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