GE - The Unholy Alliance

Dr Mae-Wan Ho

(Feature Article from The Ecologist, Vol.27, No.4, July/August 1997)

Editorial introduction:

Genetic engineering biotechnology is inherently hazardous. It could lead to
disasters far worse than those caused by accidents to nuclear
installations. In the words of the author, "genes can replicate
indefinitely, spread and recombine." For this reason the release of a
genetically engineered micro-organism that is lethal to humans could well
spell the end of humanity. Unfortunately the proponents of this terrifying
technology share a genetic determinist mindset that leads them to reject
the inherently dangerous nature of their work. What is particularly
worrying at first sight is the irresistible power of the large corporations
which are pushing this technology.

______________________________________________________

Suddenly, the brave new world dawns. Suddenly, as 1997 begins and the
millennium is drawing to a close, men and women in the street are waking up
to the realization that genetic engineering biotechnology is taking over
every aspect of their daily lives. They are caught unprepared for the
avalanche of products arriving, or soon to arrive, in their supermarkets:
rapeseed oil, soybean, maize, sugar beet, squash, cucumber ... It started
as a mere trickle less than three years ago - the BST-milk from cows fed
genetically engineered bovine growth hormone to boost milk yield, and the
tomato genetically engineered to prolong shelf-life. They had provoked so
much debate and opposition; as did indeed, the genetic screening tests for
an increasing number of diseases. Surely, we wouldn't, and shouldn't, be
rushed headlong into the brave new world.

Back then, in order to quell our anxiety, a series of highly publicized
"consensus conferences" and "public consultations" were carried out.
Committees were set up by many European governments to consider the risks
and the ethics, and the debates continued. The public were, however, only
dimly aware of critics who deplored "tampering with nature" and "scrambling
the genetic code of species" by introducing human genes into animals, and
animal genes into vegetables. Warnings of unexpected effects on agriculture
and biodiversity, of the dangers of irreversible "genetic pollution",
warnings of genetic discrimination and the return of eugenics, as genetic
screening and prenatal diagnosis became widely available, were
marginalized. So too were condemnations of the immorality of the "patents
on life" - transgenic animals, plants and seeds, taken freely by
geneticists of developed countries from the Third World, as well as human
genes and human cell lines from indigenous peoples.

By and large, the public were lulled into a false sense of security, in the
belief that the best scientists and the new breed of "bioethicists" in the
country were busy considering the risks associated with the new
biotechnology and the ethical issues raised. Simultaneously, glossy
information pamphlets and reports, which aimed at promoting "public
understanding" of genetic "modification" were widely distributed by the
biotech industries and their friends, and endorsed by government
scientists. "Genetic modification", we are told, is simply the latest in a
"seamless" continuum of biotechnologies practised by human beings since the
dawn of civilization, from bread and wine-making, to selective breeding.
The significant advantage of genetic modification is that it is much more
"precise", as genes can be individually isolated and transferred as
desired.

Thus, the possible benefits promised to humankind are limitless. There is
something to satisfy everyone. For those morally concerned about inequality
and human suffering, it promises to feed the hungry with genetically
modified crops able to resist pests and diseases and to increase yields.
For those who despair of the present global environmental deterioration, it
promises to modify strains of bacteria and higher plants that can degrade
toxic wastes or mop up heavy metals(contaminants). For those hankering
after sustainable agriculture, it promises to develop Greener, more
environmentally friendly transgenic crops that will reduce the use of
pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.

That is not all. It is in the realm of human genetics that the real
revolution will be wrought. Plans to uncover the entire genetic blueprint
of the human being would, we are told, eventually enable geneticists to
diagnose, in advance, all the diseases that an individual will suffer in
his or her lifetime, even before the individual is born, or even as the egg
is fertilized in vitro. A whole gamut of specific drugs tailored to
individual genetic needs can be designed to cure all diseases. The
possibility of immortality is dangling from the horizons as the "longevity
gene" is isolated.

