigious power of microbes to

proliferate, and the ability of their genes

to jump, spread, mutate, and recombine that make genetic-engineering

biotechnology so hazardous.

And antibiotics seem to act like a sex hormone for bacteria, enhancing

mating and the exchange of

genes between unrelated species.

 

Drug-resistant and antibiotic-resistant infectious diseases

account for

a third of all the deaths in the world, the biggest killers being TB,

hepatitis B, and AIDS. Such

diseases have been increasing dramatically over the past 20 years,

coinciding with the development

of commercial genetic-engineering biotechnology. Ho writes:

 

The evidence is overwhelming that horizontal gene transfer

across species barriers is responsible for creating new viral and

bacterial pathogens and for spreading drug-resistance and

antibiotic-resistance. ... We may already be experiencing the prelude

to a nightmare of uncontrollable, untreatable epidemics of infectious

diseases. (p. 168)

 

It has been proposed that herds of transgenic animals could be

cloned to supply proteins, blood, and organs for human use. Dolly the

sheep -- hailed as the first

mammal 'clone' -- was produced in 1997 by the technique of nuclear

transplantation: basically, the

nucleus of an egg from one adult sheep was removed and replaced with

that of an egg from another

sheep, and the developing egg was later transferred to the womb of a

surrogate mother sheep.

Strictly speaking, Dolly was not a real clone at all, as small and

large changes in DNA are now known

to occur both as part of normal development and in response to

environmental factors. Furthermore,

an inserted gene can inappropriately turn host genes off, scramble host

genomes, or cause cancer.

That is why such a large number of abnormal embryos result from

transplanted nuclei. In the case of

Dolly, nearly 300 embryos had to be manipulated to produce one success.

Ho says that this

technique 'is not the best way to generate identical clones but to

generate monstrous failures. It is

irresponsible and unethical to claim otherwise' (p. 201).

 

 

 

 

 

Dolly the clone -- who was put to sleep

in February 2003, at the age of 6 (barely 40 in human terms), as she

was suffering from arthritis and lung disease.

*About 98% of cloning efforts fail. *Cloned embryos usually die

before birth.

*Most of the survivors have potentially fatal heart or lung problems or

diseases like diabetes. (news.bbc.co.uk)

 

 

Mice made transgenic with mutant human genes are widely used to

serve as models of human diseases. The most notorious is the

'oncomouse', designed to develop

cancer. However, mice engineered to carry a mutation in a gene that

predisposes humans to tumours

in the retina of the eye did not show any such symptoms, while those

manipulated to have Gaucher's

disease died within a day of birth. In other words, putting single

human genes into a completely

different genetic background can have unpredictable effects. Another

project that has gained

considerable momentum is xenotransplantation, the transplanting of

organs of other species into

human beings. There is already a lucrative international trade in human

body parts. Ho comments:

 

The cloning and 'pharming' of livestock, the creation of

transgenic animals for xenotransplantation and to serve as animal

models of human diseases, are all scientifically flawed and morally

unjustifiable. They also carry inherent hazards in facilitating

cross-species exchange and the recombination of viral pathogens. These

projects ought not to be allowed to continue without a full public

review. (p. 218)

 

The cloning of humans has also been proposed. Human embryos

created like Dolly would be grown until important cells could be

extracted from the embryo and used

to treat human diseases. During the work, the embryo would die, while

the companies holding

patents on the techniques used would make lots of money. One scientist

suggested that the ethical

objections could be overcome by creating headless human embryos who

would not be able to suffer!

Ho points out that there are far better ways of generating replacement

tissues and organs by using

the patient's own cells.

In China, couples planning to marry are required by law to

undergo

genetic screening. If they are found to suffer from genetic diseases,

marriage is allowed only if the

couple agree to long-term contraception or sterilization. China has

also legislated for the compulsory

termination of pregnancies diagnosed positive for genetic diseases.

In the West, genetic screening, including prenatal genetic

screening

and gene replacement therapy, are already widely available. The hunt

goes on for genes that

supposedly 'predispose' people to diseases such as cancer, diabetes,

asthma and allergies, and to

'conditions' such as obesity, manic depression, schizophrenia,

alcoholism, homosexuality, criminality,

and even attributes such as longevity and novelty-seeking. Despite some

sensational newspaper

headlines, the links between certain genes and such conditions are

generally very tenuous. And even

if certain conditions are associated with biochemical or

anatomical differences, this does not

tell us whether these differences are their cause or their consequence.

 

Ho warns:

 

If screening is eventually going to be applied to

'predisposing' genes and to genes whose connection with dubious

conditions is increasingly tenuous, we shall slip insensibly into an

era of human genetic engineering dictated purely by corporate

interests. This will lead to the exploitation of the sick and the

gullible for profit, at the same time giving rein to the worst excesses

of human prejudices. ...

