Book Review

Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare?
Mae-Wan Ho, Dublin: Gateway, 2nd ed., 1999; xiii + 385 pages, ISBN
0-7171-2980-2, paperback, EUR 13.59

David Pratt

In this controversial and hard-hitting book, geneticist and
biophysicist Mae-Wan Ho argues that genetic-engineering biotechnology
is bad science working with big business for quick profit, against the
public good. Her in-depth study exposes the serious hazards it presents
to human and animal health and the ecological environment -- hazards
that are still largely ignored by practitioners and regulators alike.
Genetic engineering is a set of techniques for isolating,
modifying, multiplying, and recombining genes from different organisms.
It uses viruses and other infectious agents to smuggle genes into cells
that would otherwise reject them, and enables genes to be transferred
horizontally between species that would never interbreed in nature. For
instance, a fish gene can be transferred to tomatoes, and human genes
can be transferred to sheep, pigs, or bacteria. The insertion of
foreign genes into a host genome* has long been known to have harmful
and even fatal effects, as the transferred genes can recombine with
other genes to generate new combinations that may cause disease,
including cancer.

*A genome is the totality of the genetic material of a cell or
organism.
Ho writes:

Genetic engineering is inherently hazardous, because it depends on
designing artificial vectors to cross all species barriers, greatly
increasing the potential for generating new viral and bacterial
pathogens by horizontal gene transfer and recombination. This very
danger persuaded the first genetic engineers to declare a moratorium on
their own work in 1975; but pressures to go ahead with commercial
exploitation led to regulatory guidelines that were drawn up largely on
the basis of assumptions. Every one of those assumptions has since been
invalidated by scientific findings. (p. 168)
Genetic engineering is based on genetic determinism -- the belief
that organisms are determined solely by their genetic makeup. It is
assumed that each trait of an organism is controlled by a separate
gene, that by changing a gene we can change the corresponding trait,
and that by transferring the gene we can transfer the trait. However,
it is becoming increasingly clear that instead of one gene determining
one characteristic, genes work together as a complex, interacting
network. And instead of being stable and unchanging, genes and genomes
are dynamic and fluid; DNA sequences can undergo mutations,
rearrangements, deletions, insertions, conversions, duplications, and
amplifications. Ho adds:

There is, furthermore, no constant 'genetic program' or blueprint for
making the organism, as the genes and the genome itself can also change
during development. ... Heredity ... is the property not so much of the
genes as of the whole system of the organism within its ecological
environment. ... [O]ur fate is written neither in the stars nor in our
genes, for we are active participants in the evolutionary drama. (p.
65)
The mismatch between the genetic-engineering mentality and
scientific reality explains why genetic-engineering biotechnology not
only fails to deliver its promises but also poses such risks.
Unexpected toxins and allergens have arisen as side effects in
genetically engineered plants and microorganisms. The success rate in
creating desired transgenic organisms is low, and very sick, monstrous
animals have resulted from having a single gene introduced. A
genetically engineered soil bacterium, thought to be quite harmless,
turned out to drastically inhibit the growth of wheat seedlings. Pigs
engineered with a human growth hormone gene to make them grow faster
turned out to be arthritic, ulcerous, partially blind, and impotent.
Although the biotech industry tries to play down the many failures, it
is encountering widespread opposition in rich and poor countries alike.

The biotech industry, says Ho, 'is still peddling dreams: cure for
cancer, designer babies, cloning, and other means to immortality' (p.
54). She relates that, following a debate on genetic engineering, the
chief executive officer of a biotech company confessed to her that he
wasn't too happy about biotechnology, but was unable to do anything as
it was the system, and mortgages had to be paid. He was coping by
practising transcendental meditation -- unlike his colleagues, most of
whom were on Prozac!

It is claimed that agricultural biotechnology will be able to 'feed
the world'. Crops allegedly need to be genetically modified to make
them resistant to herbicides, pests, and disease, to improve their
nutritional value and shelf life, and to bring about drought
resistance, frost resistance, and increased yield. The truth is that
there is already enough food to feed the world's population
one-and-a-half times over. Malnutrition stems mainly from poverty and
an inequitable global economic system rather than overpopulation or
deficiencies in natural crops.

Far from providing cheaper food for all, genetically modified crops
will strengthen the corporate monopoly on food production and
distribution, and further undermine the livelihood of family farmers
all over the world, as well as posing risks to human and animal health.
Giant corporations are busy patenting living organisms and their genes
in the interests of profit-making, so that farmers have to pay
royalties on patented seeds. 'At the same time,' says Ho, 'the use of
toxic, wide-spectrum herbicides with herbicide-resistant transgenic
crops will result in the irretrievable loss of the indigenous
agricultural and natural biological diversity on which food security
depends' (p. 147). Resistance campaigns against agricultural
biotechnology are under way in many countries, accompanied by efforts
to revive sustainable, organic farming.