There are problems, of course, as there would be in any technology. The
ethical issues have to be decided by the public. (By implication, the
science is separate and not open to question.) The risks will be minimized.
(Again, by implication, the risks have nothing to do with the science.)
After all, nothing in life is without risk. Crossing roads is a risk. The
new biotechnology (i.e. genetic engineering biotechnology) is under very
strict government regulation, and the government's scientists and other
experts will see to it that neither the consumer nor the environment will
be unduly harmed.

Then came the relaxation of regulation on genetically modified products, on
grounds that over-regulation is compromising the "competitiveness" of the
industry, and that hundreds of field trials have demonstrated the new
biotechnology to be safe. And, in any case, there is no essential
difference between transgenic plants produced by the new biotechnology and
those produced by conventional breeding methods. (One prominent
spokesperson for the industry even went as far as to refer to the varieties
produced by conventional breeding methods, retrospectively, as
"transgenics".(1) This was followed, a year later, by the avalanche of
products approved, or seeking, approval marketing, for which neither
segregation from non-genetically engineered produce nor labelling is
required. One is left to wonder why, if the products are as safe and
wonderful as claimed, they could not be segregated, as organic produce has
been for years, so that consumers are given the choice of buying what they
want.

A few days later, as though acting on cue, the Association of British
Insurers announced that, in future, people applying for life policies will
have to divulge the results of any genetic tests they have taken. This is
seen, by many, as a definite move towards open genetic discrimination. A
few days later, a scientist of the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh
announced that they had successfully "cloned" a sheep from a cell taken
from the mammary gland of an adult animal. "Dolly", the cloned lamb, is now
seven months old. Of course it took nearly 300 trials to get one success,
but no mention is made of the vast majority of the embryos that failed. Is
that ethical? If it can be done on sheep, does it mean it can be done for
human beings? Are we nearer to cloning human beings? The popular media went
wild with heroic enthusiasm at one extreme to the horror of Frankenstein at
the other. Why is this work only coming to public attention now, when the
research has actually been going on for at least 10 years?(2)

The public are totally unprepared. They are being plunged headlong, against
their will, into the brave new genetically engineered world, in which
giant, faceless multinational corporations will control every aspect of
their lives, from the food they can eat, to the baby they can conceive and
give birth to.

I should, right away, dispel the myth that genetic engineering is just like
conventional breeding techniques. It is not. Genetic engineering bypasses
conventional breeding by using the artificially constructed vectors to
multiply copies of genes, and in many cases, to carry and smuggle genes
into cells. Once inside cells, these vectors slot themselves into the host
genome. In this way, transgenic organisms are made carrying the desired
transgenes. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has long
been known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer; and
this is born out by the low success rate of creating desired transgenic
organisms. Typically, a large number of eggs or embryos have to be injected
or infected with the vector to obtain a few organisms that successfully
express the transgene.

The most common vectors used in genetic engineering biotechnology are a
chimaeric recombination of natural genetic parasites from different
sources, including viruses causing cancers and other diseases in animals
and plants, with their pathogenic functions 'crippled', and tagged with one
or more antibiotic resistance 'marker' genes, so that cells transformed
with the vector can be selected. For example, the vector most widely used
in plant genetic engineering is derived from a tumour-inducing plasmid
carried by the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens. In animals,
vectors are constructed from retroviruses causing cancers and other
diseases. A vector currently used in fish has a framework from the Moloney
marine leukaemic virus, which causes leukaemia in mice, but can infect all
mammalian cells. It has bits from the Rous Sarcoma virus, causing sarcomas
in chickens, and from the vesicular stomatitis virus, causing oral lesions
in cattle, horses, pigs and humans. Such mosaic vectors are particularly
hazardous. Unlike natural parasitic genetic elements which have various
degrees of host specificity, vectors used in genetic engineering, partly by
design, and partly on account of their mosaic character, have the ability
to overcome species barriers, and to infect a wide range of species.
Another obstacle to genetic engineering is that all organisms and cells
have natural defence mechanisms that enable them to destroy or inactivate
foreign genes, and transgene instability is a big problem for the industry.
Vectors are now increasingly constructed to overcome those mechanisms that
maintain the integrity of species. The result is that the artificially
constructed vectors are especially good at carrying out horizontal gene
transfer.

