The following is mirrored with permission from
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/i-sisnews6.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
isis news
ISSN 1474-1547
No 6 September 2000
Contents
Written and compiled by Mae-Wan Ho & Angela Ryan & Joe Cummins
Edited by Mae-Wan Ho
Institute of Science in Society
www. i-sis.org.uk
and Department of Biological Sciences,
Open University, Walton Hall
Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, U.K.
From the Editor
Reports
Genetic Civil Rights Alert
Corporatization of Science Threatens Integrity of Science
ISIS Gagged in State of the World Forum
Dangerous GM Wastes Recycled as Food, Feed and Fertilizer
Corporate Science on the Offensive -- ISIS targeted
EU Directive on Deliberate Release Still Inadequate
Angry Thai Farmers Say Ban GM Rice
World Scientists in US Congress
Bad Science and Big Business Put the World at Risk
from Viral Pandemics -- Xenotransplantation
Ban Biological Weapons and Agent Green!
CaMV Promoter Active in Animal and Human Systems
Articles
The Beginning of Real Progress for the BSE/CJD Crisis?
Human Genome -- The Biggest Sellout in Human History
Use and Abuse of the Precautionary Principle
Biopatents
Human Gene Patenting Roundup
USDA to Support Terminator Technology
Monsanto's Patent Waiver: One Down Thirty One to Go
Canadian Court Rules Mammals Can be Patented
TRIPS Violate Human Rights -- UN Declares
Science Bytes
Phasing Out Antibiotics Will Not Reduce Antibiotic Resistance
Terminator Gene Product Alert
More on Instability of Transgenic Lines
More Trouble for Transgenic Lines
Bt Pollen Lethal to Monarch Butterflies - Confirmed
Book Briefs
Alas Poor Darwin edited by Stephen and Hillary Rose
Where Next -- Reflections on the Human Future
edited by Duncan Poore
Other papers new on the ISIS website
From the Editor
This is a bumper issue with many hot topics that are inextricably
linked in the current scientific debate on genetic engineering:
Genetic civil rights and global ethics which require urgent
attention in the fall-outs from the human genome project; the
crisis of public confidence and of science created by the
corporatization of science; the repression of scientific dissent;
victimization of independent scientists who try to tell the truth;
the suppression of scientific data; the use and abuse of the
precautionary principle in collecting and interpreting scientific
evidence; the persistent failure of our regulatory authorities to
heed sound scientific advice to protect health and the
environment; the scandal of bad science and big business in
xenotransplantation, biological weapons and many more.
Though not directly concerned with genetic engineering, our star
feature is an article by Harash Narang, a brilliant, independent
scientist who lost his job in the BSE crisis that he could well
have prevented. It illustrates the corporatization and repression
of science and scientists that are having drastic effects on
public health and democracy, as well as on the ethical practice of
science.
Among the new postings on ISIS website is a compilation of
scientific advice given by scientists of the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) which went unheeded, and remained unknown to
the public until the biointegrity lawsuit brought by civil society
forced the FDA to release the secret memos.
Due to the uncertainties of funding and other reasons, this may be
the last ISIS News, though we sincerely and desperately hope not.
We also hope you can take up our collective struggle for socially
and ecologically accountable science to serve a just, equitable
and compassionate world. Give ISIS News to all your friends. Copy
and distribute as widely as possible. And don't forget to
publicize our World Scientists' Statement and Open Letter. Get
your fellow-scientists to sign on and be counted.
Reports
Genetic Civil Rights Alert
To prevent companies and governments from stealing genes, invading
genetic privacy and undermining human rights and dignity, we
urgently need a Genetic Bill of Rights and a Global Ethics
Council, Mae-Wan Ho warns of the fall-outs from the human genome
project.
A visit to your local hospital, or a routine medical check-up may
result in your DNA being `finger-printed' into a database owned by
a private company or by the government. Your gene sequences and
cells may be patented and sold on the open market without your
ever knowing about it. Your genetic information can be correlated
with your life-time habits and medical history. Using this kind of
genetic information, mass screening can be done. If you happen to
carry a gene or genes associated with a whole range of diseases,
you may be refused unemployment and health insurance. Should you
wish to have children, your health insurance provider may require
prenatal screening of the foetus, or pre-implantation screening of
embryos in order to eliminate the `bad' gene(s). Not only that, if
you are ever suspected of having committed a crime, this
information can be used to track you down in no time at all. The
UK Government is committing major public funds to creating a DNA
database of some three million suspects, to be held by the police.
These are some of the fall-outs from the Human Genome Project (see
Human Genome: The Biggest Sellout in Human History, this issue).
And it has prompted the public interest organization, the Council
for Responsible Genetics in the US to draft a comprehensive
Genetic Bill of Rights www.gene-watch.org to protect "human rights
and integrity" and the "biological integrity of the earth". This
is a very timely document that should serve as an excellent basis
for legislation notably missing or incomplete worldwide.
But even this Bill of Rights may be inadequate to cope with rapid
developments further down the line, such as human cloning, cell
and tissue replacement and embryonic stem cell techniques. These
procedures are likely to lead to an increase in international
trafficking of human cells, eggs and embryos. Already, according
to a South African government official who spoke at the recent
State of the World Forum (see ISIS Gagged in State of the World
Forum, this issue), biotech companies have contracted hospitals in
South Africa to ship frozen placentas of black people to Paris.
A Global Ethics Council consisting of independent scientists as
well as a representative cross section of civil society should be
established as a matter of urgency to deal with these gross
violations of human rights, privacy and dignity.
Corporatization of Science Threatens Integrity of
Top unions launch a Charter for Science, Brian Goodwin reports
The corporatization of science has come to a head. Trade union
leaders warn that the integrity of British science is being
threatened by "a dash for commercial cash', reports the Times
Higher Education Supplement (Sept 8), the main newsprint for
University academics.
An alliance of four leading unions (lecturers' union NAFTHE, the
technicians' union MSF; the Association of University Teachers AUT
and the Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists IPMS)
launched a "charter for science" at the British Association's
Festival for Science at Imperial College last week. The charter
will include safeguards for those who blow the whistle on
unethical scientists and their practices. An IPMS survey earlier
this year found that unethical behaviour is shockingly common: a
third of scientists working in government or in recently
privatised laboratories had been asked to change their research
findings to suit the customer's preferred outcome, while 10% said
there was pressure on them to bend their results to help secure
contracts. In Britain's handful of top research universities,
dependence on private sources of income is acute, often amounting
to 80-90% of the total research budget. The charter says that
research must be guaranteed "by peer review, open publication and
by autonomy over a significant proportion of its resources".
Commercialisation smashes all three tenets. The only way to be
sure that science retains its integrity is to enshrine open and
clear-cut whistleblowing, the unions claim.
ISIS Gagged in State of the World Forum
Prominent progressive figures and world leaders in science and the
global society have been invited to this year's State of the World
Forum held in New York (4-10 September) raising great hopes that
genuine dialogue may begin to heal the divisions in society that
led to the collapse of the World Trade Organization Conference in
Seattle. But Mae-Wan Ho experienced the dark underbelly of
repression and the insidious extent to which corporate science has
infiltrated civil society.
I was invited to attend this year's State of the World Forum (SWF)
by some of the co-organizers of the event at least six months ago.
Some time later and quite independently, John Templeton Foundation
and International Space Sciences Organization (ISSO) also invited
me to the concurrent, overlapping event on science and
spirituality, Future Visions, which they are sponsoring. I was
delighted to be invited along with eminent scientists that I would
love to meet in person, primatologist Jane Goodall and Amory and
Hunter Lovins of renewable energy fame, not to mention prominent
figures who have been vigorously opposing globalization, among
them my good friends, Martin Khor, Vandana Shiva, Hazel Henderson,
David Korten, Nicanor Perlas. I was also full of hopes that I
could once again draw attention to the World Scientists' Open
Letter by submitting it to the SWF, and speaking about the
convergence between the scientific, spiritual and poetic visions,
which could serve as the basis for a new global ethic (see The
Organic Revolution in Science and Implications for Science and
Spirituality, www.i-sis.org.uk)
Right from the start, however, I sensed that something was not
quite right. My e-mail messages to the organizers were not
acknowledged. They claimed never to have received them. My
`visions' and biography were therefore not circulated in advance
even though they had been submitted in time. When I finally
received the programme, I discovered that my name was not included
in any panel, least of all those that had to do with genetic
engineering. I decided to attend the conference, if only to
deliver the World Scientists' Open Letter as I had promised. The
letter was e-mailed to the organizers, with a request that it be
posted on the SWF website.
Our letter was not posted, and I was told it could not be. When I
asked for it to be circulated at the Future Visions conference,
several representatives of Templeton and the ISSO took away the
paper and did nothing. When I pressed the matter, they told me the
letter had to be `reviewed'. I also tried to present it again to
the SWF. At first, no one claimed to represent the SWF. But
finally, through my influential friend, I managed to deliver a
copy directly into the hands of Jim Garrison, President of SWF.
And that was the last I heard from him. He was careful never to
make eye-contact with me again, as were representatives of
Templeton and ISSO. I got the message that the matter was not to
be raised ever again, or else I would be ex-communicated,
ostracized, obliterated.
I did manage to pass a few copies out to key people, but alas, I
lost the final copy to a woman who promised to make copies and
bring them back the next day. And that was the last time I saw it.
She left them `at home', and claimed she thought I did not need it
anymore.
I also managed to intervene from the floor to present a flavour of
my `visions' and got an applause from the audience. But that cost
me dear. Next time I tried to intervene, I was told to restrict
myself to short questions. At a plenary on science and ethics, I
raised the issue of the corporatization of science which is
standing in the way of ethical practice of science (see previous
item). This was met with stony silence, as were my subsequent
interventions on science and spirituality. As for the conference
on science and spirituality itself, there were some excellent
talks, from unexpected quarters, but few and far between. Overall,
there was a distinct lack of either science or spirituality.
But the genetic engineering sessions were worse. It transpired
that a Link Foundation, run by a man named Walter Link, was
sponsoring all the sessions. The two other scientists invited were
Dr. Martha Herbert, pediatrician from Massachusetts General
Hospital, and Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, molecular geneticist and
scientific adviser to Greenpeace USA. Both of them, signatories to
our World Scientists Open Letter, had been invited at the last
minute, which caused me to wonder why. I still thought I was
paranoid until the Chairman of the State of the World Forum told
me he had tried to get me on as a speaker in the main Forum
events, and that too, failed.
Still, someone must have complained, and that got me onto the
first, small panel discussion. We were strongly discouraged to go
into detail, on grounds that plenty of time ought to be given to
the floor. All the same, we managed to broach many fundamental
issues: genetic discrimination, eugenics, public participation,
accountability in the face of commercialization of science.
William Tiga Tita from Cameroon, representative of a network of
chambers of commerce and industry, eloquently reminded the
proponents of genetic engineering biotechnology not to forget the
point of view of the `Cameroon village boy' in their eurocentric
enthusiasm for genetic engineering. He confessed to be `terrified'
as a black man of the resurgence of eugenics, and stressed the
need for some form of world governance (see Genetic Civil Rights
Alert, this issue).
As to playing God, a theologian declared that was exactly what we
should do, as we are all made in the image of God! That terrified
me most of all. There is a distinct tendency for commentators,
many of them theologians and bio-ethicists and others who don't
know much science, to fail to distinguish hype from reality. This
leads to fantastic future projections on the one hand and on the
other, resignation that there is nothing we can do to stop
whatever scientific progress may bring. (Speaking of fantastic
projections, Paul Davies, famous physicist and author, stated in
his opening plenary lecture that the human genome map is showing
how everything is genetically determined, even evil; and he
questioned whether it was moral to remove evil which is intrinsic
to human nature by genetic engineering!) And that was the last and
only time I was allowed on any panel. I got an inkling of the
hidden agenda at another session I attended. This time, Walter
Link himself was in the Chair. Panelists were given about two
minutes each to say what their position is on the human genome
project and all its fall-outs (see Human Genome: The Biggest
Sellout in Human History), while the Chair and moderator (also
from Link Foundation) were allowed longwinded, pious-sounding and
essentially empty speeches. The audience were therefore invited to
comment in the absence of any real information or knowledge.
Martha Herbert and Doreen Stabinsky defended accountable science
brilliantly and gallantly throughout.
I finally lost patience when Walter Link said it was ethical to
reduce suffering with genetic engineering, and Martha Herbert and
Amory Lovins both pointed out that there were other means, and
that it was a pity Biology has been completely taken over by
molecular genetics. I intervened and said I can confirm that the
Universities have been completely taken over by corporations and
that molecular genetics is excluding almost all other approaches.
Also, we are attracting the wrong kind of people into science who
are more interested in making money than in science, let alone
alleviating suffering. And those who want to work for public good
are being victimized and villified. We should be banning and
revoking all biotech patents in the interest of alleviating
suffering. The bottom line of ethics is to ask if something will
be done when there is no hope of making lots of profit.
Walter objected that I was straying too far from ethics, that the
issue of patents had been thoroughly discussed at another panel
the day before, and he asked people not to go into that again. In
his long summing up, Walter announced that he was very satisfied
with the discussions, and it was the first time that people with
such a wide range of disparate opinions are brought together so
that they can listen to one another. He even chided the audience
for applauding the scientists who urged caution and respect for
the web of life, but not those `bioethicists' who proposed going
ahead with genetic engineering.
Walter Link reminded me of some of the people who earn a fat fee
`facilitating' conflict resolution. As soon as anyone raises any
point of substance, they would steer the discussion away to calmer
waters in order to engineer a `consensus'. Walter is looking for
funding to bring panels, such as the ones he has assembled, around
the world so that "all voices will be heard". (Actually, it is
easy to guess whom he is going to exclude.) His next stop is
India. So watch out. I can imagine a string of conferences
stretching out to infinity, accompanied by the ceaseless droning
of soothing voices to calm all dissidents, to lull people into
thinking that their concerns are being addressed, reducing them to
a state of confused impotence, talking them into mental and
physical exhaustion if not paralysis while industry trundle on
full speed.
Dangerous GM Wastes Recycled as Food Feed and Fertilizer
Mae-Wan Ho and Joe Cummins report why there is still no biosafety
after Cartegena.
The safety of GM crops and GM foods has been grabbing headlines
over the past two years, and a lot of effort appears to be
directed towards addressing many of the concerns raised in the
current draft amendment of the EC Directive on Deliberate Release
(see next report, this issue). However, a potentially much more
serious source of hazard remains unregulated. We pointed to
fundamental flaws in the regulation on contained use in a
comprehensive review published in a scientific journal in 1998 (Ho
et al, Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 10. 33-59). This
paper was submitted to the World Health Organization, European
Commission, the Biosafety Conferences at the UN, as well as to the
UK Health and Safety Executive, with additional comments from
Mae-Wan Ho and others.
More recently, we raised the matter again in an update calling
attention to the increasing variety and volume of `naked' and
`free' nucleic acids produced in the laboratory and biotech
factories under contained use, which are in fact not contained at
all, but discharged in one form or another into the environment,
as sanctioned by the current EC Directive on Contained Use
(Council Directive 90/219/EEC), last amended in 1998. Our paper
was circulated at the Montreal meeting on Biosafety in January,
and contributed to the strength of the Cartegena Biosafety
Protocol that was agreed in the last hours of that conference. But
there has been no real change since to the Directive on Contained
Use. This Directive is fundamentally inadequate for the following
reasons.
