Genetic dance of life
| The Independent Science Panel (ISP) is a panel of scientists from many disciplines, committed to the Promotion of Science for the Public Good. Read our statement here |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taken from New Straits Times, Wendesday March 3rd 2004 Cover Story: Genetic dance of lifeElizabeth JohnFebuary 29th, 2004 ELIZABETH JOHN presents views from three people who followed this debate and have been doing so since it first became an issue. Genetic engineering. That amazing technology that allows you toisolate genetic material from one organism and introduce it into another. It has given the world unique things like seeds that produce their own insecticide, making them resistant to pests. But it has also spurred one of the greatest debates of our times - a debate that stems from fears that we are short-circuiting evolution, creating what it took nature millions of years to build, with potentially dangerous and unknown consequences. One of the major areas of contention has been the use of genetic modification to produce crops and the use of these, in turn, in the production of food for humans and animals. It's a tough fight because these crops are widely cultivated. Global demand for genetically modified seeds is expected to grow 13 per cent annually to nearly US$3 billion (RM11.4 billion) in US, Canada and Argentina. Arable land devoted to such crops is expected to reach more than 62 million hectares over the same period. It's a tough fight because worrying signs are beginning to appear that the environment, people and animals could be adversely affected by these new creations. Scientific advances have also shown that our understanding of the working of genes is still in its infancy and we have even less knowledge of how to control it. The debate came to a head last week as nations attending the First Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety discussed the way forward in regulating the movement of genetically modified organisms around the world. DEBATING GENETICS: A biologist in Germany holds a genetically transformed tomato plant. It was created with a safety lock to stop the release of transformed genes into the environment through the pollen. Such developments address concerns about effects genetically modified plants may have on the environment. PROFESSOR Ho Mae-Wan wants scientists to take the whole idea of genetic modification back to the drawing board. Here is part of the reason why. For the longest time, the world has held the belief that genetic information flows one way - from DNA to RNA to proteins, and by implication, to the characteristic determined by that protein. DNA is the molecule that carries genetic information to RNA. The RNA transmits information from DNA into protein. Proteins play a part in the structure, function, and regulation of the body's
cells, tissues, and organs. Each protein has unique functions. The basic idea in this theory is that genes determine characters in a straightforward way: one gene, one protein, one character. What scientists like Ho and others are saying is that things are not at all static. Scientific information has emerged over the years showing that information flows are far more complex, genes are subject to many changes and the environment outside can direct what genes do and change the structure of the genes themselves. We are only beginning to understand how all parts of an organism function and communicate. The problem is that genetic engineering was inspired by the old premise of a one-way genetic information flow, Ho says. In genetic engineering, genetic material from one organism is cut and rearranged to make new combinations. Copies of this new material are then made and transferred to other organisms. Simple, find a gene whose characteristics you like and insert it into another organism which will then exhibit those characteristics. Not so, Ho says. If you put one new gene into an organism, you change everything else around it and you cannot predict how it will change. There is no control where you put it in and evidence is emerging that you cannot keep it where you put it in the first place. But what does it all mean for genetically engineered plants and seeds we now
use as crops? Last year, French government scientists analysed According to Ho, in practically every case they discovered that these inserts had rearranged themselves and their structures had changed from what was intended. They just weren't stable, she said. Another issue of concern lies in something called the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) promoter. Ho explains that a gene is never transferred alone. Each gene i accompanied by a special piece of regulatory genetic material called the promoter. It signals a cell to turn the gene on. At the end of the gene, a terminator stops this action. When a foreign gene is introduced into any organism, it is not easy for this gene to express itself. It needs a very aggressive promoter. One such is the CaMV promoter. It has became widely used in commercial GM crops and it has been discovered that the promoter has a tendency to break away. "What you then have is a piece of loose DNA and that is like a loose cannon," she says. "This is because the point at which the break occurs, is also the point at which the promoter can recombine with another gene and make that gene express its characteristic in a very aggressive way. "The promoter is very aggressive and active in animal and human cells and there is a real possibility that it could trigger cancer by making certain oncogenes over-express." Painting the simplest picture possible of the entire situation, Ho says: "There is a dance of life going on in the organism with all parts intercommunicating and perfectly coordinated. "The genes are playing musical chairs in the genome. Along comes the rogue piece of transgenic DNA that does not know the score, shouting non-stop at the top of its voice because it has a powerful amplifier and has a tendency to run amok. "That is the extent of mayhem caused." She is not asking that the science be abandoned, but only that more research is done to ensure the stability of transgenes. Until that is certain, there should be no commercial growing of GM crops, she says. Mice, chicken and cows have all been harmed by GM crops and it would be criminal to ignore the evidence, she adds. She also cautions developing countries to be wary of science they receive from the developed countries. They should not have an inferiority complex about their own wealth of knowledge
or their abilities to figure things out for themselves. |
email: info@indsp.org |
© 2003 Independent Science Panel