Let me summarize why rDNA technology differs radically from conventional
breeding techniques.

** 1. Genetic engineering recombines genetic material
in the laboratory between species that do not interbreed in nature.

** 2. While conventional breeding methods shuffle different forms (alletes) of
the same genes, genetic engineering enables completely new (exotic) genes
to be introduced with unpredictable effects on the physiology and
biochemistry of the resultant transgenic organism.

** 3. Gene multiplications and a high proportion of gene transfers are mediated by
vectors which have the following undesirable characteristics:

Isn't it a bit late in the day to tell us that?, you ask. Yes and no. Yes,
because I, who should, perhaps, have known better, was caught unprepared
like the rest. And no, because there have been so many people warning us of
that eventuality, who have campaigned tirelessly on our behalf, some of
them going back to the earliest days of genetic engineering in the 1970s -
although we have paid them little heed. No, it is not too late, if only
because that is precisely what we tend to believe, and are encouraged to
believe. A certain climate is created - that of being rapidly overtaken by
events - reinforcing the feeling that the tidal wave of progress brought on
by the new biotechnology is impossible to stem, so that we may be paralysed
into accepting the inevitable, No, because we shall not give up, for the
consequence of giving up is the brave new world, and soon after that, there
may be no world at all. The gene genie is fast getting out of control. The
practitioners of genetic engineering biotechnology, the regulators and the
critics alike, have all underestimated the risks involved, which are
inherent to genetic engineering biotechnology, particularly as misguided by
an outmoded and erroneous world-view that comes from bad science. The
dreams may already be turning into nightmares.

That is why people like myself are calling for an immediate moratorium on
further releases and marketing of genetically engineered products, and for
an independent public enquiry to be set up to look into the risks and
hazards involved, taking into account the most comprehensive, scientific
knowledge in addition to the social, moral implications. This would be most
timely, as public opposition to genetic engineering biotechnology has been
gaining momentum throughout Europe and the USA.

In Austria, a record 1.2 million citizens, representing 20 per cent of the
electorate, have signed a people's petition to ban genetically engineered
foods, as well as deliberate releases of genetically modified organisms and
patenting of life. Genetically modified foods were also rejected earlier by
a lay people consultation in Norway, and by 95 per cent of consumers in
Germany, as revealed by a recent survey. The European Parliament has voted
by an overwhelming 407 to 2 majority to censure the Commission's
authorization, in December 1996, for imports of Ciba-Geigy's transgenic
maize into Europe, and is calling for imports to be suspended while the
authorization is re-examined. The European Commission has decided that in
the future genetically engineered seeds will be labelled, and is also
considering proposals for retroactive labelling. Commissioner Emma Bonino
is to set up a new scientific committee to deal with genetically engineered
foods, members of which are to be completely independent of the food
industry. Meanwhile, Franz Fischler, the European Commissioner on
Agriculture, supports a complete segregation and labelling of production
lines of genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods.

In June this year, President Clinton imposed a five-year ban on human
cloning in the USA, while the UK House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee (STC) wants British law to be amended to ensure that human
cloning is illegal. The STC, President Chirac of France and German Research
Minister Juergen Ruettgers are also calling for an international ban on
human cloning.

Like other excellent critics before me,(3) I do not think there is a grand
conspiracy afoot, though there are many forces converging to a single
terrible end. Susan George comments, "They don't have to conspire if they
have the same world-view, aspire to similar goals and take concerted steps
to attain them."(4)

I am one of those scientists who have long been highly critical of the
reductionist mainstream scientific world-view, and have begun to work
towards a radically different approach for understanding nature.(5) But I
was unable, for a long time, to see how much science really matters in the
affairs of the real world, not just in terms of practical inventions like
genetic engineering, but in how that scientific world-view takes hold of
people's unconscious, so that they take action, involuntarily,
unquestioningly, to shape the world to the detriment of human beings. I was
so little aware of how that science is used, without conscious intent, to
intimidate and control, to obfuscate, to exploit and oppress; how that
dominant world-view generates a selective blindness to make scientists
themselves ignore or misread scientific evidence.