Microbes are everywhere, including in the air we breathe, on our
skin, and in our bodies. Most of the time they have a benign, balanced
relationship with us, but if that balance is disturbed, they can turn
virulent and cause debilitating or lethal diseases. And when we wage
war on them with a succession of increasingly potent drugs and
antibiotics, they may counter by increasing the mutation rates in those
genes that will eventually give them resistance against the drugs or
antibiotics. It is the prodigious power of microbes to proliferate, and
the ability of their genes to jump, spread, mutate, and recombine that
make genetic-engineering biotechnology so hazardous. And antibiotics
seem to act like a sex hormone for bacteria, enhancing mating and the
exchange of genes between unrelated species.

Drug-resistant and antibiotic-resistant infectious diseases account
for a third of all the deaths in the world, the biggest killers being
TB, hepatitis B, and AIDS. Such diseases have been increasing
dramatically over the past 20 years, coinciding with the development of
commercial genetic-engineering biotechnology. Ho writes:

The evidence is overwhelming that horizontal gene transfer across
species barriers is responsible for creating new viral and bacterial
pathogens and for spreading drug-resistance and antibiotic-resistance.
.... We may already be experiencing the prelude to a nightmare of
uncontrollable, untreatable epidemics of infectious diseases. (p. 168)
It has been proposed that herds of transgenic animals could be
cloned to supply proteins, blood, and organs for human use. Dolly the
sheep -- hailed as the first mammal 'clone' -- was produced in 1997 by
the technique of nuclear transplantation: basically, the nucleus of an
egg from one adult sheep was removed and replaced with that of an egg
from another sheep, and the developing egg was later transferred to the
womb of a surrogate mother sheep. Strictly speaking, Dolly was not a
real clone at all, as small and large changes in DNA are now known to
occur both as part of normal development and in response to
environmental factors. Furthermore, an inserted gene can
inappropriately turn host genes off, scramble host genomes, or cause
cancer. That is why such a large number of abnormal embryos result from
transplanted nuclei. In the case of Dolly, nearly 300 embryos had to be
manipulated to produce one success. Ho says that this technique 'is not
the best way to generate identical clones but to generate monstrous
failures. It is irresponsible and unethical to claim otherwise' (p.
201).

Dolly the clone -- who was put to sleep in February 2003, at the age of
6 (barely 40 in human terms), as she was suffering from arthritis and
lung disease.
*About 98%% of cloning efforts fail. *Cloned embryos usually die before
birth. *Most of the survivors have potentially fatal heart or lung
problems or diseases like diabetes. (news.bbc.co.uk)

Mice made transgenic with mutant human genes are widely used to
serve as models of human diseases. The most notorious is the
'oncomouse', designed to develop cancer. However, mice engineered to
carry a mutation in a gene that predisposes humans to tumours in the
retina of the eye did not show any such symptoms, while those
manipulated to have Gaucher's disease died within a day of birth. In
other words, putting single human genes into a completely different
genetic background can have unpredictable effects. Another project that
has gained considerable momentum is xenotransplantation, the
transplanting of organs of other species into human beings. There is
already a lucrative international trade in human body parts. Ho
comments:

The cloning and 'pharming' of livestock, the creation of transgenic
animals for xenotransplantation and to serve as animal models of human
diseases, are all scientifically flawed and morally unjustifiable. They
also carry inherent hazards in facilitating cross-species exchange and
the recombination of viral pathogens. These projects ought not to be
allowed to continue without a full public review. (p. 218)
The cloning of humans has also been proposed. Human embryos created
like Dolly would be grown until important cells could be extracted from
the embryo and used to treat human diseases. During the work, the
embryo would die, while the companies holding patents on the techniques
used would make lots of money. One scientist suggested that the ethical
objections could be overcome by creating headless human embryos who
would not be able to suffer! Ho points out that there are far better
ways of generating replacement tissues and organs by using the
patient's own cells.

In China, couples planning to marry are required by law to undergo
genetic screening. If they are found to suffer from genetic diseases,
marriage is allowed only if the couple agree to long-term contraception
or sterilization. China has also legislated for the compulsory
termination of pregnancies diagnosed positive for genetic diseases.

In the West, genetic screening, including prenatal genetic
screening and gene replacement therapy, are already widely available.
The hunt goes on for genes that supposedly 'predispose' people to
diseases such as cancer, diabetes, asthma and allergies, and to
'conditions' such as obesity, manic depression, schizophrenia,
alcoholism, homosexuality, criminality, and even attributes such as
longevity and novelty-seeking. Despite some sensational newspaper
headlines, the links between certain genes and such conditions are
generally very tenuous. And even if certain conditions are associated
with biochemical or anatomical differences, this does not tell us
whether these differences are their cause or their consequence.