1. The scope covers only genetically modified micro-organisms;
transgenic animals, fish and plants are not included. It also
excludes nearly all classes of naked or free nucleic acids,
except for viroids (infectious naked RNAs that cause diseases
in both plants and animals).
2. Notification only and not explicit approval is needed for use
of Group 1 GM microorganisms, GMMs, considered nonpathogenic
or otherwise safe; however, there is no agreement among EU
nations on which microorganisms are pathogens or not; and it
is effectively left up to industry to decide
3. For Group 1 GMMs, only `prinicples of good microbiological
practice' applies, ie, there is no containment.
4. `Tolerated release' of Group 1 GMMs are allowed to take
place, without treatment, directly into the environment.
5. No treatment of GM DNA or RNA is required to break them down
fully before release.
6. There is no requirement for monitoring for escape of GMMs or
GM constructs, horizontal gene transfer, or impacts on health
and biodiversity.
We have presented evidence alerting to the dangers of horizontal
gene transfer, among which are the creation of new viral and
bacterial pathogens and the spread of antibiotic and drug
resistance among the pathogens.
Despite our efforts, successive versions of the Directive have
been relaxed and shaped by the European Federation of
Biotechnology. This industry-dominated group have produced a
series of `safe biotechnology' papers, the latest, published this
July (Trends in Biotechnology 18, 141-146), specifically addresses
DNA content of biotechnological wastes.
The paper admits that DNA persists in soil and aqueous
environments, that it is transferred to bacteria and cells of
animals, and that it may become integrated into their genomes. But
they defend current practice by claiming 1) Horizontal transfer of
GM DNA occurs, if at all, at very low frequencies, especially in
nature, 2)The persistence of foreign DNA depends on selective
pressure, especially in the case of antibiotic resistance marker
genes, and 3)DNA taken up is unlikely to be integrated into the
cell's genome unless designed to do so.
The first claim is unwarranted. Evidence of horizontal gene
transfer from transgenic plants to soil bacteria has been obtained
in the laboratory as well as in the field, although the
researchers themselves are downplaying the findings, in violation
of the precautionary principle (see Horizontal Gene Transfer
Happens, ISIS News#5). The second assumption has been shown to be
false. There is now substantial evidence that antibiotic
resistance can and does persist in the absence of the antibiotic
-- the so-called selective pressure (see Phasing Out Antibiotics
Will Not Reduce Antibiotic Resistance, this issue), mainly because
biological functions are, as a rule, all tangled up with one
another, and cannot be neatly separated and selected one at a
time. The third point is false as well, for it has been
demonstrated in gene `therapy' experiments that naked
DNA-constructs, not intended for integration, have nevertheless
become integrated into the genome. Integration occurs not only in
somatic cells, but also in germ cells (see Unregulated Hazards:
`Naked' and `Free' Nucleic Acids).
The most dangerous aspect of current practice, defended by
industry, is that solid wastes, heat-treated, or autoclaved,
containing large amounts of intact or incompletely degraded GM
constructs and transgenic DNA are being recycled or disposed of as
food, feed, fertilizer, land reclamation and landfill. Only in
cases where GM constructs are specifically made to transform
higher organisms, such as gene vaccines and genetic pill
applications (for gene therapy) is there a recognition that there
may be a need to "inactivate waste by validated procedures
rendering DNA nonfunctional by either reducing DNA fragment size
below functional entities or altering the chemical composition and
structure of the DNA." However, no such validated procedures
exist. Our regulatory authorities at all levels persist in
ignoring scientific advice and scientific evidence. It is yet
another example of the anti-precautionary approach (see Use and
Abuse of the Precautionary Principle, this issue). They, together
the biotech industry, should be held legally responsible for any
harm resulting from the uncontrollable horizontal transfer and
recombination of GM genetic material.
EU Directive on Deliberate Release Still Inadequate
Angela Ryan reviews the current Directive being negotiated and
points out its deficiencies
European Parliament June 2000 voted on the 1998 amended EU
Directive 90/220/EEC on Deliberate Releases of GMOs. But major
issues remain outstanding between the texts proposed by the
European Council of Ministers (representing the member nations of
the EU), and that of the European Parliament. Industry is still
fearful that political opposition in Europe will continue to
stifle marketing progress [1].
The new directive is much tighter than its predecessor in terms of
assessing the environmental impact of GMOs but serious
inadequacies remain that present hazards to health and the
environment.
There is no requirement for the molecular characterisation of each
transformed line over generations [2]. Every genetically
transformed plant is unique, due to factors associated with the
random insertion of transgenes. Transgenes are also unstable (see
More on Instability of Transgenic Lines, and More Trouble with
Transgenic Lines, this issue) especially over generations, and
they can move around within the host and horizontally, across
species barriers. Molecular data need to be taken over a number of
generations to ensure genetic stability, and horizontal gene
transfer must be carefully monitored. There is still no
requirement to monitor for horizontal gene transfer. Parliament
rejected the amendment that attempted to prevent horizontal gene
transfer. This amendment is the most important in terms of safety.
An industry spokesman said it would have "killed off the whole
technology" forgetting to add that industry has been claiming all
along that horizontal gene transfer does not happen, or happens at
extremely low frequency, and is therefore not a safety concern
(see item above). Whilst Parliament has officially acknowledged
that horizontal gene transfer is a natural phenomenon, it fails to
provide measures for adequate monitoring or prevention. The risks
associated with horizontal gene transfer present the greatest
hazards to health and the environment and could result in
widespread genetic pollution of the environment. The EU Commission
called for a ban on the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes
due to the risk of horizontal gene transfer, but Parliament voted
only for a phasing out by 2005. The Commission also want released
pharmaceutical products included in the scope, as agreed in the
Cartegena Biosafety Protocol, but parliament voted them out too.
Industry was further let off the hook regarding specific liability
for environmental harm associated with their products. However,
this may be only a temporary measure as Parliament is already
committed to introducing liability rules by 2001.
A conciliation process is underway and expected to take several
months to complete. The Directive will be enacted during the
French presidency and this does not bode well for industry as the
French are especially sensitive regarding safety issues. Dominique
Voynet, the French Green Minister, insisted the political
moratorium will remain in place until there is legislation to
ensure GM products can be traced through the entire production
chain, from field to plate. But without collecting molecular data
for each transformed line over generations and adequate monitoring
for horizontal gene transfer, GM DNA will be passing through this
new regulatory net unchecked.
1. "Industry still fears political opposition to European Union
GM legislation." By John Hodgson. Nature Biotechnology, Vol
18, June 2000, p589.
2. The need for detailed molecular characterization is presented
in Biosafety Alert: Submission to TEP on the detailed
molecular characterization required for commercial approval
of transgenic lines.
Angry Thai Farmers Say Ban GM Rice
They demand protection of indigenous knowledge and wisdom Mae-Wan
Ho reports on an extraordinarily invigorating and informative
gathering of farmers, activists, government officials, academics
and rice research scientists (with many thanks to tireless
interpreter, Chalotorn Kansuntisukmongkol, back home on holiday
from University of California, Davies).
Farmers from all over Thailand flocked to the day-long Rice Forum
held in the Museum Hall for Culture and Agriculture in Kasetsart
University near the outskirts of Bangkok on August 15. There, they
met with activists, government officials, academic scientists,
students and indigenous peoples to hear speakers which included
distinguished Professors from the Universities and Ministry of
Agriculture in Thailand, the leader of the Karen tribes as well as
invited foreign guests. This was in preparation for the long march
in September, in protest of the introduction of GMOs to Thailand.
Monsanto from next door sent their representative to listen in.
Professor Rapee Sakrik, twice Rector of the University and orchid
breeder, opened the morning session with an elegant reminder of
the importance of orchids to Thai culture in developing an inner
appreciation of the fine things of life. It is the good intention
from the heart that would really change people's perception and
action, he said.
Dr. Ampon Kittiampon, Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Cooperation, regrets that modern knowledge does
not include traditional wisdom, and that the emphasis on
cost-effectiveness has sidelined societal values. The recent
economic crisis gave the opportunity to reassess the balance
between cultural conservation and external demands. "Rice is what
supports our society" he said, "Export is important but cannot be
the only focus." External influence and the Intellectual Property
Rights both undermine traditional knowledge. Furthermore, if
farmers have to buy seeds, it would compromise food security.
Joni, leader of the Karen, told his audience that "rice is life
for the Karen" and that losing the seed is to lose life itself.
Their whole culture revolves around rice. The spirit of rice rises
to heaven every year and a rice ceremony takes place before
planting. The Karen used to plant 100 varieties of which only 5
are now left. He blamed the academics and the authorities for not
understanding swidden (shifting) agriculture which works on a four
year cycle. Planting rice in the same place for 4 years led to the
loss of both the rice crops and the forest.
Prof. Prapas, rice breeder from the Ministry of Agriculture and
Day-ene Siripetra from the Khoaw Kwan (or Rice Spirit ) Foundation
gave differing versions of the history of rice breeding in
Thailand. In the olden days, Prof. Prapas told us, there were four
ministries, one of which was the Ministry for rice affairs. The
Department of Rice, which became the Rice Research Institute, used
to research social and cultural aspects of rice and not just
genetic modification. During the reign of King Rama V, Thailand
was exporting rice, but the price was very low. So the King
organized a competition on rice varieties. This led to many
varieties being developed, and for years, the top ten in the
Canadian rice competition went to Thailand. Now, only jasmine rice
is left. In those days (45-50 years ago) the main focus of farmers
was to plant for their own use. Now the focus is on export and
high yield. Prof. Prapas suggested that genetic engineering may be
used on traditional varieties to create high yield and good taste,
or to resist pests.
Day-ene Siripatra told his audience that the practice of rice
planting did not change until the British forced Thailand to open
her market. After that, Thailand developed irrigation systems,
rice research stations and organized rice competition. The Rice
Research Institute was established to get varieties that were good
for export (those that won prices in Canada). Of the ten that won
prices, nine were no longer used, but kept in the seed bank. After
World War II, Thailand had a contract with the US. Dr. Love, a
rice specialist from the US, came to Thailand to train Government
officials to collect rice varieties. A total of 120 000 varieties
were collected, which Dr. Love took to the US. (So, biopiracy is
nothing new!) The present day Jasmine rice was also developed by
the farmers themselves.
In the 1960s, the Green Revolution was introduced to Thailand by
the World Bank and the Rockefeller Foundation, and caused drastic
loss of traditional varieties through emphasis on high yield with
high input. Farmers were told to exchange their traditional
varieties for the new ones which turned out to be very susceptible
to disease. Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, came
to Thailand two weeks earlier to promote GMOs. From past
experience, Day-ene is not at all convinced GMOs are the way
ahead.
Farmer after farmer made passionate and at times angry
contributions from the floor. "Jasmine rice is losing fragrance
because the Ministry of Agriculture is promoting new varieties.
The new varieties cross with the old and make them lose fragrance.
Farmers are in debt because merchants reduce the price for the
loss of fragrance."
"We must revive traditional varieties and the Government must
raise the price of traditional varieties." "Lots of fragrant rice
used to be planted but the Government developed varieties for
export and emphasized yield, so farmers stopped planting fragrant
rice varieties."
"To conserve rice varieties, the Government must buy different
varieties."
Farmers confirmed that the use of pesticides and fertilizers
resulted in many diseases, while traditional varieties never gave
so many problems. They also pointed out that the benefit of rice
planting is that it provided food and feed for animals as well as
a surplus for selling on the market. "Without rice planting, we
become poorer." They called for more integrated farming.
In concluding the session, Joni deplored the fact that people are
losing their natural cooperative tendencies on account of the
money culture. Siripatra called for a change of paradigm, and not
just try to patch the old one up. The really holistic way is to
integrate agriculture with culture: rice as life and not rice as
commodity.
The first session in the afternoon dealt with the technical
aspects of GM rice, which confirmed what had been said in the
morning already. I gave an overview of the state of resistance to
GM crops all over the world, explained what genetic engineering is
and how it is really a whole way of life that threatens not just
food security but our most deeply held social values. The
resistance to GM is a struggle to reclaim the good life for all in
every sense.
Devlin Kujek from the Barcelona based ngo, GRAIN (www.grain.org)
gave a very useful review of the transgenic rice engineered to
resist bacterial blast, BB rice for short; which the International
Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is to field trial in South East
Asia, starting in the Philippines. The Philippine's Biosafety
Guidelines actually state that, "Genetic manipulation or organisms
should be allowed only if the ultimate objective is for the
welfare of humanity and the natural environment and only if it has
been clearly stated that there is no existing or forseeable
alternative approaches to serving the welfare of humanity and the
environment." It turns out that only green revolution varieties
are susceptible to bacterial blight and not the local varieties.
IRRI has in fact caused bacterial blight and is proposing to use
the GM rice to solve the problem . But past experience has shown
that this strategy will not work, as the bacterial blight will
merely mutate to a new form. Lene Santos, also from GRAIN,
exploded the myth of the `golden rice' -- engineered to produce
pro-vitamin A in the polished grain -- that is supposed to cure
widespread vitamin A deficiency in the Third World. She pointed
out that the poor and malnourished are actually deficient in
multiple vitamins and nutrients, and that the problem cannot be
addressed by pro-vitamin A alone. There are already some 70
patents on the golden rice, owned by 32 companies. The rice
variety modified is a temperate rice unsuitable for growing in the
tropics. (See also ISIS Sustainable Audit #1, The Golden Rice, an
Exercise in How Not To Do Science).
The Monsanto representative finally spoke up and said that the
company is only trying to improve the quality of life for people
in the Third World, and villagers can choose not to use GM crops.
China and Singapore, she said, are promoting and embracing the
technology enthusiastically just so they won't be dominated by
foreign countries.
According to Devlin, a Chinese contact told him that they had the
same problems with Monsanto's GM cotton that was known in the US,
with cotton balls dropping off when the crop was sprayed with
Roundup. But the farmers were under contract to Monsanto to say
nothing!
Monsanto was rebutted by a Professor from Prince Songkla
University who dwelt on the importance of protecting Thailand as a
centre of biodiversity of rice, and that it would be very
dangerous to release rice GMOs. (Thailand already has a huge
variety of rice, all differing in both fragrance and colour --
shades of yellows, reds and black - rich in all kinds of vitamins
and minerals.) Another forceful speaker from the floor said,
"Monsanto, don't try to push us! Academics and Government
officials ought to try to find a clear understanding of how to
protect the natural world. Instead Thailand is being dominated by
a group of corporate scientists reaping benefits from the
developing to the developed world. Small farmers are being forced
into contractual arrangements, or bribery, and have no choice. The
Philippines are taking an aggressive stand before the GM crops
come in."
The last session was on intellectual property rights and the
speakers were Professor Chakkrit , an academic from the Department
of Law, and Mr. Bantoong of the Biodiversity Institute. Thailand
already has comprehensive draft legislations to protect her
genetic resources, the forests and especially her rich tradition
of herbal medicines, which is being recovered for use in public
health, in an effort to substitute for the high costs of imported
medicine and to promote the exchange of knowledge and resources in
the form of medical herbs, health foods and other healthcare
items. Western scientific knowledge is combined with indigenous
scientific knowledge, and government agencies, ngos and academics
are all involved in the important task of recovering traditional
medicines. Provisions are being made to register inventions under
the ownership of communities, ngos, traditional healers, monks and
private individuals. This model should be taken seriously by
countries all over the world, as it will do much to counteract
corporate biopiracy as well as unsustainable corporate monopoly on
food and health.