Genetic discrimination and eugenics are being privatised and

depersonalised and are therefore much more insidious than the

state-sanctioned forms, because they cannot be effectively opposed.

They are being promoted under the banner of scientific progress and

free choice. (pp. 219, 222)

 

Genetic tests are actually poor predictors for the condition of

any

individual; the same gene will have different effects from individual

to individual because their other

genes are different. Genes associated with certain conditions in one

population turn out to have no

associations at all in another. There appears to be no such thing as a

genuine single-gene disease,

as the expression of each gene is entangled with that of every other.

Biologists, says Ho,

are stuck in the mechanistic era, refusing to see the

reality of organisms as irreducible wholes within which genes (and

genomes) are mutable and mobile as they respond to their cellular and

physiological milieu, which is ultimately connected to the external

ecological and social environment. (pp. 244-5)

 

Geneticists claim to have identified a mutation in a gene that

causes

aggressive behaviour and may be implicated in attention-deficit

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in

young children, conduct disorder in adolescents, and anti-social

personality disorder in adults. One

scientist even suggested that six-year-olds diagnosed with ADHD might

be saved from a criminal

career if they were given prophylactic drug treatment. As Ho says,

'branding a child a potential

criminal on account of its genes is simply to relinquish responsibility

for its care and proper

upbringing' (pp. 223-4). Prenatal diagnosis may well lead to a growing

number of 'therapeutic'

abortions. For instance, positive tests for a condition known as PKU,

which causes severe mental

retardation, have already created social pressures on parents to abort

the fetus, whether they wish to

do so or not.

Despite all the promises, attempts at gene replacement therapy

have

been uniformly unsuccessful and pose unacceptable hazards for patients.

 

The design of more aggressive gene transfer vectors

introduces further risks from the genetic recombination of vectors with

viruses to generate new disease-causing viruses. Recombination between

viruses coming from the environment and those in the organism is

strongly implicated in many cancers in animals. Similar hazards also

arise in the proposed use of modified viral DNA as vaccines and in the

xenotransplantation of organs. (p. 243)

 

Most recent developments of gene technology are commercially

driven. The same chemical and drug industries that have been major

polluters of the environment

and have damaged public health are now set to reap enormous profits.

Furthermore:

 

Genetic-engineering biotechnology diverts attention and

resources from the overwhelming causes of ill-health, which are

environmental, and blames the victims. The key to genetic health is

precisely the same as the key to physiological health: an unpolluted

environment, wholesome organic foods free from agrochemicals, and

sanitary, socially acceptable and aesthetically satisfying living

conditions. (p. 243)

 

Mae-Wan Ho rejects the simplistic neo-Darwinian theory that

evolution occurs mainly by the natural selection of rare random genetic

mutations. A neo-Darwinian

explanation typically starts by identifying a characteristic that is

assumed to be controlled by a gene.

If an organism possesses the characteristic, this is said to be because

it confers a selective

advantage and has therefore been 'selected for', and if the organism

does not possess the

characteristic, this is because it confers a selective disadvantage and

has been 'selected against'. Ho

comments:

 

Neo-Darwinian explanations, in purporting to explain

everything, ultimately explain nothing, because there is no independent

verification of the 'adaptive story' that must be invented to 'explain'

how the characteristic is selected for or against. (pp. 89-90)

 

The link between genes and characteristics is usually far from

straightforward. What we do know about genes is that they regulate the

synthesis of different

proteins. It is a big conceptual jump from that to the characteristics

of organisms. Moreover, it is one

thing to name a characteristic such as hair colour or eye colour; it is

quite another to say that there is

a characteristic called 'aggression', for instance. Ho states:

 

Animals may engage in aggressive acts, but that does not

mean there is a characteristic called aggression ... To invent

a characteristic and, on top of that, a gene determining it is to

commit the fallacy of reification -- mistaking processes for

things. There may be many mutations in many genes that affect a

person's ability to read or speak or remember things, but that does not

mean there are genes for reading, speech, or memory. Even in the case

of the bodily form of organisms -- their morphology -- there are no

theoretical or conceptual grounds justifying the separation of a

characteristic from the interconnected whole that is the organism. (p.

89)

 

Scientists have discovered that whereas genetic variation is

accumulating between different species, within a species all the copies

of a particular gene that make

up a multigene family tend towards uniformity.

It is as though some invisible hand is keeping all the

gene sequences the same throughout the course of evolution. What is

responsible for this 'concerted evolution' of sequences, many of them

dispersed throughout the genome? (p. 126)

 

One scientist sparked controversy by calling this phenomenon

'molecular drive', on the grounds that

it drives evolution much more substantially and rapidly than natural

selection.