Ho warns:

If screening is eventually going to be applied to 'predisposing' genes
and to genes whose connection with dubious conditions is increasingly
tenuous, we shall slip insensibly into an era of human genetic
engineering dictated purely by corporate interests. This will lead to
the exploitation of the sick and the gullible for profit, at the same
time giving rein to the worst excesses of human prejudices. ...
Genetic discrimination and eugenics are being privatised and
depersonalised and are therefore much more insidious than the
state-sanctioned forms, because they cannot be effectively opposed.
They are being promoted under the banner of scientific progress and
free choice. (pp. 219, 222)
Genetic tests are actually poor predictors for the condition of any
individual; the same gene will have different effects from individual
to individual because their other genes are different. Genes associated
with certain conditions in one population turn out to have no
associations at all in another. There appears to be no such thing as a
genuine single-gene disease, as the expression of each gene is
entangled with that of every other. Biologists, says Ho,

are stuck in the mechanistic era, refusing to see the reality of
organisms as irreducible wholes within which genes (and genomes) are
mutable and mobile as they respond to their cellular and physiological
milieu, which is ultimately connected to the external ecological and
social environment. (pp. 244-5)
Geneticists claim to have identified a mutation in a gene that
causes aggressive behaviour and may be implicated in attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in young children, conduct disorder in
adolescents, and anti-social personality disorder in adults. One
scientist even suggested that six-year-olds diagnosed with ADHD might
be saved from a criminal career if they were given prophylactic drug
treatment. As Ho says, 'branding a child a potential criminal on
account of its genes is simply to relinquish responsibility for its
care and proper upbringing' (pp. 223-4). Prenatal diagnosis may well
lead to a growing number of 'therapeutic' abortions. For instance,
positive tests for a condition known as PKU, which causes severe mental
retardation, have already created social pressures on parents to abort
the fetus, whether they wish to do so or not.

Despite all the promises, attempts at gene replacement therapy have
been uniformly unsuccessful and pose unacceptable hazards for patients.

The design of more aggressive gene transfer vectors introduces further
risks from the genetic recombination of vectors with viruses to
generate new disease-causing viruses. Recombination between viruses
coming from the environment and those in the organism is strongly
implicated in many cancers in animals. Similar hazards also arise in
the proposed use of modified viral DNA as vaccines and in the
xenotransplantation of organs. (p. 243)
Most recent developments of gene technology are commercially
driven. The same chemical and drug industries that have been major
polluters of the environment and have damaged public health are now set
to reap enormous profits. Furthermore:

Genetic-engineering biotechnology diverts attention and resources from
the overwhelming causes of ill-health, which are environmental, and
blames the victims. The key to genetic health is precisely the same as
the key to physiological health: an unpolluted environment, wholesome
organic foods free from agrochemicals, and sanitary, socially
acceptable and aesthetically satisfying living conditions. (p. 243)
Mae-Wan Ho rejects the simplistic neo-Darwinian theory that
evolution occurs mainly by the natural selection of rare random genetic
mutations. A neo-Darwinian explanation typically starts by identifying
a characteristic that is assumed to be controlled by a gene. If an
organism possesses the characteristic, this is said to be because it
confers a selective advantage and has therefore been 'selected for',
and if the organism does not possess the characteristic, this is
because it confers a selective disadvantage and has been 'selected
against'. Ho comments:

Neo-Darwinian explanations, in purporting to explain everything,
ultimately explain nothing, because there is no independent
verification of the 'adaptive story' that must be invented to 'explain'
how the characteristic is selected for or against. (pp. 89-90)
The link between genes and characteristics is usually far from
straightforward. What we do know about genes is that they regulate the
synthesis of different proteins. It is a big conceptual jump from that
to the characteristics of organisms. Moreover, it is one thing to name
a characteristic such as hair colour or eye colour; it is quite another
to say that there is a characteristic called 'aggression', for
instance. Ho states:

Animals may engage in aggressive acts, but that does not mean there is
a characteristic called aggression ... To invent a characteristic and,
on top of that, a gene determining it is to commit the fallacy of
reification -- mistaking processes for things. There may be many
mutations in many genes that affect a person's ability to read or speak
or remember things, but that does not mean there are genes for reading,
speech, or memory. Even in the case of the bodily form of organisms --
their morphology -- there are no theoretical or conceptual grounds
justifying the separation of a characteristic from the interconnected
whole that is the organism. (p. 89)
Scientists have discovered that whereas genetic variation is
accumulating between different species, within a species all the copies
of a particular gene that make up a multigene family tend towards
uniformity.