A spokesperson from the Agricultural Research Department said,
"Our biodiversity is our national treasure. The problem is how to
protect our treasure which include tropical fruits and
microorganisms." He stressed the need to conserve living organisms
in nature and not only in gene banks. In the Rice Research
Institute in Central Thailand, 30 000 varieties of rice have
already been collected, and it is not at all clear that they can
keep. "About GMOs, we don't allow the use of GMO commercially,
only for research."
This brought a torrent of condemnation from the farmers.
"The Government has led us in the wrong direction. Up to now we
did not know anything about GMOs, but thanks to this seminar,
things have changed. Research Institutes have concentrated in
creating varieties that are sensitive to fertilizers and dependent
on pesticides, and now GMOs are much worse. We are losing our
life!"
"The lies we have been told! The patents that have been obtained
based on modifying our varieties. And adding vitamin A to our
varieties for higher profit."
"Anyone pushing GMOs is wicked. We have to stop them. We cannot
allow GMOs in Thailand."
"We have to collect names of villagers in Thailand who do not want
GMOs and tell the Department of Agriculture and Development to
stop."
"Stop explaining the benefits of GMOs!" "Patenting of rice is
robbing us of our liveihood."
"We still have lots of varieties But we may lose them because of
Government policies. The Government does not care about the
traditional way of life in the highlands. Government says people
don't have knowledge and destroy natural resources under swidden
agriculture, and arrest them. It is the Government that is
destroying our rice varieties, first through the green revolution,
and now trying to fix-it with GMOs"
In a television debate two days later, Dr. Suthep Limtongkul,
Director of Rice Research Institute, announced that they have put
all GM rice in the gene bank, and will not carry out any more
research on them. But still, farmers want the GM rice destroyed.
World Scientists in US Congress
Mae-Wan Ho reports on a special Educational Forum on Biotechnology
that packed the Golden Room on Capitol Hill
There was standing room only when Rev. David Beckmann began his
introduction as Moderator of the event, and people were still
filing in. The educational forum "Can biotechnology help fight
world hunger?" (June 29, 2000) attracted a record number of
congressional staff as well as members of the public. Our World
Scientists Open Letter, updated, and signed by 327 scientists from
38 countries, was presented to US Congress on the occasion and was
crucial in drawing attention to the scientific debate.
The event was sponsored and organized by Congressman Tony Hall,
well-known for his efforts in raising the profile of world hunger.
In his opening remarks, he stressed that he was not interested to
know if biotechnology could make money, but in how it could do
something for hungry kids and how we can share prosperity with the
poor.
Senator Richard Lugar, Chair of the Senate Agricultural Committee,
a strong supporter of biotech industry, condemned the opposition
as `emotional' and stressed the `enormous potential' of GM crops,
citing `golden rice' -- engineered to produce pro-vit. A -- as a
cure for vit. A deficiency in the Third World. In anticipation of
just this bit of biotech propaganda, ISIS' Sustainable Science
Audit #1, "The `Golden Rice' -- An Exercise in How Not to Do
Science" had been circulated in advance, thanks to Consumer Choice
Council.
Representative Robert Ehrlich, who claimed to represent small
businesses, answered yes to the question. "Sound science" ought to
be used, he admonished. He had seen what happened in Europe when
ideas get demonized quickly, and it should not happen in the US.
Representative Dennis Kucinich, who has introduced a bill for
labelling of GMOs to Congress, reminded everyone that we all have
a common interest to feed the hungry. But his answer to the
question was no. The world is not short of food, he stated, and if
people are hungry, then we have to think again. It is financial
hardship and poor distribution of food that are the causes of
world hunger. Perhaps sustainable agriculture can help, but the
Green Revolution did not. Biotechnology should encourage
sustainable agriculture that can be compatible with mandatory
labelling, which is the right to know.
"No one should have to choose between food inadequately tested and
no food at all!" Kucinish stated, "Food standards should be the
same all over." He was against food aid dumping. It was an ethical
responsibility not to do so. This remark was particularly
pertinent, as Dr. Vandana Shiva had just presented Congress with a
memo objecting to GM food being dumped as relief to flood victims
in Orissa and elsewhere. Four scientists were the main presenters,
with Dr. Martina McGloughlin of UC Davies and Dr. C.S. Prakash of
Tuskegee University arguing that biotechnology is needed to combat
world hunger and Dr. Vandana Shiva, Director of the Foundation for
Science, Technology and Natural Resources in India and myself from
ISIS arguing that it is far from needed. On the contrary,
sustainable agricultural methods are already proving successful
all over the world, that biotechnology and corporate monopoly on
food through seed patenting and biopiracy can only exacerbate
world hunger, while the question of safety is at best unresolved.
After the presentations, a questions and answers session was led
by prominent `challengers' representing the ngos, the industry and
the press. It was notable that although McGloughlin and Prakash
were both scientists, neither spoke about science at all. They
refused to acknowledge that there is already evidence of actual
and potential hazards, while offering no scientific evidence to
back up their claims that GM crops are safe. McGloughlin even went
as far as to accuse the European Union of erecting false trade
barriers on grounds of safety. When Vandana Shiva brought up the
subject of the patents on the Indian Neem tree, Basmati rice and
other indigenous plants that Indian farmers have developed and
used for centuires, Prakash loudly proclaimed, " I am sick and
tired of hearing about biopiracy. Thank God for biopiracy..."
I stressed that there was genuine scientific dissent within the
scientific community, as witnessed by the hundreds of scientists
who have signed our open letter and the FDA's own scientific
advisors who warned of new risks associated with GMOs. When I
reminded the house that the lack of scientific consensus and
uncertainty are the conditions for applying the precautionary
principle, supporters of the biotech industry predictably scoffed.
(For more detailed arguments for the precautionary principle as
part and parcel of sound science see Use and Abuse of the
Precautionary Principle, this issue).
The representative from Zeneca, also predictably, sang the praises
of golden rice, which they have recently acquired the rights for,
and have announced that they will offer it `free' to the Third
World. I challenged her on how something that already has 70
patents can be offered free, and hoped that Zeneca will reply in
detail to ISIS' Audit. She replied, admitting that the patents
issue is very complicated and has to be solved. Michael Pollan,
the N.Y. Times journalist who stunned the United States into
action on GMOs with his famous article on Monsanto's GM potato,
confessed to be not at all convinced by the arguments on benefits.
"Have the benefits been proven?" He asked, "Have the risk been
proven to outweigh the benefits?" He urged precautionary approach.
"Industry is in trouble", he stated, "But why should I eat a GM
potato?"
In his summing up, Rev. David Beckman, President of Bread of the
World, stressed that other tools besides biotechnology must be
used to combat world hunger, that it is the imbalance of power
that is the cause of world hunger. He also touched on the ethics
of science and the fact that people don't quite trust scientists
anymore.
Bad Science and Big Business Put the World at Risk
from Viral Pandemics -- Xenotransplantation
This is the finding of ISIS Sustainable Audit #2
by Mae-Wan Ho and Joe Cummins
Xenotransplantation -- the transplant of animal organs into human
beings -- is a multi-billion dollar business venture built on the
anticipated sale of patented techniques and organs, as well as
drugs to overcome organ-rejection. It has received strong
criticism and opposition from scientists warning of the risks of
new viruses crossing from animal organs to human subjects and from
there to infect the population at large. But regulators are
adopting a permissive attitude for clinical trials to go ahead.
Scientific reports of virus crossing from pig to human cells and
of viral infections in humans subjects transplanted with baboon
livers are being ignored or dismissed, while inconclusive, widely
faulted papers are taken as evidence that no viruses are found in
xenotransplant patients. Our audit exposes the shoddy science that
puts the world at risk of viral pandemics for the sake of
corporate profit, and concludes that xenotranplantation should not
be allowed to continue in any form. Instead, effort should be
devoted to developing safer, more sustainable alternatives that
are already showing promise. One particular approach suggested is
to encourage stem cells in adults to regenerate within the body,
without the need for transplantation.
See the full paper on the ISIS website
Ban Biological Weapons and Agent Green!
Clinton admits that US' plan to use Fusarium to eradicate drug
crops in Colombia may have an impact on biological weapons
proliferation. Joe Cummins reviews the scientific literature
showing why that is the case. Please write to your Government to
give them this information, and demand a total ban on this and
other similar biological weapons.
The United States government is considering using biological
control agents to eradicate coca plants in Columbia. Because of
its illicit coca crop, Colombia is on the front line of US
biological warfare plans. Other projects to develop biological
agents to kill opium poppy and marijuana are also funded by the US
and the British Governments.
Clinton overruled the US Congress to decouple the link between
Colombian acceptance of Agent Green and the overall implementation
of the US 1.3 billion dollar bilateral assistance package for Plan
Colombia.
Clinton states that the US will not use Agent Green until "a
broader national security assessment, including consideration of
the potential impact on biological weapons proliferation and
terrorism, provides a solid foundation for concluding that the use
of this particular drug control tool is in our national interest."
That implies it is still on the cards.
The preferred biological control agent is the fungus Fusarum
oxysporum a common plant pathogen. To be effective and safe for
application, strains of the common pathogen would have to be
selected and those strains would have to be supremely resistant to
mutation and sexual gene exchange because small changes in a few
genes can alter host range and the range of side effects on
animals. The best available scientific evidence suggests that
those goals of genetic conservatism and stability are
unattainable, and that widespread saturation of a geographical
area with this plant pathogen may not only impact on food crops,
but on human health and a wide range of mammals and birds.
Fusarium oxysporium is a fungus without a reproductive cell
(without sexual spores) but one well known to have very active
genetic recombination following fusion of mycelia (the fungal
mat). Mitotic recombination (recombination during ordinary cell
division) is common in asexual fungi [1].
The presence of several families of transposable elements (jumping
genes) also contribute to mutation and chromosome rearrangement
[2]. Among the transposons is the impala element, a member of the
mariner transposon family that is known to spread horizontally
across fungi, plant and animals [3]. Horizontal gene flow
contributes to the variability in Fusarium. There is no known way
to control gene flow in Fusarium and such gene flow is the key to
the success of the pathogen. It is certainly ill-advised to drench
a geographical area with a fungus known to infect humans or
animals. In humans with normal immune systems, Fusarium oxysporum
was associated with infection of skin and nails [4]. A respiratory
disease along with fungal infection of the liver was observed in a
patient [5]. People with undeveloped, aging or compromised immune
system are highly sensitive to fungus infection. Fusarium
oxysporum is associated with Kaschin-Beck (KB) disease, an early
aging disease affecting numerous people in China and Russia, and
the disease also strikes mammals and birds. For example, Fusarium
oxysporum infected corn caused KB disease symptoms in chickens
[6]. Fusarium oxysporium infected grain caused KB symptoms in rats
[7]. and monkeys [8]. The main onset of KB disease in humans is
between the ages of 4 and 13 and the disease was twice as
prevalent in boys than in girls [9].
We cannot allow the US Government to spray a fungus associated
with such a serious disease. It is tentamount to waging biological
warfare on the people of Columbia and their neighbours.
In conclusion, Fusarium oxysporium is unlikely to eradicate coca
in Columbia but there is a reasonable chance that it will spread a
horrific disease among young humans and animals.
1. Taylor, J, Jacobson, D, Fisher, M. (1999). "The evolution of
asexual fungi." Ann Rev. Phytopath 37,197-246.
2. Hua-Van, A, Daviere, J, Kaper, F, Langin, T and Daboussi, M
(2000). "Genome organization in Fusarium oxysporum: clusters
of class ii transposons." Curr Genet 37,339-47.
3. Hua-Van, A, Hericourt, F, Capy, P, Daboussi, M and Langin, T
(1998). "Three highly divergent subfamilies of the impala
transposable element coexist in the genome of the fungus
Fusarium oxysporum." Mol. Gen Genet 259, 354-62.
4. Romano, C, Miracco, C and Difonzo, E. (1998). "Skin and nail
infections due to Fusarium oxysporum in Tuscany, Italy."
Mycoses 41, 433-7.
5. Sander, A, Beyer, U and Amberg, R. (1998). "Systemic Fusarium
oxysporum infection in an immunocompetent patient with an
adult respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS) and extracorporal
membrane oxygenation (ECMO)." Mycoses 41, 109-11
6. Chu, Q, Wu, W. Cook, M and Smalley, E. (1996). "Elevated
plasma glycosaminoglycans in chickes with tibial
dyschondriaplasia induced by a Fusarium oxsyporum isolate."
Avain Dis 40, 715-9.
7. Fu, Z and Zhang, S (1993). "Effects of cereals from
Kaschin-Beck's disease endemic area on fibrillogenesis in
vitro of cartilage type II collagen in rats." Chung Hua Yu
Fang I Hsueh Tsa Chih 2, 77-80.
8. Zhang, G and Lui, J. (1989). "An experimental animal model of
Kashin-Beck disease." Ann Rheum Dis 48, 149-52.
9. Zhai, S, Kimbrough, R, Meng, B, Han, J, LeVois, M, Hou, X and
Yin, X. (1990). "Kashin-Beck disease: a cross sectional study
in seven villages in the People's Republic of China." J
Toxicol Ennviron Health 30, 239-59. For more information,
please see The Sunshine Project (www.sunshine-project.org).
CaMV Promoter Active In Animal and Human Systems
Since the publication of our original paper on the CaMV promoter,
we have been subjected to personal abuse and attack of the kind
meted out to many other scientists who refuse to be intimidated
into a `scientific consensus' by the corporatized scientific
establishment.
In a continuing campaign to mislead and obfuscate, the pro-biotech
brigade have been re-cirulating again and again the same
scientific critique of our paper which we have already rebutted in
full in an article published in the same issue of the Journal.
But the worse is yet to come. Plant genetic engineers, including
our critics, have been telling us that the CaMV promoter is safe
because it is a plant promoter that only works in plants and
plant-like species. We have now found in the scientific literature
more than 10 years old that the CaMV 35S promoter is active in
frog eggs as well as in extracts of a human cell line. It means
that if the CaMV promoter ends up in our genome, it could well
have unpredictable, untoward genetic effects.
We submitted a short paper to Nature Biotechnology which has been
publishing the most despicable attacks on us, but they rejected it
after a two months delay. This paper is now in press in Microbial
Ecology in Health and Disease, practically the only scientific
journal that would allow a fair debate in their pages. The paper
is posted on ISIS' website.
It is nothing short of a scandal that the plant genetic engineers
have not bothered to check whether the CaMV promoter is active in
animals before they started to use it so widely. Those who are
still supporting the use of the CaMV 35S promoter should be held
legally responsible for any harmful consequences arising from it.
Articles
The Beginning of Real Progress for the BSE/CJD Crisis?