The point, however, is not that science is bad - but that there can be bad
science that ill-serves humanity. Science can often be wrong. The history
of science can just as well be written in terms of the mistakes made than
as the series of triumphs it is usually made out to be. Science is nothing
more, and nothing less, than a system of concepts for understanding nature
and for obtaining reliable knowledge that enables us to live sustainably
with nature. In that sense, one can ill-afford to give up science, for it
is through our proper understanding and knowledge of nature that we can
live a satisfying life, that we can ultimately distinguish the good
science, which serves humanity, from the bad science that does not. In this
view, science is imbued with moral values from the start, and cannot be
disentangled from them. Therefore it is bad science that purports to be
"neutral" and divorced from moral values, as much as it is bad science that
ignores scientific evidence.

It is clear that I part company with perhaps a majority of my scientist
colleagues in the mainstream, who believe that science can never be wrong,
although it can be misused. Or else they carefully distinguish science, as
neutral and value-free, from its application, technology, which can do harm
or good.(6) This distinction between science and technology is spurious,
especially in the case of an experimental science like genetics, and almost
all of biology, where the techniques determine what sorts of question are
asked and hence the range of answers that are important, significant and
relevant to the science. Where would molecular genetics be without the
tools that enable practitioners to recombine and manipulate our destiny? It
is an irresistibly heroic view, except that it is totally wrong and
misguided.

It is also meaningless, therefore, to set up Ethical Committees which do
not question the basic scientific assumptions behind the practice of
genetic engineering biotechnology. Their brief is severely limited, often
verging on the trivial and banal - such as whether a pork gene transferred
to food plants might be counter to certain religious beliefs - in comparison
with the much more fundamental questions of eugenics, genetic
discrimination and, indeed, whether gene transfers should be carried out at
all. They can do nothing more than make the unacceptable acceptable to the
public.

The debate on genetic engineering biotechnology is dogged by the artificial
separation imposed between "pure" science and the issues it gives rise to.
"Ethics" is deemed to be socially determined, and therefore negotiable,
while the science is seen to be beyond reproach, as it is the "laws" of
nature. The same goes for the distinction between "technology" - the
application of science - from the science. Risk assessments are to do with
the technology, leaving the science equally untouched. The technology can
be bad for your health, but not the science. In this article, I shall show
why science cannot be separated from moral values nor from the technology
that shapes our society. In other words, bad science is unquestionably bad
for one's health and well-being, and should be avoided at all costs.
Science is, above all, fallible and negotiable, because we have the choice,
to do or not to do. It should be negotiated for the public good. That is
the only ethical position one can take with regard to science. Otherwise,
we are in danger of turning science into the most fundamentalist of
religions, that, working hand in hand with corporate interests, will surely
usher in the brave new world.


Bad science and big business

What makes genetic engineering biotechnology dangerous, in the first
instance, is that it is an unprecedented, close alliance between two great
powers that can make or break the world: science and commerce. Practically
all established molecular geneticists have some direct or indirect
connection with industry, which will set limits on what the scientists can
and will do research on, not to mention the possibility of compromising
their integrity as independent scientists.(7)

The worst aspect of the alliance is that it is between the most
reductionist science and multinational monopolistic industry at its most
aggressive and exploitative. If the truth be told, it is bad science
working together with big business for quick profit, aided and abetted by
our governments for the banal reason that governments wish to be re-elected
to remain in 'power'.(8)

Speaking as a scientist who loves and believes in science, I have to say it
is bad science that has let the world down and caused the major problems we
now face, not the least among which is by promoting and legitimizing a
particular world-view. It is a reductionist, manipulative and exploitative
world-view. Reductionist because it sees the world as bits and pieces, and
denies there are organic wholes such as organisms, ecosystems, societies
and community of nations. Manipulative and exploitative because it regards
nature and fellow human beings as objects to be manipulated and exploited
for gain; life being a Darwinian struggle for survival of the fittest.