 

The 'central dogma' of molecular biology states that DNA makes

RNA

makes protein in a one-way information flow, and no reverse information

flow is possible.

Environmentally induced modifications in the characteristics of somatic

cells* supposedly do not

affect the DNA and cannot be inherited. There is abundant evidence that

this dogma is false.

Environmental influences and experiences in the lifetime of the

organism can directly affect

its genes, particularly in the germ cells, and 'acquired

characteristics' can be inherited.

 

 

 

*Somatic cells are any body cells except for reproductive (or germ)

cells.

 

According to Ho, 'the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly

against

the idea that mutations are random, in the sense that they are not

correlated with the environment'

(p. 132). Changes in DNA occur in cells and organisms exposed to a wide

range of

substances,

including insecticides, herbicides, and certain drugs. As plants and

the majority of animal phyla do

not have distinct germ cells and somatic cells, these modifications

will be inherited by subsequent

generations. Even in animals with apparently distinct germ cells, the

germ cells may also respond

directly to the same stimuli, or reverse transcription (whereby DNA is

made from RNA) may provide

a feedback channel from somatic to germ cells.

Experiments have shown that if E. coli bacteria are

plated on

media containing high concentrations of a metabolite they cannot use,

they begin to mutate many

orders of magnitude faster than the 'spontaneous', 'random' mutation

rate, but only in genes that

subsequently enable them to use the metabolite and hence to grow. This

phenomenon of 'directed

mutations' or 'adaptive mutations' also exists in yeast cells and

possibly fruit flies. Another finding is

that defective genes in organisms can become corrected and regain their

normal function. This was

known for bacteria and yeast but has now been discovered in humans. Ho

writes:

 

The notion of an isolatable, constant gene that can be

patented as an invention for all the marvellous things it can do is the

greatest reductionist myth ever perpetrated. Genes and genomes need to

be fluid and adaptable to maintain stability on the one hand and to

respond to environmental challenges on the other. This is the essence

of organic stability, as opposed to mechanical stability. It is also

becoming clear that the 'fluid genome' processes are a complex

regulatory system for carrying out the 'natural genetic engineering' on

which life depends.

(p. 108)

 

In contrast to the precision of natural genetic engineering,

artificial genetic engineering

carried out by humans is incapable of taking all the relevant

interacting factors and their potential

consequences into account, and is therefore inherently dangerous.

Ho concludes by saying that reductionist science has had its

day,

and that contemporary scientific approaches that concentrate on

complexity, interconnectedness,

and wholeness are more consistent with scientific findings, and also

with traditional indigenous

sciences all over the world. It is high time, she says, to put the

'warfare with nature' mentality behind

us and to start learning how to live sustainably and healthily with

nature.

 

_________________

 

'Adaptive mutations', 'concerted evolution', and 'directed

evolution'

cannot be understood within the framework of materialistic science. And

this applies both to the old

reductionist materialism and to the organic and holistic

version championed by

scientists such as Mae-Wan Ho. Genes and organisms that 'respond'

successfully to environmental

challenges are not acting randomly but purposefully, and this

points to an instinctive

intelligence at work that transcends purely physical mechanisms and

processes. Similarly, there is

good reason to doubt whether one type of animal can be transformed into

a different type of animal

through the gradual accumulation of genetic mutations -- whether

ascribed to blind chance or

environmental stimuli. To explain the origin of species, some

scientists therefore invoke 'organizing

principles'. If this is more than just a vacuous expression, it can

only refer to the influence of

paraphysical realities.

The theosophic tradition or perennial philosophy -- echoes of

which

are to be found in both western esotericism and eastern mysticism --

extends the holism that Ho

describes at the physical level to include subtler, more ethereal

dimensions of nature: the astral (or

formative) level, the mental (or creative), and the spiritual-divine

(or archetypal). All these levels

interact, with the higher providing overall guidance and direction for

the lower. According to this

outlook, nature is alive and conscious throughout, guided from within

outwards, in accordance with

past evolutionary patterns and forms. And every physical organism

possesses some kind of mind

and memory as it is the outer vehicle of an evolving, reembodying

consciousness.

 

On each level of the human constitution, we are the products of

our

past. A reincarnating soul is drawn to the parents who can provide it

with a physical body and family

environment that reflect its own former thoughts and deeds, for

evolutionary

growth depends on reaping what we have sown. In this sense, we inherit

our genes not so much

from our parents as through our parents -- from our own

past. But even during a single

lifetime, our genes are changeable to some extent rather than

absolutely static; and this applies to

our basic mental tendencies as well. However much our present freedom

of choice and action is

constrained by the habits we have built up in the course of many past

lives, our selfconscious minds

mean that we remain the ultimate arbiters of our destiny, both

individually and collectively.