In this exclusive feature article, Dr. Harash Narang, pioneering
researcher in new variant CJD, who lost his job because he dared
to disagree with the orthodox opinion, tells his story of the
crisis and how he is being vindicated by recent discoveries. If he
had been heeded, many lives could have been saved, and the
needless slaughtering of tens of thousands of cattle could have
been prevented. "The tragedy of the BSE crises is that from the
start, the government has approached BSE as a matter of policy
instead of as a matter of science. But science is not a
convenience store where one can browse around and pick up the
hypotheses that best suits one's policy". But misrepresentation
and misconduct in the corporate scientific community continues.
An article on the BSE crisis (Reservoir Sheep? New Scientist July
27) reports that Prusiner told a scientific meeting in Birmingham
that his colleague Mike Scott believes sheep carry two strains of
the BSE agent, the scrapie prion and the BSE prion. Furthermore,
Scott also believes that the scrapie strain is somewhat dominant,
preventing the BSE strain from infecting cattle and people when
both are present. In other words the scrapie strain acts as a
vaccine against the BSE strain. This is not news. Clinically
speaking, it has been known for more than 30 years that there are
two distinct strains of the scrapie agent. Type I is common and
causes sheep to loose their wool. This is the common scrapie
strain. Type II, is very rare and appears in only 1 sheep in
100,000 or more. It causes trembling and is the BSE strain. The
most important difference between the two strains is the mode of
transmission -- the BSE strain can be transmitted orally whilst
the scrapie strain cannot. This has helped the BSE strain to
spread to a large number of mammalian species whilst incorporated
into cattle feed.
In fact, twenty strains of the scrapie agent have been isolated
and the phenomena of interference between strains has been known
for a number of years [1]. I have proposed that the eradication of
BSE would be achievable if a vaccine were to be developed based on
this phenomena.
The BSE inquiry reveals that MAFF has known since 1989 that Type
II -- the BSE strain -- was different. Transmission studies
revealed type II clinical symptoms in sheep, showing that the BSE
strain poses a threat not only to cattle but also to sheep. MAFF
have also known since 1990 that scrapie resistant sheep can be
infected with type II, whilst sheep infected with type I cannot.
Why then is MAFF presently asking sheep farmers to breed from
scrapie resistant sheep? This would only reduce the numbers of
scrapie-infected sheep in herds and thus leave sheep farmers
vulnerable to a rise in the incidence of the BSE strain in sheep.
Furthermore, scrapie infected meat acts as a vaccine against the
BSE agent and therefore offers some protection to the human
population.
Now that Prusiner has openly admitted the phenomena of
interference between the two strains of the agent, it further
suggests that the BSE agent could not be a protein after all. It
must be a virus. Moreover, Prusiner's group, following a number of
experiments in transgenic mice, have concluded that another "X"
protein, a chaperone, is required in the post translational
process [2], as has been previously suggested by myself [3].
The final conclusion of these findings suggest that the prion
protein is not the agent and therefore it is something else.
Moreover, Prusiner's earlier work has proved not to be repeatable
[4] and the protein only hypothesis has no direct evidence to
support it. On the contrary, most of the new evidence supports a
virus hypothesis.
I have published a large number of papers supporting the
hypothesis that the BSE/CJD agent is a virus. More recently, I
transmitted the disease using isolated single stranded DNA -- in
demonstration of Kock's postulate -- that a single stranded DNA
genome is the viral genome for the disease of BSE/CJD [5]. I have
also described this in detail in my book, The Link.
The tragedy of the BSE crises is that from the start, the
government has approached BSE as a matter of policy instead of as
a matter of science. But science is not a convenience store where
one can browse around and pick up the hypotheses that best suits
one's policy -- the main priority of which is the avoidance of
public alarm.
When I found young patients dying from CJD in the late 80's I kept
my employer, The Public Health Service Laboratory, well informed
of my investigations. However, it took a further eight years
before the government and SEAC, the advisory body, admitted
publicly the link between BSE and CJD. To this day, after spending
millions of pounds and years in time, MAFF still do not know the
source of the BSE agent or how to eradicate the disease.
The extent of the problem can be demonstrated in recent
announcements from government regarding BSE/CJD. Since 1991 a body
of evidence has revealed that maternal transmission of the BSE
agent has occurred. In June 1999, 39,384 BSE cases were confirmed
in cattle born after the feed ban in July 1988. MAFF can no longer
deny the reality of maternal transmission. I began developing a
practical BSE diagnostic test in the late 80's for use in
abattoirs. Had this test been introduced BSE infected cattle would
have been stopped from entering the food chain. But the government
still to this day has not taken it up.
In recent weeks the government has acknowledged a number of other
real BSE/CJD issues that I have also been highlighting for many
years. First, they have acknowledged that there is at least one
cluster of CJD cases in a community living in close proximity to
one another. Then SEAC announces there maybe a theoretical link
between CJD and dental instruments (See p 268, The Link). In fact
the same problem also extends to other medical instruments, such
as those used in surgery. The SEAC spokesperson said there is no
means available to sterilise dental instruments contaminated with
the CJD agent. This is however not accurate and there are methods
available for decontamination (See p 71,The Link). Finally, Nick
Brown ordered an inquiry into whether there is a connection
between BSE, milk and dairy products. Unfortunately this inquiry
is not based on good science. The only way to establish whether
the agent is lurking in milk or dairy products is to feed BSE
infected dairy products to mink (See p 38, The Link). These
animals are very susceptible to the BSE agent and will develop
clinical disease within 14 months.
All this amounts to some very disturbing news on the BSE/CJD front
and in order to calm public fears, a new study by Neil Ferguson
and colleagues has been highly publicised with headlines such as
"CJD epidemic fears unfounded". However, even this study does not
escape the grip of the continuing BSE crisis. It was a computer
based study and according to the data imputed, CJD will claim
136,000 victims in Britain. With some simple calculations one can
work out that one person in 400 will contract the disease. This is
greater than the death toll for TB and AIDS. Furthermore, the
study estimates that 750,000 cattle infected with BSE were
slaughtered for human consumption in Britain. But in 1988, when I
was developing an abattoir test for BSE, most of the cattle being
slaughtered were incubating the disease.
Now, John Collinge from MRC Prion Unit at St Mary's Hospital
London, suggests (PNAS Aug 2000) that the BSE agent can be easily
transmitted to many other animal species. Moreover, he presents
his evidence, as if it where new and claims these animals often
incubate the disease without showing clinical symptoms. But in my
evidence to the BSE enquiry (1997) and in my book The Link, I have
demonstrated and described that chickens and sheep do develop
clinical and pathological disease. Furthermore, Collinge is fully
aware of this fact, having often been present at scientific
meetings in which I have presented these findings. He also
possesses a copy of The Link. Has Collinge broken the scientific
code of ethics by not quoting my work and is he guilty of
scientific misconduct by reporting this as a new finding in his
recent PNAS paper? There are also several outstanding issues
regarding the actual death toll from CJD and in addition, the
methods employed for diagnosing CJD are also questionable in my
opinion.
A recent report in The Lancet (vol 356, p481) shows that 15 CJD
deaths have occurred this year compared with 18 for the whole of
1998. This is a four-fold increase in incidence of CJD between
1998-99. However, it is important to note that whilst BSE is a
notifiable disease, CJD is not and therefore no one really knows
how many people are actually dying from CJD each year. One thing
is clear, in comparison with the 50 recorded deaths in the early
1990's, the incidence is rising. In addition, the name "new
variant CJD" (nvCJD) is very misleading as nvCJD is caused by the
BSE strain of the agent, which is not a `new' strain -- it
originates from Type II scrapie in sheep. And like with scrapie
and BSE there are two types of CJD. Type I, which is classical CJD
and Type II, termed `new variant' CJD (nvCJD), which is caused by
the BSE strain of the agent. For diagnosing classical Type I CJD
there are three major distinguishing features. First, classical
CJD starts with dementia. Second, confluent spongiform changes are
not usually found in the cerebellum. And third, PrP plaques are
rarely observed. In Type II CJD, three main features distinguish
it from Type I classical CJD: a) the first leading clinical signs
are difficulty in balancing and ataxia. b) Confluent spongiform
changes are seen in the cerebellum and c) the distribution of PrP
plaques are unique and different from those observed in classical
CJD.
Since the first appearance of BSE in cattle, nvCJD in people has
only been recorded in young patients. However, based on the three
main distinguishing features described above and following a
literature review, I have evidence that patients of all ages are
dying from Type II CJD and that these patients are not been
recorded. It is imperative that Type II CJD be made a notifiable
disease so as the actual death toll can be determined more
accurately. After ten wasted years in the wilderness with BSE/CJD
there is still hope that we can eradicate this disease from
Britain. Prusiner's admission should mark the beginning of real
progress in pinpointing the disease. In the short term, we must
restore public confidence in meat products by announcing decisive
measures that can really address the BSE crisis. The first of
which should be the implementation of a diagnostic test for
identifying BSE and CJD cases. The second of which must be the
development of a BSE/CJD vaccine.
Dr Harash Narang was a microbiologist for the British government
until 1994, when he was made redundant from his job at the Public
Health Laboratory Service in Newcastle. Despite official denials,
he maintains he was dismissed because of his controversial
scientific investigations, which established the link between BSE
and CJD. He is an expert on BSE/CJD and has written two books "
The Link" (ISBN 0-9530764-0-7) and "Death on the Menu" ( ISBN
0-9530764-1-3)
1. Narang H. K., "Molecular Cloning SS DNA purified from Scrapie
infected hamster brain." Res Virol. 144: 375-387, 1993.
2. Telling GC, Scott M, Mastrianni J, Gabizon R, Torchia RM,
Cohen F, DeArmond SJ, Prusiner SB. (1995) "Prion propagation
in mice expressing human and chimeric PrP transgenes
implicates the interaction of cellular PrP with another
protein." Cell 83:79-90.
3. Narang HK.(1992). "Relationship of protease-resistant
protein, scrapie-associated fibrils and tubulofilamentous
particles to the agent of spongiform encephalopathies." Res
Virol 143:381-386.
4. Balter M. Prions: "A lone killer or a vital accomplice?"
Science 286:660-662, 1999.
5. Narang HK. (1998). "Evidence that single-stranded DNA wrapped
around the tubulofilamentous particles `Nemavirus' is the
genome of the scrapie agent." Res Virol 149:375-382.
Human Genome -The Biggest Sellout in Human History
Our Governments have handed over the human genome to private
ownership. The hype continues, but will it deliver? Not likely.
Mae-Wan Ho concludes that, unless and until there is a quantum
leap to a new paradigm for understanding the organism as a
coherent whole, human genome research will remain a scientific and
financial black hole that swallows up all resources without any
return to investors or to improving the health of nations.
"To-day, we are learning the language that allowed God to create
life." That was how Clinton greeted the announcement of the human
genome map on June 26. The Human Genome Project, (HGP) an
international public consortium of research laboratories led by
the United States, and Celera, a private American company, made
the announcement jointly, ending months of competition to complete
the first sequence of the human genome. Craig Venter, Director of
Celera, marked this "historical day in the 100,000 years of human
history" when, for the first time, "the human species can read the
letters of its own text." Not to be outdone, Francis Collins, head
of the public project, called it "the revelation of the book of
life".
French Research Minister, Roger-Gérard Schwartzenberg, hailed the
event as " the victory of those who wanted knowledge to remain
free". In reality, it is the biggest sellout in human history
dressed up with the most far-flung hyperboles.
The human genome has been sequenced with major public finance from
the United States and the European Community. The US Government
alone had earmarked $3 billion for the initiative. But that has
not prevented the human genome from being patented, owned and
exploited by private companies.
Celera's genetic maps would eventually be available on the
Internet, and the company will claim royalties from any commercial
pharmaceutical application of its discoveries. In contrast, the
gene sequences and gene maps produced by the public consortium
have been deposited regularly within 24 hours of completion in
GenBank, a public database set up in the early 1980s when DNA
sequencing began, access to which is totally free. Celera kept its
own human genome data secret while benefiting from free access to
the public database throughout the period that the company was
busy sequencing, thereby significantly reducing the time and
effort needed to complete the task.
Celera is not the only company stealing from HGP's Genbank. Others
such as Incyte has mined the public data to help build its
catalogue of genes and patents. There are some 20 000 patents on
gene sequences pending at the US patent office.
The US Patent and Trademark Office had tightened up the criteria
for gene patents by issuing two new directives under section 101
"utility", and section 112 "written description requirements" last
December. Under the new utility guidelines, the USPTO is looking
for "specific utility" and "substantial utility". So, DNA
fragments or express sequence tags (EST) will require a written
description of their specific utility in order to be patented
(though millions of patents based on those have already been
granted in the US). Similarly, according to the current EU
Directive on biotechnological inventions, genes and gene-sequences
can still be patented if an "industrial application" is specified.
However, an "industrial application" may amount to no more than
speculation on function based on similarity to gene sequences in
the existing database. Another industrial application for which
many patents have been awarded is "association with condition X",
where X is anything from cancer to criminality. There are already
740 patented gene tests on the market, among them are BRCA1 and
BRCA2, genes linked to breast cancer in women. Years after the
tests were launched, scientists still do not know to what degree
those genes contribute to a woman's cancer risk.
But it is precisely ignorance that is fueling a goldrush in
`bio-infomatics' -- a fusion of information technology with
biology -- that promises to turn the raw genomic base-sequence
data into knowledge for making even more lucrative new drugs. It
is already a $300 million industry expected to grow to $2 billion
within 5 years.
The public GenBank holds sequence data on more than seven billion
units of DNA, while Celera Genomics claims to have 50 terabytes of
data in store, equivalent to 80 000 compact discs. The raw
sequence data consist of monotonous strings of four letters -- A,
T, C and G -that make up the 3 billion or so bases in the human
genome. It is impossible to access the data or to make any sense
of the sequences without special software. Some softwares are
developed and made freely available in the public domain, but the
databases of private companies are provided to paid-up subscribers
only. Incyte launched an e-commerce genomics program in March that
allows researchers to order sequence data or physical copies of
more than 100 000 genes on-line. Subscribers to the company's
genomics database include drug giants such as Pfizer, Bayer and
Eli Lilly. Celera's gene notes, similarly, will cost commercial
subscribers an estimated $5 to $15 million, and academics, $2000
to $15000 a year.
Close on the heels of bioinformatics is `proteomics', details on
when and where genes are active and on the properties of the
proteins the genes encode. It attempts to make sense of the
complex relationships between gene and protein and between
different proteins, and has so far attracted hundreds of millions
in venture capital.
Proteomics has spawned a number of technical innovations, among
which is the Gene Chip, developed by Affy-metrix in Santa Clara,
California. It consists of glass microarrays coated with cDNAs
(complementary DNA) to identify which mRNA species are made (and
hence which genes are expressed). One microarray allows
researchers to identify more than 60 000 different human mRNAs.
The US National Cancer Institute has been examining the mRNAs
produced by various types of cancer cells in a Human Tumor Gene
Index project involving government and academic laboratories as
well as a group of drug companies including Bristol-Myers Squibb,
Genetech, Glaxo Wellcome and Merck. So far, more than 50 000 genes
have been identified that are active in one or more cancers.
The sequencing of the human genome is undeniably a technical feat
comparable perhaps to landing on the moon. And it is difficult not
to be caught up in a frenzy of speculation on what can be achieved
as genomics joins forces with the latest in information and
nanotechnology. But will it deliver health, let alone happiness?