It is by no means coincidental that the economic theory currently
dominating the world is rooted in the same laissez-faire capitalist
ideology that gave rise to Darwinism. It acknowledges no values other than
self-interest, competitiveness and the accumulation of wealth, at which the
developed nations have been very successful. Already, according to the 1992
United Nations Development Programme Report, the richest fifth of the
world's population has amassed 82.7 per cent of the wealth, while the
poorest fifth gets a piddling 1.4 per cent. Or, put in another way, there
are now 477 billionaires in the world whose combined assets are roughly
equal to the combined annual incomes of the poorer half of humanity - 2.8
billion people.(9) Do we need to be more "competitive" still to take from
the poorest their remaining pittance? That is, in fact, what we are doing.


The governmental representatives of the superpowers are pushing for a
"globalized economy" under trade agreements which erase all economic
borders. "Together, the processes of deregulation and globalization are
undermining the power of both unions and governments and placing the power
of global corporations and finance beyond the reach of public
accountability."(10) The largest corporations continue to consolidate that
power through mergers, acquisitions and strategic alliances. Multinational
corporations now comprise 51 of the world's 100 largest economies: only 49
of the latter are nations.

By 1993, agricultural biotechnology was being controlled by just (11) giant
corporations, and these are now undergoing further mergers. The OECD
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) member countries
are at this moment working in secret in Paris on the Multilateral
Agreements on Investment (MAI), which is written by and for corporations to
prohibit any government from establishing performance or accountability
standards for foreign investors. European Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan,
is negotiating in the World Trade Organization, on behalf of the European
Community, to ensure that no barriers of any kind should remain in the
South to dampen exploitation by the North, and at the same time, to protect
the deeply unethical "patents of life" through Trade Related Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS) agreements.(11) So, in addition to gaining complete
control of the food supply of the South through exclusive rights to
genetically engineered seeds, the big food giants of the North can
asset-strip the South's genetic and intellectual resources with impunity,
up to and including genes and cell lines of indigenous peoples.

There is no question that the mindset that leads to and validates genetic
engineering is genetic determinism - the idea that organisms are determined
by their genetic makeup, or the totality of their genes. Genetic
determinism derives from the marriage of Darwinism and Mendelian genetics.
For those imbued with the mindset of genetic determinism, the major
problems of the world can be solved simply by identifying and manipulating
genes, for genes determine the characters of organisms; so by identifying a
gene we can predict a desirable or undesirable trait, by changing a gene we
change the trait, by transferring a gene we transfer the corresponding trait.

The Human Genome Project was inspired by the same genetic determinism that
locates the "blueprint" for constructing the human being in the human
genome. It may have been a brilliant political move to capture research
funds and, at the same time, to revive a flagging pharmaceutical industry,
but its scientific content was suspect from the first.

Genetic engineering technology promises to work for the benefit of mankind;
the reality is something else.

* It displaces and marginalizes all alternative approaches that address
the social and environmental causes of malnutrition and ill-health, such as
poverty and unemployment, and the need for for a sustainable agriculture
that could regenerate the environment, guarantee long-term food security
and, at the same time, conserve indigenous biodiversity.

* Its purpose is to accommodate problems that reductionist science
and industry have created in the first place - widespread environmental
deterioration from the intensive, high-input agriculture of the Green
Revolution, and accumulation of toxic wastes from chemical industries.
What's offer now is more of the same, except with new problems attached.

* It leads to discriminatory and other unethical practices that are
against the moral values of societies and community of nations.

* Worst of all, it is pushing a technology that is untried, and,
according to existing knowledge, is inherently hazardous to health and
biodiversity.

Let me enlarge on that last point here, as I believe it has been
underestimated, if not entirely overlooked by the practitioners, regulators
and many critics of genetic engineering biotechnology alike, on account of
a certain blindness to concrete scientific evidence, largely as a result of
their conscious or unconscious commitment to an old, discredited paradigm.
The most immediate hazards are likely to be in public health - which has
already reached a global crisis, attesting to the failure of decades of
reductionist medical practices - although the hazards to biodiversity will
not be far behind.