permaculture

[John Schinnerer <JohnS@STLabs.com>]

Aloha,

Another example of how we haven't really a clue about the complexity of
systems involving genes in living organisms, and what kind of trouble
messing about in the dark may get us into.  Also some commentary of my own,
to hopefully illuminate some of the disinformation being propagated. 

>From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, page A6, Thursday, Sept. 3rd, 1998 - my
synopsis of an AP story:  

Scientists were messing about genetically with Arabidopsis thaliana, a
'weed' commonly used in genetic research - they altered it to give greater
resistance to herbicides.  The resulting plant was found to also now have
far greater ability to pollinate other plants.  This was an "unintended"
consequence of the genetic alterations and apparently quite a surprise to
the researchers.  A full study was published in the Sept. 3rd issue of the
journal "Nature" - author Joy Bergleson, prof. of ecology and evolution at U
of Chicago. (end)

A classic example in the same vein - in 1983, the first human gene (human
growth hormone) was spliced into an animal (pigs) to get faster growth and
leaner meat (remember, "more is better...").  It looked good at first (+18%
growth rate, -15% feed, more meat) but then...since the gene was always
"on," making growth hormone 24-7, and not controllable by the rest of the
complex system known as "pig," the pigs soon developed severe arthritis and
ulcers, and became infertile as well.  So it's not just this last year or
two that problems with direct genetic manipulation have become apparent...

Even former pres. Jimmy Carter has bought the commonly used argument that
"people have been messing with genetics for hundreds and even thousands of
years, and this is no different, so it's safe" and is writing op-ed pieces
for national papers in favor of genetic engineering for all manner of stuff.
I have seen this argument forwarded in a variety of contexts in the last few
months - watch for it, as it seems to be the preferred piece of
disinformation in use concerning direct genetic tinkering.

It's true that we've been messing about with "genetics" for a long time -
but direct genetic manipulation is NOT AT ALL the same as selective breeding
and grafting and so on.  It's the old "start with a truth and they'll buy
the rest of the propaganda" manner of disinforming.  

Brief explanation:  
In selective breeding, etc., all (or at least the vast majority of) the
systems that constitute the biological entity, as well as those in which it
exists and of which it is a part, are in operation. These constrain what
changes can continue in future generations and what changes cannot.  In
direct genetic manipulation, potentially all the systems which constitute
the critter, and of which it is a part and within which it exists, are
completely bypassed - potentially none of the systemic constraints are
present.

In the former case, all the complex systems in operation (ecologies, if you
will) provide systemic "checks and balances" such that (so far) nothing too
pathological can survive too long.  In the latter case, some or all of these
systems are bypassed, with unpredictable consequences.

Examples:
Without direct genetic manipulation, a pig will (almost...?? :-) never be
born with human growth genes in it, and if it somehow is and the genetic
change does not "work" for the system "pig" and the larger systems of which
it is a part, the mutant pig will expire shortly and that will be the end of
it.  However, with direct genetic manipulation, the human growth gene can be
"forced" on the pig.  The difference with direct manipulation is that
hundreds or thousands of pigs can have the gene "forced" on them, producing
hundreds or thousands of ultimately dysfunctional pigs at once.  We cannot
determine that the altered pigs will get ulcers, arthritis and become
infertile - although those were the consequences in this case.  They might
have grown big pointy teeth and exhibited a taste for human flesh instead
:-O.

This consequence is more striking in the case of traits that are not
pathological and propagate themselves aggressively, as in the plant
experiment above.  Whatever genetic manipulation was done to increase
herbicide resistance (which is a pathological thing to do anyhow) also
resulted in a plant that could: 

a) more readily pollinate other plants, potentially passing on to a variety
of plants this increased herbicide resistance AND the increased ability to
pollinate other plants, and...

b) continue as a healthy plant, i.e. it would not die as a consequence of
the genetic changes but would continue to grow and thrive and...see a)
above...

One might argue that a plant with similar traits (herbicide resistance and
pollination enhancement) could be produced by selective breeding - and it
might be possible - but it seems far less likely that anyone would
intentionally produce such a plant and producing it by "accident" would be
extremely unlikely.  With direct genetic manipulation every intentional
change "for the better" (such as to increase Monsanto's ability to sell
Roundup :-p) can potentially trigger an infinite number of unknown other
changes, with equally unknown consequences.

Why?  Because people practicing (and championing) direct genetic
manipulation, genetic determinism, etc. make a mistake in believing that
genes DETERMINE the nature of an organism, when in fact they only CONSTRAIN
the nature of the organism.  In simpler terms - your genes tell you what you
CAN'T do as an organism.  They constrain your adaptability - as with the
pig, which could not adapt to the directly inserted human growth gene within
the constraints of it's own self as organism.  And why should it?  It never
"expected" to have a human growth gene as part of itself, and never would
have if it hadn't been forced on it.  So unpredictable stuff happened - not
so dire, in the case of the pig (except for the pig, of course), but
potentially more dire for all in the case of the plant example.

In other words, some people believe that there is a direct cause-effect
relationship between this or that gene and this or that property of an
organism, and that there are no other (or at least no other "dangerous")
cause-effect relationships, or that they can know what all such
relationships are and can therefore predict all consequences.  They then
proceed to act on this belief.  Alas, it is merely a belief - it does not
appear to be what actually happens.

If you've made it this far, thanks for listening.  I had to get this out
after seeing way too much BS and "bad science" in the media lately, almost
all in favor of unrestricted direct genetic manipulation.

John Schinnerer