Two medical geneticist writing in the New England Journal of
Medicine, warned that the `genetic mantle' " may prove to be like
the emperor's new clothes." As has been pointed out by many
scientists, most diseases are complex, and correlations between
genes and disease are therefore weak. Associations between a
disease and a `genetic marker' (of unknown function) can occur by
chance and some have proved to be spurious. Although many
disease-related genes have been mapped to regions of specific
chromosomes, no clear markers for asthma, hypertension,
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other disorders have been
found despite intensive efforts.
Searches for susceptibility genes in breast cancer, colon cancer,
rare early-onset forms of type II diabetes, and Alzheimer's
disease have been more successful, but in each case these account
for less than 3 percent of all cases. That is because the risk of
disease depends not only on other genes but also on environmental
factors.
Holzman and Marteau conclude, "In our rush to fit medicine with
the genetic mantle, we are losing sight of other possibilities for
improving the public health. Differences in social structure,
lifestyle, and environment account for much larger proportions of
disease...Those who make medical and science policies in the next
decade would do well to see beyond the hype." Let us take stock of
some of what is on offer. The human genome sequence, we are told,
will enable geneticists to,
* cure cancer
* understand more about diseases and thereby to design better
drugs
* design customized cures based on our individual genetic
makeup
* prescribe an individual's lifestyle based on genetic makeup.
More contentious are the claims to
* diagnose all the bad genes that cause diseases · identify all
the good genes responsible for desirable qualities such as
longevity, intelligence, being slim and beautiful, good at
sports, and so on
* replace bad genes in `gene therapy', including germline gene
therapy · create `genetic enhancement' by introducing `good'
genes
* create `designer babies' and superior human beings.
In reality, the only concrete offering from mapping the human
genome are the hundreds of patented gene tests. The high costs of
the tests have prevented them from being used in cases where it
might benefit patients in providing diagnosis. At the same time,
those healthy subjects who have tested positive are likely to
suffer from genetic discrimination and risk losing employment and
health insurance. The value of diagnosis for conditions for which
there is no cure is highly questionable. The claim to identify
putative `bad' and `good' genes is also fueling the return of
eugenics, which has blighted the history of much of the 20th
century. This is exacerbated by the dominant genetic determinist
mindset that makes even the most pernicious applications of gene
technology seem compelling. A prominent band of scientists and
`bioethicists' are actively advocating human genetic engineering,
not just in `gene therapy' for genetic disease, but in positively
enhancing and improving the genetic makeup of children of parents
who can pay for the privilege, and have no qualms regarding human
reproductive cloning either. They have been given much attention
in the mainstream media.
The promises as well as the threats remain largely in the realm of
future potential if not outright fantasy. We were promised no less
than "the blueprint for making a human being" by no less than
Nobel laureate James Watson when the Human Genome Project was
first touted, along with miracle cures for cancer and other
diseases, and even immortality. Now, ten years and dozens of
sequenced genomes later, it is all too obvious that geneticists
haven't got a clue of how to make even the smallest bacterium, or
the simplest worm, let alone a human being. Nor has anyone been
cured of a single disease on the basis of genes or genetic
information. Rather than address the contentious claims of the
human genome project, let's concentrate on those offerings
generally seen to be beneficial and uncontroversial; for if it
cannot deliver on those, it can certainly not deliver on the rest.
The growth in `bio-informatics' and `proteomics' is an admission
of the vast realms of ignorance that separate the 100 000 genes in
the human genome from the living human being. It is also an
acknowledgement that the genetic determinist paradigm which has
done so much to promote the human genome project has failed
miserably. There is no simple, linear causal chain connecting a
gene to a trait, good or bad. Behind the hype is a desperate
attempt to turn the exponentially increasing amount of information
into knowledge that can pay off the heavy investments already sunk
into the project.
Private ownership of the human genome is obviously not ever going
to benefit those who cannot afford to pay. Proponents of human
genetic engineering, indeed, see the creation of a `genetic
underclass' to be inevitable, as those who can afford to pay for
genetic enhancement will become `gene rich' relative to those who
cannot afford to pay . But can knowledge of the human genome
really deliver the goods? Genuine genetic diseases that can be
attributed to single genes constitute less than 2% of all
diseases, and more and more geneticists are coming around to the
view that even those are subject to so many other genetic and
environmental influences that there is simply no such thing as a
single-gene condition. For the rest, the association between the
condition and the specific genes or genetic markers reduces to
tenuous `predispositions' or `susceptibility' (see above).
`Predipositions' to cancer for example, conceals the fact that
important environmental factors are left out of consideration.
These include the hundreds of acknowledged industrial carcinogens
polluting our environment. It is well-known that the incidence of
cancer increases with industrialization and with the use of
pesticides. Women in non-industrialized Asian countries have a
much lower incidence of breast cancer than women living in the
industrialized west. However, when those Asian women emigrate to
Europe and the United States, their incidence of cancer jumps to
that of the white European women within a single generation.
Similarly, when DDT and other pesticides were phased out in
Israel, breast cancer mortality in pre-menopausal women dropped by
30%. The overwhelming causes of ill-health are environmental and
social. That is the conclusion of a major body of research
findings, still growing everyday. Environmental influences swamp
even large genetic differences.
The genetic determinist approach of the human genome programme is
pernicious because it diverts attention and resources away from
addressing the real causes of ill-health, while at the same time
stigmatizing the victims and fueling eugenic tendencies in
society. The health of nations will be infinitely better served by
devoting resources to preventing environmental pollution and to
phasing out agrochemicals, rather than by identifying all the
genes that `predispose' people to ill-health. Even the UK Royal
Society, not known for holding progressive views, has produced a
report in July calling for national and international coordination
to deal with the dangers posed to humans and wildlife by
endocrine-disrupting chemicals, substances thought to mimic or
block natural hormones in amounts too minute to trigger a
conventional toxic response. But it is the inherent complexity of
the human organism and the lack of a concept of the organism as a
coherent whole that will continue to frustrate all attempts at
understanding health and disease within the dominant, reductionist
framework.
Despite the almost weekly hype on cancer cures, there is none, or
none that has resulted from information on genes and gene
sequences. As mentioned earlier, some 50 000 genes have been
identified that are active in one or more cancers using the Gene
Chip, which is half of the maximum number of gene predicted in the
human genome!
In principle, knowing the genes that are over-expressed or
inactive in individual cancers can allow specific genes to be
targeted. But this is no different from interventions that have
previously been available to single-gene defects such as sickle
cell anaemia or cystic fibrosis, none of which has been cured as a
result; which is why gene therapy has been attempted, equally to
no avail so far.
To try to understand disease in terms of genes and protein
interactions is worse than trying to understand how a machine
works in terms of its nuts and bolts, simply because the parts of
the organism, unlike those of a machine, are inseparably tangled
up with one another. That is how they have to function. This kind
of understanding is extremely unlikely to lead to the design of
better drugs, which requires knowledge of the design of the human
organism. And no amount of information on genes and protein
interactions will ever add up to the complex entangled whole that
is the organism.
The promise of customized medicine and prescribed lifestyle based
on an individual's genetic makeup is a pipe-dream. The effect of
each gene depends not just on environmental factors, but
ultimately on the genetic back-ground of all other genes in the
genome. It is estimated that individuals differ on average by one
per thousand bases. This amounts to three million bases over the
entire genome. As each gene is at least a thousand bases in
length, it means that every gene will most probably be different.
In fact, hundreds of variants are typically found for each gene.
Consequently, every individual is genetically unique, except for
identical twins at the beginning of development, before different
genetic mutations can accumulate in each of the pair. That is why
it is generally impossible to give accurate prognosis of even
single gene diseases unless the genetic background is homogenous,
as in an inbred laboratory strain of mice. And even then, the mice
have to be raised in a uniform environment.
The Icelandic population is thought to approach a genetically
homogenous population, which is why the company deCode Genetics
has acquired the genetic database of Iceland's 270 000
inhabitants, linked, anonymously to medical records. The hope is
to enable all the genes linked to a variety of diseases to be
identified. Unfortunately, the results will be valid for the
Icelandic population only, and will not be transferable to other
populations. Thus, mutations in the gene giving rise to cystic
fibrosis among Northern Europeans is associated with quite another
condition among the Yemans; while bona fide cystic fibrosis in the
latter population is due to mutations in another gene altogether.
There is a current debate as to whether genetically heterogeneous
populations, such as those in Manhattan and London, or homogeneous
populations, such as those in Iceland and Finland, could yield
better genetic data for linkage to diseases. According to
biometrical genetic analysis, the net effects of a gene should be
determined over all environments as well as over all genetic
backgrounds, so we are back to the limited predictive power based
on averages obtained in large populations. It is impossible, in
principle, to predict anything based on any individual genome.
Those who claim otherwise are doing so in ignorance of the most
basic principles of population genetics.
In case you still think that the blueprint for making a human
being is written in our genome, just take note that up to 95% of
the human genome may be `junk' DNA, so called because no one knows
what its function is. The same is true of all genomes of higher
organisms. The rough draft of the human gene map announced in June
is only 85% complete for the coding (functional) regions only.
It is difficult to see any strategy within either bioinformatics
or proteomics that can pay off, either in terms of basic
understanding the human organism as a whole, or in terms of
miracle cures and wonder drugs. There is nothing beyond the
proliferation of more and more detailed information on genes and
proteins that have been spilling out of the pages of scientific
journals for the past decade. The one million proteins encoded by
the 100 000 genes interact with one another, with the genes
themselves, and small molecular weight `cofactors' and
`messengers'. Those interactions vary in different cells and
tissues at different times, subject to feedback from the
environment. Feedback from the environment can alter the genes
themselves, and hence the cascades of interactions involved. All
that is the reality of the fluid and adaptable genome which the
moguls of genomics and bioinformatics have yet to come to grips
with. The prospect of understanding the human being by a detailed
description of its molecular parts is essentially nil. This
reductionist fallacy has been exposed in different forms, starting
with the physicist Walter Elsasser.
Even if a computer is large enough to represent the states of all
the molecules and their interactions, and fast enough to give a
description of how these change in real time as the organism goes
about its business of living, we would still be left with no
understanding of what is being described. Current computation
cannot handle the dynamics of one single protein folding, even
given all the information on the amino-acid sequence and the final
shape of the folded protein. It takes the computer four hours to
find a solution at best 70% accurate. But the protein itself folds
to perfection within a fraction of a second.
Unless and until there is a quantum leap to a new paradigm for
understanding the organism as a coherent whole, human genome
research will remain a scientific and financial black hole that
swallows up all public and private resources without any return
either to investors or to improving the health of nations. (See
the full version of this paper on www.i-sis.org.uk)
Use and Abuse of The Precautionary Principle
Proponents of biotechnology have been busy attacking the
precautionary principle lately. Why? Because it holds the key to
protecting health and the environment and require the industry to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that a technology or a product is
safe before it can be adopted. Peter Saunders, Professor of
Mathematics and co-Founder of ISIS shows how the precautionary
principle is just codified common sense that people have accepted
in courts of law as much as mathematicians have accepted in
setting the burden of proof in statistics. But pro-biotech
scientists have been abusing science as well as the precautionary
principle. A version of this article has been submitted to the US
Senate Committee on Biotechnology
There has been a lot written and said about the precautionary
principle recently, much of it misleading. Some have stated that
if the principle were applied it would put an end to technological
advance. Others argue that it fails to take science properly into
account, though in fact it relies more heavily on scientific
evidence than other approaches to the problem. Still others claim
to be applying the principle when clearly they are not. From all
the confusion, you might think that it is a deep philosophical
idea that is very difficult for a lay person to grasp [1].
In fact, the precautionary principle is very simple. All it
actually amounts to is a piece of common sense: if we are
embarking on something new, we should think very carefully about
whether it is safe or not, and we should not go ahead until we are
convinced it is. It's also not a new idea; it already appears in
national legislation in many countries (including the United
States), and in international agreements such as the 1992 Rio
Declaration and the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol agreed in
Montreal in 2000.
Those who reject the precautionary principle are pushing forward
with untested, inadequately researched technologies and insisting
that it is up to the rest of us to prove that they are dangerous
before they can be stopped. At the same time, they also refuse to
accept liability, so if the technologies do turn out to be
hazardous, as in many cases they already have, someone else will
have to pay the costs of putting things right.
The precautionary principle is about the burden of proof, a
concept that ordinary people have been expected to understand and
accept in the law for many years. It is also the same reasoning
that is used in most statistical testing. In fact, as a lot of
work in biology depends on statistics, neglect or misuse of the
precautionary principle often arises out of a misunderstanding and
abuse of statistics.
The precautionary principle does not provide us with an algorithm
for decision making. We still have to seek the best scientific
evidence we can obtain and we still have to make judgements about
what is in the best interest of ourselves and our environment.
Indeed, one of the advantages of the principle is that it forces
us to face these issues; we cannot ignore them in the hope that
everything will turn out for the best whatever we do. The basic
point, however, is that it places the burden of proof firmly on
the advocates of new technology. It is for them to show that what
they are proposing is safe. It is not for the rest of us to show
that it is not.
The Burden of Proof
The precautionary principle states that if there are reasonable
scientific grounds for believing that a new process or product may
not be safe, it should not be introduced until we have convincing
evidence that the risks are small and are outweighed by the
benefits. It can also be applied to existing technologies when new
evidence appears suggesting that they are more dangerous than we
had thought, as in the cases of cigarettes, CFCs, lead in petrol,
greenhouse gasses and now genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
[2]. In such cases it requires that we carry out research to gain
a better assessment of the risk and, in the meantime, that we
should not expand our use of the technology but should put in
train measures to reduce our dependence on it. If the dangers are
considered serious enough, the principle may require us to
withdraw the products or impose a ban or moratorium on further
use.
The principle does not, as some critics claim, require industry to
provide absolute proof that something new is safe. That would be
an impossible demand and would indeed stop technology dead in its
tracks, but it is not what is being demanded. The precautionary
principle does not deal with absolute certainty. On the contrary,
it is specifically intended for circumstances in which there is no
absolute certainty. It simply puts the burden of proof where it
belongs, with the innovator. The requirement is to demonstrate,
not absolutely but beyond reasonable doubt, that what is being
proposed is safe.
A similar principle applies in the criminal law, and for much the
same reason. In the courtroom, the prosecution and the defence are
not on equal terms. The defendant is not required to prove his
innocence and the jury is not asked to decide merely whether they
think it is more likely than not that he committed the crime. The
prosecution must establish, not absolutely but beyond reasonable
doubt, that the defendant is guilty.
There is a good reason for this inequality, and it has to do with
the uncertainty of the situation and the consequences of taking a
wrong decision. The defendant may be guilty or not and he may be
found guilty or not. If he is guilty and convicted, then justice
has been done, as it has if he is innocent and found not guilty.
But suppose the jury reaches the wrong verdict, what then?
That depends on which of the two possible errors was made. If the
defendant actually committed the crime but is found not guilty,
then a crime goes unpunished. The other possibility is that the
defendant is wrongly convicted of a crime, in which case his whole
life may be ruined. Neither of these outcomes is satisfactory, but
society has decided that the second is so much worse than the
first that we should do as much as we reasonably can to avoid it.
It is better, so the saying goes, that a hundred guilty men should
go free than that one innocent man should be convicted.
In any situation in which there is uncertainty, mistakes will
occur. Our aim must be to minimise the damage that results when
they do.