It is as though some invisible hand is keeping all the gene sequences
the same throughout the course of evolution. What is responsible for
this 'concerted evolution' of sequences, many of them dispersed
throughout the genome? (p. 126)
One scientist sparked controversy by calling this phenomenon 'molecular
drive', on the grounds that it drives evolution much more substantially
and rapidly than natural selection.

The 'central dogma' of molecular biology states that DNA makes RNA
makes protein in a one-way information flow, and no reverse information
flow is possible. Environmentally induced modifications in the
characteristics of somatic cells* supposedly do not affect the DNA and
cannot be inherited. There is abundant evidence that this dogma is
false. Environmental influences and experiences in the lifetime of the
organism can directly affect its genes, particularly in the germ cells,
and 'acquired characteristics' can be inherited.

*Somatic cells are any body cells except for reproductive (or germ)
cells.
According to Ho, 'the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly against
the idea that mutations are random, in the sense that they are not
correlated with the environment' (p. 132). Changes in DNA occur in
cells and organisms exposed to a wide range of substances, including
insecticides, herbicides, and certain drugs. As plants and the majority
of animal phyla do not have distinct germ cells and somatic cells,
these modifications will be inherited by subsequent generations. Even
in animals with apparently distinct germ cells, the germ cells may also
respond directly to the same stimuli, or reverse transcription (whereby
DNA is made from RNA) may provide a feedback channel from somatic to
germ cells.

Experiments have shown that if E. coli bacteria are plated on media
containing high concentrations of a metabolite they cannot use, they
begin to mutate many orders of magnitude faster than the 'spontaneous',
'random' mutation rate, but only in genes that subsequently enable them
to use the metabolite and hence to grow. This phenomenon of 'directed
mutations' or 'adaptive mutations' also exists in yeast cells and
possibly fruit flies. Another finding is that defective genes in
organisms can become corrected and regain their normal function. This
was known for bacteria and yeast but has now been discovered in humans.
Ho writes:

The notion of an isolatable, constant gene that can be patented as an
invention for all the marvellous things it can do is the greatest
reductionist myth ever perpetrated. Genes and genomes need to be fluid
and adaptable to maintain stability on the one hand and to respond to
environmental challenges on the other. This is the essence of organic
stability, as opposed to mechanical stability. It is also becoming
clear that the 'fluid genome' processes are a complex regulatory system
for carrying out the 'natural genetic engineering' on which life
depends. (p. 108)
In contrast to the precision of natural genetic engineering, artificial
genetic engineering carried out by humans is incapable of taking all
the relevant interacting factors and their potential consequences into
account, and is therefore inherently dangerous.

Ho concludes by saying that reductionist science has had its day,
and that contemporary scientific approaches that concentrate on
complexity, interconnectedness, and wholeness are more consistent with
scientific findings, and also with traditional indigenous sciences all
over the world. It is high time, she says, to put the 'warfare with
nature' mentality behind us and to start learning how to live
sustainably and healthily with nature.

_________________

'Adaptive mutations', 'concerted evolution', and 'directed
evolution' cannot be understood within the framework of materialistic
science. And this applies both to the old reductionist materialism and
to the organic and holistic version championed by scientists such as
Mae-Wan Ho. Genes and organisms that 'respond' successfully to
environmental challenges are not acting randomly but purposefully, and
this points to an instinctive intelligence at work that transcends
purely physical mechanisms and processes. Similarly, there is good
reason to doubt whether one type of animal can be transformed into a
different type of animal through the gradual accumulation of genetic
mutations -- whether ascribed to blind chance or environmental stimuli.
To explain the origin of species, some scientists therefore invoke
'organizing principles'. If this is more than just a vacuous
expression, it can only refer to the influence of paraphysical
realities.

The theosophic tradition or perennial philosophy -- echoes of which
are to be found in both western esotericism and eastern mysticism --
extends the holism that Ho describes at the physical level to include
subtler, more ethereal dimensions of nature: the astral (or formative)
level, the mental (or creative), and the spiritual-divine (or
archetypal). All these levels interact, with the higher providing
overall guidance and direction for the lower. According to this
outlook, nature is alive and conscious throughout, guided from within
outwards, in accordance with past evolutionary patterns and forms. And
every physical organism possesses some kind of mind and memory as it is
the outer vehicle of an evolving, reembodying consciousness.

On each level of the human constitution, we are the products of our
past. A reincarnating soul is drawn to the parents who can provide it
with a physical body and family environment that reflect its own former
thoughts and deeds, for evolutionary growth depends on reaping what we
have sown. In this sense, we inherit our genes not so much from our
parents as through our parents -- from our own past. But even during a
single lifetime, our genes are changeable to some extent rather than
absolutely static; and this applies to our basic mental tendencies as
well. However much our present freedom of choice and action is
constrained by the habits we have built up in the course of many past
lives, our selfconscious minds mean that we remain the ultimate
arbiters of our destiny, both individually and collectively.