MannGram: Theory and Ethics behind gene-tampering
L R B Mann
Dec 2003 rev. Jan 2007
Not only practising gene-manipulators but
also a much wider range of scientists should
speak out for much stricter control of
gene-tampering because it is based on dud
science. And even those unconcerned with science
as such should be concerned at the ethics of the
gene-tampering trade.
Prof Richard Strohman has pointed out, in
a sporadic small series of articles in Nature
Biotechnology, many defects in the Lego model of
biology which 'informs' the gene-tampering trade.
Dogma long refuted is crucial among the axioms of
the gene-jiggerers, e.g
* "one gene one protein",
* "only 4 letters in the DNA code",
* "insertion of genes from another kingdom by
illegitimate recombination is equivalent to
breeding",
* "randomness becomes utmost precision as we
slam in synthetic nucleic acids by weapons-grade
biolistics",
* "seen one redwood y' seen 'em all - especially
once we've patented & cloned lo-lignin sequoia";
* etc etc.
The main characteristic of this set of
slogans is that they are scientific drivel. The
Schubert Letter (Nat Biotech Oct 2002 p. 969 -
attached) would alone serve to refute them.
The main general scientific answer is
that nature is far from random. The idea that
slapping in - randomly! - a few genes by
radically unnatural processes will have more
predictable effects than offering a whole genome
of 10^4 - 10^5 genes in cross-pollination is
wrong for the main reason that it assumes natural
crosses to be random or nearly so. A top-level
affirmation of this assumption was stated by main
Monsanto-connected gene-jockeys Roger Beachy et
bulk in their 'enraged' response (Nat Biotech
Nov 2002) to the Schubert Letter:-
' The reality is that "unintentional
consequences" are much more likely to occur in
nature than in biotechnology because nature
relies on the unintentional consequences of blind
random genetic mutation and rearrangement to
produce adaptive phenotypic results, whereas GM
technology employs precise, specific, and
rationally designed genetic modification toward a
specific engineering goal. '
The immediate response to this furphy is
that there's almost nothing random in nature. We
know, admittedly, v little about the natural
barriers to error in traditional breeding; that
does not prove they're unreal or random. A
gene-jockey of plants, Prof Patrick Brown, has
made this & related points at www.psrast.org.
What is so precise, specific, or rational
about GM as done so far? The answer is, very
little indeed. Its outcomes are inherently
unpredictable. The tiny minority of target cells
that both survive and have incorporated somewhere
in the genome the desired gene cassette will, in
general, also develop other unforeseeable
properties, e.g deviant metabolism generating
toxins or allergens.
Indeed, the assertion of Beachy et al. is
refuted by the known figures on frequency of
unexpected mutations in GM-bastards compared with
mutation rates from breeding.
The more fundamental general answer is
that nature is extremely orderly. It is complex,
but not like a bowl of alphabet soup; nature -
especially life - is systematic. This should
be agreed by all scientists, even atheists; of
course, us theists ascribe the systematic order
to design, but those who resist belief in design
will, I hope, agree nature to be systematically
orderly. If you think, like Dawkins & Peter
Atkins, that nature is just the result of the
outworkings of physics & chemistry, then you
could fairly easily assume that even random
insertion of 'cassettes' would be no more likely
than traditional breeding to cause harm. If on
the other hand you believe (to take a specific
case) that an apple is not just a random
collection of biochemicals but a creation of a
benign Creator, and that Grandmother Smith in a
Seedknee suburb was a humble agent of that
Creator (selecting a new mutant that had arrived
according to His rules), then you will contrast
such natural processes with the overwhelming of
natural barriers to slam in viral promoters
joined onto synthetic approximate copies of
bacterial genes by biolistics or by modified
T-plasmids - violent processes expected to
disrupt the target genome. Breeding entails
natural protections from error which are
overwhelmed by gene-tampering.
I tend to think it is on this level that
the issue really turns. For those who think so,
re-reading of Genesis 3 may be salutory.
In a culture that has largely turned away
from the religion that gave rise to its legal
principles, the ethics of gene-tampering is in
drastic need of fundamental review.
Gene-jiggering has already sucked in $10^11, and
still only a few corporations have produced
anything saleable (except those selling the
enzyme kits etc for the gene-tampering expts).
The science behind this commercial frenzy is
junk; the Lego model of biology never looked
promising and is now known to be wrong. Proper
biology points to the Schubert Letter, and in
response a gaggle of Monsanto stooges intones
'enragedly' the moronic atheistic rubbish quoted
above.
Never in the history of science has a
family of "technologies" been developed, and
deployed in many organisms, based on such junk
science as stated by Beachy et al.
But the ethical appraisal of GM is even
more backward. The most dangerous technology of
all history blunders on, little understood by
venture-drongos and by ethicists. The good
scientists like Pat Brown and David Schubert are
crucially valuable. The Union of Concerned
Scientists should emulate its anti-nuclear
activism of the golden Kendall era. Go to it,
Yanks!
Much more importantly, If the human has
no duties to a higher power, how can selfishness
& greed be curbed? The religion that gave rise
to the code of ethics claimed to be implemented,
if imperfectly, in British & USA legal systems
had better get involved in renewal of ethics. It
is an embarrassment to Christians that a bishop
(of my denomination) contributed scarcely at all
to the Royal Commission on GM, flagging away
opportunities to discuss ethics in public
hearings. A minor powerHarpie has set up tiny
sandpits with pompous titles 'Interchurch
Commission' etc but has produced nothing
significant. As an Anglican I have said for
years that the churches are the sleepers in the
movement for control of GM. I hope & pray they
will take GM much more seriously.
R
|