Just as society does not require a defendant to prove his
innocence, so it should not require objectors to prove that a
technology is harmful. It is up to those who want to introduce
something new to prove, not with certainty but beyond reasonable
doubt, that it is safe. Society balances the trial in favour of
the defendant because we believe that convicting an innocent
person is far worse than failing to convict someone who is
actually guilty. In the same way, we should balance the decision
on risks and hazards in favour of safety, especially in those
cases where the damage, should it occur, is serious and
irredeemable.
The objectors must bring forward evidence that stands up to
scrutiny, but they do not have to prove there are serious dangers.
The burden of proof is on the innovators.
The Misuse of Statistics
You have an antique coin that you want to use for deciding who
will go first in a game, but you are worried that it might be
biased in favour of heads. You toss it three times, and it comes
down heads every time. Naturally, this does nothing to reassure
you. Then along comes someone who claims to know about statistics.
He carries out a short calculation and informs you that as the
"p-value" is 0.125, you have nothing to worry about. The coin is
not biased.
Now this must strike you as nonsense, even if you don't understand
statistics. Surely if a coin comes down heads three times in a
row, that can't prove it is unbiased? No, of course it can't. But
this sort of reasoning is being used to prove that GM technology
is safe.
The fallacy, and it is a fallacy, comes about through either a
misunderstanding of statistics or a total neglect of the
precautionary principle -- or, more likely, both. In brief, people
are claiming to have proven that something is safe when what they
have actually done is to fail to prove that it is unsafe. It's the
mathematical way of claiming that absence of evidence is the same
as evidence of absence.
To see how this comes about, we have to appreciate the difference
between biological and other kinds of scientific evidence. Most
experiments in physics and chemistry are relatively clear cut. If
we want to know what will happen if we mix copper and sulphuric
acid, we really only have to try it once. We may repeat the
experiment to make sure it worked properly, but we expect to get
the same result, even to the amount of hydrogen that is produced
from a given amount of copper and acid.
Organisms, however, vary considerably and don't behave in closely
predictable ways. If we spread fertiliser on a field, not every
plant will increase its growth by the same amount, and if we cross
two lines of maize, not all the resulting seeds will be the same.
We often have to use some sort of statistical argument to tell us
whether what we have observed represents a real effect or is
merely due to chance.
The details of the argument will vary depending on exactly what it
is we want to establish, but the standard ones follow a similar
pattern.
Suppose that plant breeders have come up with a new variety of
maize and we want to know if it gives a better yield than the old
one. We plant one field with each of them, and we find that the
new variety does actually produce more maize.
That's encouraging, but it doesn't prove anything. After all, even
if we had planted both fields with the old strain, we wouldn't
have expected to get exactly the same yield in both. The apparent
improvement might be just a chance fluctuation.
To help us decide whether the observed effect is real, we carry
out the following calculation. We suppose that the new strain is
actually no better than the old one.
This is called the "null hypothesis" because we assume that
nothing has changed. We then estimate as best we can the
probability that the new strain would perform as well as it did
simply on account of chance. We call this probability the p-value.
Obviously, the smaller the p-value the more likely it is that the
new strain really is better, though we can never be absolutely
certain. What counts as a small enough value of p is arbitrary,
but over the years statisticians have adopted the convention that
if p is less than 5% we should reject the null hypothesis, i.e. we
may infer that the new strain is better. Another way of saying
this is that the increase in yields is `significant'.
Why have statisticians fastened on such a small value? Wouldn't it
be reasonable to say that if there is less than an even chance
(i.e. p=0.5) of such a large increase then we should infer that
the new strain is better?
No, and the reason why not is simple. It's a question of the
burden of proof. Remember that statistics is about taking
decisions in the face of uncertainty. It is a serious business
advising a company to change the variety of seed it produces or a
farmer to switch from one he has grown for years. There could be a
lot to lose if we are wrong. We want to be sure beyond reasonable
doubt that we are right, and that's usually taken to mean a
p-value of 0.05 or less.
Suppose we obtain a p-value of greater than 0.05. What then? We
have failed to prove that the new strain is better. We have not,
however, proved that it is no better, any more than by finding a
defendant not guilty we have proved that he is innocent.
In the example of the antique coin, the null hypothesis was that
the coin was fair. If that were the case, then the probability of
a head on any one throw would be 0.5 so the probability of three
heads in a row would be (0.5)3=0.125. This is greater than 0.05,
so we cannot reject the null hypothesis. Thus we cannot claim that
our experiment has shown the coin to be biased.
Up to that point, the reasoning was correct. Where it went wrong
was in the claim that the experiment has shown the coin to be
fair. It did no such thing.
Yet that is precisely the sort of argument that we see in
scientific papers defending genetic engineering. A recent report
"Absence of toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis pollen to black
swallowtails under field conditions" [3] claims by its title to
have shown that there is no harmful effect. In the discussion
however, the authors state only that there were "no significant
weight differences among larvae as a function of distance from the
corn field or pollen level." In other words, they have only failed
to demonstrate that there is a harmful effect. They have not
proven that there is none.
A second paper [4] claims to show that transgenes in wheat are
stably inherited. The evidence for this is that the "transmission
ratios were shown to be Mendelian in 8 out of 12 lines." In the
accompanying table, however, six of the p-values are less than 0.5
and one is 0.1. That is not sufficient to prove that the genes are
unstable and so inherited in a non-Mendelian way. But it does not
prove they are, which is what was claimed.
The way to decide if the antique coin is biased is to toss it more
times and see what happens. In the case of the safety and
stability of GM crops, more and better experiments should be
carried out.
The Anti-Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle is so obviously common sense that we
might expect it to be universally adopted. That would still leave
room for debate about how big the risks and benefits are likely to
be, especially when those who stand to gain if things go right and
those who stand to lose if they do not are not the same. It is
significant that the corporations are implacably opposed to
proposals that they should be liable for any damage caused by the
products of GM technology. They are demanding a one-way bet: they
pocket any gains and someone else pays for any losses. It also
gives us an idea of how confident they are about the safety of the
technology.
What is harder to understand is why our regulators are still so
reluctant to adopt the precautionary principle. They tend to rely
instead on what we might call the anti-precautionary principle:
When a new technology is proposed, it must be approved unless it
can be shown conclusively to be dangerous. The burden of proof is
not on the innovator; it is on the rest of us.
The most enthusiastic supporter of the anti-precautionary
principle is the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the international
body whose task it is to promote free trade. A country that wants
to restrict or prohibit imports on grounds of safety has to
provide definite proof of hazard, or else be accused of erecting
artificial trade barriers. A recent example is the WTO's judgement
that the European Union's ban on US growth-hormone injected beef
is illegal.
By applying the anti-precautionary principle in the past, we have
allowed corporations to damage our health and our environment
through cigarette smoking, lead in petrol, and high levels of
toxic and radioactive wastes that include hormone disrupters,
carcinogens and mutagens. The costs in human suffering and
environmental degradation and in resources to attempt to put these
right have been very high indeed. Politicians should bear this in
mind.
Conclusion
There is nothing difficult or arcane about the precautionary
principle. It is the same reasoning that is used every day in the
courts and in statistics. More than that, it is just common sense.
If we have genuine doubts about whether something is safe, then we
should not use it until we are convinced it is. And how convinced
we have to be depends on how much we really need it.
As far as GM crops are concerned, the situation is clear. The
world is not short of food. Where people are going hungry it is
because of poverty. Hardly anyone believes that there will be a
real shortage within 25 years, and a recent FAO report predicts
that improvements in conventional agriculture and reductions in
the rate of increase of the world's population will mean we will
continue to be able to feed ourselves indefinitely.
On the other side, there is both direct and indirect evidence that
gene biotechnology may not be safe for health and the environment.
The benefits of GM agriculture remain hypothetical.
We can easily afford a five-year moratorium to support further
research into improving the safety of gene biotechnology and
making it more precise and more effective. We should also use the
time to develop better methods of sustainable farming, organic or
low-input, which do not have the same potentially disastrous
risks.
1. See, for example, S. Holm and J. Harris (Nature, 400 (1999)
398). Compare C.V. Howard & P.T. Saunders (Nature, 401 (1999)
207) and C. Rafffensburger et al. (Nature, 401 (1999)
207-208).
2. We are now told that in the case of tobacco and lead, many in
the industry knew about the hazards long before the public
did. It is not always wise to accept broad and unsupported
assurances about safety from those who have a very strong
interest in continuing the technology.
3. A.R. Wraight et al (2000), "Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences" (early edition). Quite apart from the
use of statistics, it generally requires considerable skill
to design and carry out an experiment to provide a convincing
demonstration that an effect does not occur. It is all too
easy to fail to find something even when it is there.
4. M.E. Cannell et al. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 99
(1999) 772-784.
Biopatents
Human Gene Patenting Roundup
The patenting of the human genome threatens to put the future of
medicine in the hands of a few corporations. Despite the
platitudes expressed in Blair and Clinton's joint declaration and
from the G8 leaders Summit in Japan this July, human gene
patenting has occurred extensively and is being allowed to
continue (See Human Genome, the Biggest Sellout in Human History,
this issue). Companies have been given Carte Blanche to capitalize
on the human genome without adequate public discussion on the
moral and ethical issues involved.
A leading genomics company, Incyte Genomics Inc and Motorola Inc's
`Biochip Systems Unit' have entered a licensing agreement granting
Motorola rights to utilise Incyte's extensive portfolio of
patented gene sequences. Incyte will receive royalties on all
manufactured gene expression chips or bioarrays, developed under
license to Motorola.
Incyte holds more than 500 issued and allowed full-length gene
patents and its sequence database is the world's largest set of
data on the human genome. The database features 120 000 gene
transcripts, including more than 60 000 not commercially available
elsewhere. It is based on gene expression rather than prediction,
and there are nearly six million transcribed sequences derived
from more than 1 200 different tissue libraries, representing more
than 90% of the genes of the human genome. And 4.6 million of
these are the property of Incyte.
Gene patents cover all potential functions of a DNA sequence.
Consequently, owners can demand license fees for any utility as
well as block any new discovered applications. A growing number of
vague and broad patents are being granted without a relevant
description of function. For example, Smithkline Beecham (now
merging with Welcome) holds a patent on the human `psychosis
gene'. This includes the actual DNA sequence and extends to cover
any cells and animals genetically engineered with the gene and any
`medical' tests that would be developed. The company can reap
patent royalties from any discoveries and or creations that uses
the sequence. They claim the gene is involved in controlling a
multitude of traits and behaviours, from schizophrenia to manic
depression.
Heads of three major science organisations in Germany, the Max
Delbruck Centre for Molecular Medicine, the Helmholtx Association
of National Research Centres and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,
have all warned that the granting of broad patents on gene
sequences will stifle research. They urged the German Science
Ministry to explore ways of requiring patent rules that forbid
patents covering all possible applications.
The EU Life Patent Directive 98/44/EC allows patents on genes,
including human genes, plants and animals. It has been under
intense debate throughout Europe and in June the General Assembly
of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg adopted the Resolution
"Biotechnologies" , calling for an immediate moratorium on the
patenting of genes and living organisms, which the Council
considers "inappropriate".
All EU-member states were supposed to transform the Directive into
national law by July 30th 2000, but only two have done so, one of
which is the UK. The large majority of countries have not enacted
it and some have stated they will not transform it, as it stands,
the most recent being German. The Governments of the Netherlands
and Italy are making a challenge against it at the European Court
of Justice and France is arguing that it contradicts French
bio-ethics laws, which forbids the patenting of any part of the
human body.
The controversy stems from the fact that the directive contradicts
itself. On the one hand it states "the sequence or partial
sequence of a gene...cannot by patented." But then it goes on to
state that "an isolated element of the human body...produced by a
technical process... including a gene sequence...can be
patented...even if the structure of this element is identical to
that of a natural element." The council of Europe parliamentarians
called on member states to renegotiate a Directive that allows
patenting of human genes.
This August, G8 Research Ministers met in Bordeaux, on the
initiative of France, Mexico, Brazil, [China] and India to discuss
the problem of patenting in genetics. All agreed that DNA
sequences -- the fundamental data -- must not be patented. They
are discoveries of objects, which exist in nature, not inventions.
Despite all statements to this effect from civil society and
governments, companies engaged in deciphering the human genome do
not defend this principle, they continue to lobby hard for gene
patenting and continue support for the adoption of Directive
98/44/EC.
Sources:
* Press Release, Incyte Genomics, Inc, See
http://www.biospace.com/news_story.cfm?storyID=3375609
* "France protesting EU Directive allowing human gene patents."
Science 23 June 2000 p2115.
* "German agencies sound alarm on risks of broad gene patents"
by Quirin Schiermeier, Nature 406,111(2000)
* "Green Peace welcomes Councils of Europe's call for a
moratorium on patents on life." Green Peace Press Release --
June 30 2000.
* "The Minister of Research Rejects Patents on DNA sequences:
`No one can own a gene'". Interview by Corinne Bensimon.
Biotech Activists July 20 posted by Genetics@gn.apc.org
--AR
USDA to Support Teminator Technology
The three terminator patents, awarded to the Agriculture Research
Service (ARS) and Delta and Pine Land Co (DPL), were discussed at
USDA Biotech Advisory Board Meeting -- July 2000.
A number of nation states and international organisations have
condemned terminator technology, stating it poses unacceptable
environmental, social, and economic consequences that will affect
the world's poorest farmers. It has also been suggested that
terminator is being used as a tool for biological and economic
warfare, designed to influence economic decision-making in foreign
markets.
The board was asked to consider the socio-economic implications in
the deployment of terminator. These included how it would impact
on the way farmers manage their crops from year to year,
especially in developing countries; how it may affect the
agricultural marketing chain and consumers; and whether there are
any scientific question pertaining to adverse environmental
effects?
The closing remarks in the USDA discussion paper on terminator
notes; "A report from the National Academy of Science recommends
support of research...that decrease the potential for the spread
of transgenes into wild populations. Might products resulting in
sterile seed developed under the new terminator patents accomplish
this aim?.....Despite the controversy .... careful consideration
needs to be given to the potential benefits of supporting
licensure by Delta & Pine Land Co." In other words, never mind the
socio-economic considerations, let's use it anyway.
Last year Monsanto's CEO, Bob Shapiro, vowed that Monsanto would
never adopt terminator. But recent reports in the New York Times
reveal Monsanto and its partner Scotts are adopting terminator to
`prevent GM grass pollen jumping from lawn to lawn'. Field trials
show that the pollen can migrate up to 3,000 feet and cannot be
contained.
RAFI's Pat Mooney says it's a classic fifth column strategy to
commercialise terminator technology. The technology is a hot
potato and politically risky for the Gene Giants to embrace
openly, so USDA and other scientific bodies are towing the
industry line by championing so called `environmental benefits'.
Gary Goldberg, CEO of the American Corn Growers Association,
agrees, "The use of taxpayers money to develop terminator is a
giant kick in the teeth to farmers everywhere. Terminator is
designed to solely maximise seed industry profits. In my opinion,
the Biotech Advisory Board should focus on one question; how fast
can USDA ban the technology and abandon its patents?"
Sources:
Discussion Paper on the "Control of Gene Expression" Patents. USDA
Advisory Committee Meeting Jul 26-27,2000.
http://www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/downloads/paper72000.html
July 2000. & "Snakes in the GM grass: Scott says GM grass could be
Greener with Terminator. USDA's Biotech Advisory Board Ruminates
on Terminator." RAFI News Release -- July 2000. www.rafi.org
--AR
Monsanto's Patent Waiver: One Down Thirty - one to Go
In a bid to improve its image, Monsanto Co announced it would
grant free patent licenses to the developers of Golden Rice. Ingo
Potrykus the Swiss Professor who developed the rice was said to be
delighted. Now all he has to do is persuade the other 31
patentees, holding 70 patents in total, to join Monsanto and forgo
their patent rights too.
Potrykus hopes to send-breeding stock to agriculture institutes
later this year, to be crossed with local varieties and planted in
paddies by 2004. But Gary Toenniessen, Director of Food Security
at the Rockerfeller Foundation said that even if all the patent
problems are resolved, there would still be serious barriers to
deploying golden rice around the world. Notable countries have to
be convinced that it poses no treat to their ecology or to human
health.
Sources:
"Monsanto Plans to Offer Rights to its Altered-Rice Technology" By
Christopher Marquis, The New York Times, 4 Aug 2000. & "Monsonto
Offer Patent Waiver" By Justin Gillis, Washington Post, 4 Aug
2000.
--AR
Canadian Court Rules Mammals Can be Patented
In a spit 2-1 decision, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal ruled
in favour of granting a patent to Harvard Medical School for the
oncomouse, genetically engineered to carry a cancer-causing gene.
A 15 year old court battle has raged over whether mother nature or
a Harvard scientist invented the mouse and its offspring. The
trial judge in the earlier decision ruled Harvard invented the
process for inserting a gene into a mouse; they did not invent the
mouse. The decision to grant a patent on a higher life form opens
the door to patenting any non-human life form. The patent extends
to all non-human mammals that might be similarly genetically
engineered, even though Harvard has not performed these
modifications.
The implications for this change in Canadian patent law are
profound. Many nation states opposed to the patenting of life were
hoping this case could strengthen their position at the World
Trade Organisation. Allowing animal patents means that
corporations can impose the same kinds of conditions on livestock
farming as they have on plant agriculture.
There are approximately 250 animal patent applications pending in
the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. RAFI asked Murray
Wilson a spokesperson for the patent commissioner to divulge the
nature of these patents. He said, " Let your mind run wild with
what people could dream up for getting the body of an animal to
do." However, the history of the oncomouse demonstrates that
patents stifle rather than encourage research. Restrictions have
become so limiting on downstream revenues that few scientists are
purchasing or using the oncomouse in their research.
Source:
RAFI Aug 10th 2000. "The mouse that roared on animal pharm:
Canadian court ruled that mammals can be a patented invention."
http://www.rafi.org
--AR
TRIPS Violate Human Rights -- UN Declares
The UN Sub-Commission for the Protection and Promotion of Human
Rights unanimously adopted a resolution calling into question the
impact of the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Agreement on
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) on the human rights of
peoples and communities, including indigenous communities. There
is growing concern that TRIPS is an industry-driven intellectual
property agreement, protecting corporate patents at the expense of
national economic and health concerns. The Commission notes dire
consequences for human rights to food, health and
self-determination if the TRIPS Agreement is implemented in its
current form. The resolution is based on the provisions of both
the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UN
Convention on Biological Diversity.
The TRIPS Agreement, as it stands, violates farmers rights to
save, exchange, re-use and sell seed from their own harvests.
Already in the US Monsanto has employed detectives to find and
prosecute farmers who are harvesting seed from its patented crops.
If such enforcement spreads throughout the world, it would violate
the human rights of millions of farmers who depend on seed
recycling for survival. The TRIPS agreement has shifted the
balance of intellectual property rights away from public interest
and in favour of patent holders. But patent holders rights must be
subordinate to human rights and TRIPS directly violates Article 1
of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that
stipulates;" In no case may a people be deprived of its own means
of subsistence."
Furthermore, TRIPS also requires that all WTO members patent
pharmaceuticals. For countries with a high level of HIV, malaria
and tuberculosis infection and who have not yet developed a
pharmaceutical research base, access to drugs is imperative. Given
the link between patent protection and higher prices for
pharmaceuticals the TRIPS agreement can only be detrimental to
public health and development in general. This resolution comes at
a time of intense questioning by developing country governments on
the interpretation and implementation of the TRIPS agreement.
Furthermore, there have been numerous national and international
civil society alliances calling for TRIPS to be brought into line
with human rights and environmental imperatives, so as to protect
the social function of intellectual property.
Sources:
Press Release, The International NGO Committee on Human Rights in
Trade and Investment (INCHRITI) & Institute of Agriculture and
Trade Policy, August 22, 2000; Human Rights Resolution, Commission
on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the promotion and protection of
human rights, fifty-second session, Agenda item 4. The realisation
of economic, social and cultural rights. Intellectual property
rights and human rights. (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/7)
--AR
Science Bytes
Phasing Out Antibiotics Will Not Reduce Antibiotic Resistance
-- The Irrelevance of Natural Selection
The biotech industry have defended their use of antibiotic
resistance marker genes by claiming that the widespread evolution
of antibiotic resistance is due to the overuse of antibiotics and
that the horizontal transfer of marker genes will not contribute
significantly if both agricultural and medical uses of antibiotics
were curtailed. The story goes that as `selection pressure' for
antibiotic resistance disappears, so will the antibiotic
resistance genes because it `costs' the bacteria to maintain a
useless gene.
Now, a growing body of evidence is proving them wrong. Although
the overuse and abuse of antibiotic may have contributed to the
evolution of high levels of resistance among bacteria associated
with disease, phasing out antibiotics or reducing their usage will
not necessarily reverse the situation.
A comprehensive review published in May [1] presents evidence on
how the functional complexity of the genes frustrates any attempt
to make predictions based on the simplistic assumption that one
gene is responsible for one function. In essence, an antibiotic
resistance gene often serves multiple functions, while many
different genes may contribute to resistance against a single
antibiotic. For example, the gene recA was discovered at least six
times, first as a recombinase, then an inducer of the lambda
virus, a gene regulator, a DNA repair enzyme, a membrane-binding
protein, and finally a mitomycin C resistance gene. Each activity
had to be independently discovered because the unknown activities
could not be deduced from the known.
Aminoglycoside resistances are due to both single enzymes with
multiple resistances as well as multiple enzymes with overlapping
resistances. Among the 17 different classes of aminoglycoside
modifying enzynmes are those that inactivate just 2 antibiotics
(ef, gentamycin and fortimicin by class I (3)-acetyltransferases)
to those that inactivate as many as four (eg, gentamycin,
tobramycin, netilmicin and kanamycin by (6')acetyl transferases,
or kanamycin, neomycin, amikacin and isepamicin by
(3')-phosphoryl-transferases.)
The authors recommend radical change in drug design which do not
depend on killing the bacteria so much as physiologically taming
them to stop doing harm.
Is this a prelude to an even more radical re-think which involves
restoring ecological balance without the use of drugs at all, so
that the bacteria may revert to a non-virulent, non-proliferative
phase [2]?
1. Heinemann, J.A., Ankerbaner, R.G. and Amabile-Cuevas, C.F.
(2000). Do antibiotics maintain antibiotic resistance? Drug
Discovery Today 5, 195-204.
2. See Ho, M.W. (1999). Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare?
2nd ed. Turning the Tide on The Brave New World of Bad
Science and Big Business, Chapter 13, Gateway, Gill &
Macmillan, Dublin.
--MWH
Terminator Gene Product Alert
So far, attention has focussed on the terminator technology
without considering the extremely toxic gene product, barnase,
which could be a major health hazard.
Barnase is the gene product in terminator technology which
prevents harvested seeds from germinating. It is a ribonuclease
(RNAse), an enzyme that breaks down RNA indiscriminately, isolated
from the soil bacterium, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. The enzyme is
normally lethal in the living cell, but is produced in the
bacterium together with an inhibitor. This inhibitor is separated
from the enzyme when it is excreted. Traces of barnase are toxic
to the rat kidney [1] and to human cell lines [2].
In some terminator constructs, Barnase is linked to a plant
promoter active only in the cells of the tapetum ( the sac from
which pollen cells are generated). The pollen cannot develop when
the barnase gene is active ( Us patent 5,723,765 is jointly held
by the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) and Delta and
Pine Company, which for a time considered joining Monsanto). The
terminator technology was designed to control seed production to
benefit seed companies by preventing seed saving. The system has
also been studied for use in seedless fruit production [3].
The barnase component of terminator is also being used to produce
male sterile lines in wheat by introducing promoters from corn or
rice linked to barnase gene [4]. Male sterile lines are used to
produce hybrids which are more uniform than inbred lines and may
also show heterosis (hybrid vigor). Hybrids also benefit seed
producers because saved seeds segregate undesirable progeny.
Several methods have been studied for producing hybrid canola
including the use of barnase.
The most significant question about use of barnase is: do the
crops bearing barnase gene pose any threat to humans or animals?
This question does not seem to have been addressed by those
developing or testing the crops. During seed production, barnase
may be present in dust and debris from the crop and surfaces,
along with groundwater may be contaminated with the toxin. Humans
or animals breathing the plant material may experience severe
toxicity. Normally, for crop generation both the barnase gene and
the gene for a barnase inhibitor are required. It seems likely
that mitotic recombination could easily separate barnase gene from
barnase inhibitor gene. Such complications should not be ignored.
Assuming that commercial hybrids are created , say for example, in
canola, the hybrid crops are likely to produce viable pollen. The
pollen would likely segregate active tapetal barnase producing
some male sterility in weedy relatives and neighboring canola
producers fields. In a sense the hybrid producers would pollute
the crops of neighbors in a severe manner, much like the pollution
of conventional canola from GM pollen in Saskatchewan. Except that
the barnase gene produces a well known toxin active against humans
and animals.
1. Ilinskaya, O and Vamvakas, S (1997). "Nephrotic effect of
bacterial ribonucleases in the isolated and perfused rat
kidney." Toxicology 120, 55-63.
2. Prior, T, Kunwar, S and Pastan, I (1996). "Studies on the
activity of barnase toxins in vitro and in vivo." Biocong
Chem 7, 23-9.
3. Varoquaux, F, Blanvillain, R, Delseny, M and Gallois, P
(2000). "Less is better: new approaches for seedless fruit
production." TIBTECH 18, 233-43.
4. DeBlock, M, Debrouwer, D and Moens, T. (1997). "The
development of a nuclear male sterility system in wheat."
Theor and Appl Gen 95, 125-31.
--JC
More on Instability of Transgenic Lines
Somaclonal variation (SCV) in transgenic plants may slow
incorporation of introduced genes into commercially competitive
cultivars, researchers warn [1]. Somaclonal variation in
transgenic barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) was assessed by comparing
the agronomic characteristics of 44 transgenic lines in the T2
generation to their non-transformed parent (`Golden Promise'). A
second experiment examined the agronomic characteristics of seven
transgenic-derived, `null' lines -- those which were not
transformed -- in the T2 and T4 generations.
Compared to their nontransgenic, noncultured parent, Golden
Promise, most of transgenic lines were shorter, lower yielding,
and had smaller seed, and the variability among individual plants
was higher. The frequency and severity of the observed SCV was
unexpectedly high, and the transformation procedure appeared to
induce greater SCV than tissue culture in the absence of
transformation. Attempts to understand the sources of SCV, and to
modify transformation procedures to reduce the generation of SCV,
should be made, the authors stated.
The publication above deals with a fundamental problem with
genetically modified (GM) crops. In order to make a GM crop for
commercial use, the GM tissue cells are grown up in tissue
culture, from which whole plants are regenerated. During the
culture process and during later generations of selected plants,
genetic variability is rife. Both gene mutation and chromosome
alteration are rampant. There seems to be something about the
laboratory technique and the introduction of transgenes that
causes gene and chromosome instability. The best available
evidence suggest that the technology activates retrotransposons
(retrovirus like gene clusters) that replicate copies that jump
into other chromosomes or regions of a chromosome.
Retrotransposons make up from a few percent to 85% of the genome
of a higher plant. However, it only takes a few retrotransposons
activated from their normally dormant state to cause gene mutation
by insertion or chromosome rearrangement by re- combination
between retrotransposons.
Our comments: Somaclonal variation in transgenic lines is shown to
be due to both tissue culture and the transformation process. It
confirms the inherent instability and unpredictability of
transgenic lines that we have drawn attention to [2], which has
significant implications for the safety of GM crops. As they are
grown in the field, a range of hidden defects may continue to be
generated that lead to toxicities and other untoward, unexpected
side effects. The phenomenon has largely been overlooked in
regulation on the safety of GM crops [3].
1. Bregitzer, P, Halbert, SE, P.G. Lemaux, PG (1998).
"Somaclonal variation in the progeny of transgenic barley."
Theoretical and Applied Genetics 96, 421-425.
2. See Ho, M.W. (1999). Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare?
2nd ed., Gateway, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin.
3. See Ho, M.W. (1999). "Biosafety Alert: submission to TEP on
the molecular genetic characterization required for
commercial approval of transgenic lines", www.i-sis.org.uk, JC &
--MWH
More Trouble for Transgenic Lines
Transgenes are found to be poorly expressed due to premature
poly-adenylation (adding a poly-A tail) to the messenger RNA. The
cry genes that code for the insecticidal crystal proteins of
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have been widely used to develop
insect-resistant transgenic plants. The cry3Ca1 gene has been
reported to code for a crystal protein which is particularly
potent against the Colorado potato beetle (CPB). To explore the
biotechnological potential of cry3Ca1 protein, researchers
introduced this gene into transgenic potato plants under the
control of the CaMV 35S promoter [1].
In the resulting transformants, the cry3Ca1 gene was very poorly
expressed. In fact, no full-length transcript (2300 nt) could be
detected. Instead, only short transcripts of approximately 1100 nt
were observed. Analysis of these short transcripts by Northern
hybridization, RT-PCR (reverse transcription followed by
polymerase chain reaction) as well as by cloning and sequencing
showed that they resulted from premature polyadenylation.
These processing events occurred at four sites within the cry3Ca1
coding region (at positions 652, 669, 914 and 981 relative to the
translation start site). The sites at which premature
polyadenylation took place were not those that showed the highest
degree of identity to the canonical AAUAAA motif. Together with
other recent data, these findings suggest that premature
polyadenylation is an important mechanism which can contribute to
the poor expression of transgenes in a foreign hosts.
Premature polyadenylation occurs when the RNA message is
terminated short of the stop signal, and is then polyadenylated. A
prematurely poly A message without a stop signal might result in
the polyA tail being translated as a string of the amino acid
lysine added to the growing peptide. Such products have problems
being released from ribosomes, and once released, tends to be
destroyed by the final protein processing system. However,
unnatural peptides may also be produced and cause untoward
problems.
Our Comments: Many important findings seem to be ignored in
regulation of GM crops and swept under the carpet in the debate
over GM foods. This paper documents yet another mechanism that
makes transgenic crops unreliable and economically non-viable.
1. Haffani, YZ, Overney, S. Yelle, S, Bellemare, G, and Belzile,
FJ (2000). "Premature polyadenylation contributes to the poor
expression of theBacillus thuringiensis cry3Ca1 gene in
transgenic potato plants," Mol Gen Genet, Published online:
17 June 2000.
--JC
Bt Pollen Lethal to Monarch Butterflies -- Confirmed
A new study from Iowa State University shows Bt corn pollen
naturally deposited on common milkweed in a corn field causes
significant mortality to monarch butterfly larvae [1].
Larvae fed on milkweed plants naturally dusted with Bt pollen
suffered significant higher rates of mortality after 48 hours
exposure compared to larvae fed on leaves with no pollen, or on
leaves with non-Bt pollen.
The highest mortality rates occur on milkweed plants in
corn-fields or within 3 meters of the edge. But quantification of
wind dispersal beyond the edge of fields predicts mortality may be
observed at least 10 meters from Bt corn field borders.
The study also investigated sub-lethal effects and found
continuous exposure to Bt toxin influences developmental time and
adult characteristics to various degrees. The study found
sub-lethal ingestion of Bt toxins caused reduction in adult lipid
levels and may indicate that larva fed less, or did not digest
nutrients efficiently. Migratory adult monarchs rely on lipids for
energy and a lower level of lipids, carried over from the larval
stage, could reduce their ability to reach Mexico. Reduced adult
weight and smaller wing lengths was also observed and similarly
could decrease the ability of adults to complete migration.
Fifty percent of over-wintering adults in Mexico originate from
central US, an area of concentrated corn production. In 1998,
approximately 3.6 million hectares of Bt corn were planted and
predictions are that by 2003, this area will have extended to 12
million hectares (1/3 of total US corn acreage).
The study concludes that because monarch larvae, milkweeds and
transgenic pollen overlap spatially and temporally in the central
US, Bt corn pollen will have a negative effect on monarch larvae.
Larvae developing in late summer will be exposed to Bt pollen for
most of their development and cumulative exposure to Bt toxin
could raise mortality rates even further by preventing successful
migration.
These findings indicate that Bt crops can have adverse effects on
food webs that are not corn and the widespread planting of
transgenic corn represents a significant mortality factor for
non-target species. Ecological impact assessments must be
evaluated more fully before Bt crops are planted over extensive
areas. The US EPA has convened an independent review board to
assess the ecological impact of Bt crops. But they have also
extended licence for plantings until 2002, despite calls for a
ban.
1. Hansen L. C., Obrycki J.J. (2000) Field deposition of Bt
transgenic corn pollen: lethal effects on the monarch
butterfly, Oecologia, published online.
--AR
Book Briefs
Alas Poor Darwin (eds Hilary Rose & Stephen Rose).
London, Jonathan Cape, 2000. ISBN 0-224-06030-9.
Peter T. Saunders
Whatever you read, whether it's the scientific literature, popular
science journals or the daily papers, you are bound to have seen a
lot of articles confidently explaining yet another feature of
human behaviour -- male promiscuity, rape, the fact (if it is one)
that women will go for a man with money and power over one with
youth and good looks, and so on.
These articles are all based on the new scientific discipline
known as evolutionary psychology. It holds that human behaviour
can be decomposed into individual traits and that each of these
has evolved by the natural selection of genetic mutations. If we
want to know why women are more patient than men and less likely
to succeed in business, we have to find the adaptive significance
of these traits, i.e. we have to imagine why they would help women
(but not men) to survive and leave more offspring. More precisely,
because biological evolution is too slow for there to have been
any significant changes over the last few millennia, we have to
make up a story of why these traits would have been advantageous
in the Pleistocene era.
The idea that human behaviour can be explained by natural
selection is very old; in fact, social Darwinism is actually older
than Darwinism. But it became much more influential about 25 years
ago, with the publication of E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology.
Evolutionary psychology purports to be different from sociobiology
(and some of its critics, including the editors of this volume,
agree) but it is really very much the same. The difference is
largely that sociobiologists write of genes for behavioural traits
whereas the evolutionary psychologists generally refer to
mechanisms. Since, however, the mechanisms are assumed to be
determined by genes and since all we are told about them is that
they somehow transmit the influence of the genes to create
behavioural traits, for all practical purposes there is no
difference.
It's not hard to see why evolutionary psychology is so
fashionable. It makes excellent material for the Sunday papers,
who naturally prefer a complete and easily understood story. It's
also very good professionally for its proponents because it is
relatively easy to produce a large number of papers and to turn
very ordinary work into something that looks very significant.
Only a very few biologists would read a paper on the mating
behaviour of the scorpion fly, but turn the work into a
"generalised rape hypothesis" and it's bound to attract a lot of
attention.
The only trouble is that the theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Actually, we might have expected that. In science as in politics
we can be sure that every complicated question has a simple answer
-- and that the simple answer is almost always wrong. But to see
that the theory doesn't work we have to look carefully at it, to
see whether its assumptions are correct, or at least plausible, or
in some cases whether they even make any sense at all. We have to
compare its predictions with what we actually observe, not when we
glance quickly at the phenomena but when we look at them closely
and with the eyes of experts accustomed to studying human and
animal behaviour.
That was why Charles Jencks, himself well known as an architect
and a commentator on post modernism, organised the seminar from
which this volume is taken. He brought together workers in many
disciplines, each bringing a different expertise to the issue. The
result is a powerful critique in which the assumptions and claims
of evolutionary psychology are studied one by one and refuted.
Thus, molecular biologist Gabriel Dover describes how the modern
genetics demolishes the simplistic picture of the gene and its
functioning which evolutionary psychologists assume. The
philosopher Mary Midgely explains that because thought and culture
are patterns, not stuff, they cannot be granular, i.e. not only do
memes (the supposed unit of culture) not exist, they are not even
the sort of thing that could exist. The psychologist Annette
Karmiloff-Smith shows how the "Swiss Army Knife" view of the mind
(that it consists of a very large number of distinct modules, each
suited to its particular task) is contradicted by studies of
infant and child development. The ethologist Patrick Bateson
describes how evolutionary psychology has fallen into the same
sort of trap that ethology was caught in -- and extricated itself
from -- years ago. And so on.
In the introduction, Hilary and Stephen Rose point out that
evolutionary psychology is just one of a number of examples of
what they call a present-day intellectual myth. There are also
evolutionary medicine, psychology, economics, psychiatry, ... even
physics. And of course there is the parent subject, evolutionary
(i.e. neo-Darwinist) biology. Their supporters see them as linked,
each gaining strength from the successes (as they see them) of the
others. As Daniel Dennett has put it in his book Darwin's
Dangerous Idea, natural selection is like a universal solvent,
applicable to all subjects and cutting through the misconceptions
in each.
But if this theory is supposed to have the same sort of effect on
every subject it touches, then if it fails in one we may expect it
to fail in the others as well. And sure enough, when you look
closely at any of them, evolutionary biology included, you see the
same shortcomings. The same simplistic arguments, the same
unjustified assumptions, the same willingness to accept Just So
Stories as though they were rigorous arguments backed up by solid
evidence. The courtiers' new clothes are no more substantial than
the emperor's.
This is only hinted at in the book, which may leave the reader
with the impression that evolutionary psychology is the one
unsatisfactory application of a basically sound theory. If that
were so, we might expect that some day its shortcomings will be
rectified and there will be a legitimate evolutionary psychology
with natural selection at its core, just as some critics of
sociobiology reject what they call `pop sociobiology' while
holding that the enterprise itself is valid. Only when we
recognise the defects in the project as a whole will we accept
that there is no way forward for evolutionary psychology.
That doesn't apply only to subjects that have the word
`evolutionary' in their titles. Genetic engineering also depends
on the assumption that an organism can be decomposed into separate
traits, each determined by a single gene. If that were true, could
we identify and locate the gene for a desired trait and transfer
it to another organism, and be confident that when we have done
this we will have transferred the trait and nothing more. Because
it is not true, the whole enterprise is more complicated and more
hazardous than its proponents admit. Alas Poor Darwin provides
further evidence for this, even if neither the editors nor the
authors appear to be aware of it.
Where Next -- Reflections on the Human Future
Duncan Poore, ed. Royal Botanical Gardens Kew, 2000. ISBN
1-84246-000-5
Angela Ryan
This book is a collection of thought provoking essays written by a
group of scholars going by the name of `The New Renaissance Group'
which include many eminent people. It elaborates on the general
theme that our global ecological pandominance has created a
growing imbalance with nature, and our present attitudes and
institutions are ill-suited to deal with the nature and scale of
the problems.
`Where Next?' provides a comprehensive discussion of the urgent
issues of our time in relation to human potential and the options
available to us. It draws widely from philosophy, science,
economics, ecology, sociology, law, entrepreneurial skills and
international relations.
The book is a valuable study of the connections and
interdependencies between different disciplines. It documents a
lot of evidence showing that although `sustainable development'
has been the guiding principle of environmental policy for the
last quarter of the 20th century, much `development' has been
going on with very little `sustainability'. It focuses on
solutions and follows through with well-developed ideas for
sustainable development. The reader is constantly reminded that
this is a matter of human will, and in this sense, the book is a
powerful intellectual catalyst for action.
One half of the world's population -- 3 billion people - are stuck
in a cycle of poverty, deprivation, marginalization and exclusion,
especially from the global economy. We still have major conflicts
over land and water, especially in parts of the tropics. Frequent
environmental disasters caused by climate change have given rise
to a steady increase in the numbers of environmental refugees the
world over. Our `high-tech' culture promotes the continuing
replacement of artefacts with the `latest' model regardless of
need. The numerous and costly environmental side effects have been
left out of the equation, "externalising" the costs to be borne by
society at large or by future generations. We are presently
throwing away our natural capital by allowing so many biological
species to become extinct.
E M Nicholson explains what the New Renaissance Group stands for
and the four areas for action that they consider of paramount
importance for the decades to come. These are: knowing and
understanding the natural world; achieving full harmony between
people and nature; achieving harmony among all members of the
human species, and all human communities worldwide; and achieving
a transcendent harmony with the eternal realm beyond us, both
philosophic and religious.
They argue for a new agenda for the 21st century that embraces all
these areas and works within the framework of evolutionary
humanism. In other words, an agenda that works for both humanity
and nature.
The intellectual capacity of the human mind is marveled at by a
number of authors and one cannot deny that science has given us
great insights into nature. However, we do seem unable to
safeguard our biological future and are taking huge risks with our
basic life support systems. At least over climate and ecology,
there is no doubt that we are witnessing the consequence of
massive and potentially dangerous human interference. The most
daunting question is: Will science succeed?
This book is optimistic, in part, and there is a strong belief in
the scientific skills of humanity which could resolve many of our
dire ecological problems. The way ahead is to apply the knowledge
of ecology to the conservation of natural resources. However, as
our problems are world-scale, it is suggested that this should be
the job of a new international professional science body. It goes
on to stress that the right sorts of scientists have to be sought
and brought together to make such a body, and moreover they must
be empowered and allowed to hold positions of great influence,
especially in the realms of world governance.
Powerful financial and commercial interests have escaped control
in many parts of the world and have shown no appreciation or
understanding for the biosphere. Intensive agriculture, forestry,
hydro-power schemes and the expansion of cities have all ridden
rough shod over the scientific and academic establishment, who
have been largely powerless to stop such abuses. The deep
educational and cultural gulf between science and other subjects
has remained unbridged, despite all prior warnings, and this must
change immediately.
David Flemming argues for the lean economy and how economics as a
discipline needs transforming if it is to contribute towards a new
sustainable world economy, regulated by an honest and sound global
house-keeping of real resources. What is needed is an urgent
rethink of the relationship between the market economy and its
environment. Strong political leadership is required that has a
clear vision and knows what it is trying to do.
Robert Goodland compares environmental sustainability with human,
social and economic sustainability and explains why it must be
first on the list of priorities. Environmental sustainability
concerns the maintenance of natural capital and can provide us
with strong sustainability, as opposed to weak, and there is a big
difference between the two.
Ashok Koasla argues that sustainable livelihoods must be the
single most important point of the new millennium. It is the
central issue facing society, North and South, East and West. By
creating large numbers of sustainable livelihoods the world over,
the extremes of wealth and poverty that are having a massive
effect on the development of sustainability can be addressed. He
rightly argues that for any human developmental process to be
sustainable, it must be equitable, efficient, ecological and
empowering for all.
David Goode points out that it might be possible for the
development of Cities to act as a measure of sustainability.
Growing cities in the south must develop in ways that demand less
from global resources and yet can still provide a high quality of
life. This would also give a valuable lead to the north in the
search for solutions.
A consideration of contemporary order, peace and conflict is given
ample room in this book. Sir Shridath Ramphal discusses how the
advance of a sole superpower - American capitalism and American
media -- has had a major influence on world governance at the end
of the 20th Century. In fact, the pre-eminence of the United
States is a defining characteristic of our times. An isolationist
US that shuns global involvement harms the functioning of the
world community as a whole.
A sense of shared values on the global stage -- a global
neighbourhood ethic -- to which everyone can comfortably
subscribe, is what's needed. But such a pluralistic vision
necessitates a central role for law, and N E Simmonds writes a
very interesting chapter on the dissolution of law. Law is defined
as being a product of human authority and will, it is poised
between reason and willingness and also exists in the tensions
between past and future. A not so obvious feature of modern
society is that our law -- rather than being a framework of rules
within which social life is conducted and the limits to
competitive self seeking are set -- has become a resource over
which contending parties struggle. Moreover, there is no
willingness at present to face up to the political landscape that
this problem presents, and this will stunt the growth of new
ecological initiatives.
Now is the time for a re-launch of ecology and for moving towards
a universal ecology, grounded in widely held philosophical
principles. A new universal ecology could provide people
everywhere with a framework in which to fulfil themselves in new
ways, opening the door to `The New Renaissance'.
Towards the end of this exceptional book, Martin Palmer writes on
the practice of conservation by religions. The hope is that we can
journey together towards a world in which the whole of life is
loved, respected and appreciated.
New Postings on ISIS Website
* ISIS Sustainable Science Audit #2 Xenotransplantation: How
bad science and big business put the world at risk from viral
pandemics, by Mae-Wan Ho and Joe Cummins
* The scientific advice that the FDA ignored - a compilation,
by Angela Ryan
* Human genome--The biggest sellout in human history, by
Mae-Wan Ho
* Horizontal gene transfer -- hidden hazards of genetic
engineering, by Mae-Wan Ho
* CaMV promoter fragmentation hotspot confirmed and it is
active in animals, by Mae-Wan Ho, Angela Ryan and Joe Cummins
* The organic revolution in science and implications for
science and spirituality, by Mae-Wan Ho
* World Scientists' Open Letter and full list of up-to-date
signatories
If you like to receive ISIS news on a regular basis, in electronic
or hardcopy form, please let us know. Sign on to our mailing list
at www.i-sis.org.uk for an electonic copy emailed directly to you.
This is available to everyone free of charge (except for postage
for mailing the hardcopy).
We are a not-for-profit organization, and our survival depends on
donations and subscriptions. Subcriptions or donations of any
amount starting from $20 or £10 will be much appreciated.
Please make donations by cheque, payable to `Institute of Science
in Society', and send to:
Mae-Wan Ho
Institute of Science in Society
C/O Department of Biological Sciences
Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
Bucks
MK6 2PW
United Kingdom
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------
mirrored in California inside:
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/MaeWanHo/