June 11, 2002
Kamloops Daily News



The biotechnology industry wants you to think that the
science they use is reliable and that they are not just
tinkering around with DNA and genes.  In business, image is
everything. 

There's a lot of money riding on genetically modified crops
and animals.   Although the term "genetic engineering" has a
solid ring to it, the science is not nearly as precise as
the phrase suggests - - not as in building a bridge, or an
electronic circuit, for example.

The Human Genome Project was meant to usher in a brave new
millennium of genetic technology.  Politicians and
journalists gushed over the results of the Project, calling
it the "book of life."  In the year 2000, President Clinton
waxed eloquent calling it the "language in which God created
life."

The Human Genome Project was meant to validate a theory
proposed by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953.  The
theory is appealing because it is simple, elegant, and
easily summarized. 

It goes like this:  The molecular agent of inheritance is
DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid).  DNA is made up of four
subunits which can be strung together like letters of the
alphabet to spell out genes.   Those segments of genes give
rise to each of our inherited traits.

However, the Human Genome Project  didn't prove this theory. 
The traditional theory "collapsed under the weight of the
facts," says Barry Commoner, senior scientist at the Center
for the Biology of Natural Systems at the City University of
New York.

"The most dramatic achievement of the $3-billion Human Genome
Project to date is the refutation of its own scientific
rational," Commoner continues.   The Project provided more
doubts about the traditional theory than answers.

For one thing, the number of genes found in human DNA is
significantly lower than the number needed to build all the
various proteins in humans.  There should have been about
100,000 genes but the Project found only about 30,000. 

The news was a bit of a let down for the human race, which
prides itself as being on top of the heap.   Compared with a
mustard-like weed that has 26,000 genes, humans seem to be
disappointingly low in the gene count.   

Although we could use more humility, the point is that DNA
theory does not provide enough genes to build the number of
proteins required in humans.

Not only are we short on genes, there is a surprising
similarity in our DNA and chimpanzees.  Surprising because
we are more unlike our primate cousins than our shared 99
per cent DNA suggests.  Not just the superficial difference
of size and appearance, but great differences in the brains,
liver and blood of the two primates.

"The human brain is a very, very complicated organ and this
study validates that," says Dr. Elaine Muchmore, a genetics
researcher with San Diego Healthcare System and a UCSD
professor of medicine.  Humans have much more complicated
brains than chimps, which suggests that something other than
DNA  is causing those differences.  

Nor does DNA theory explain how two protein cells can be the
same genetically, but act very differently when folded other
than normal.  That's what happens in mad cow disease and its
human equivalent.   The infectious agent, called a prion, is
a refolded protein.   Once in the brain of its victim, it
refolds normal brain protein with fatal results.

Mad cow disease is an apparent violation of the traditional
theory.  DNA is supposed to determine protein configuration,
not other protein.

"DNA did not create life; life created DNA," says Commoner.
DNA is a notebook used by cells to store information.   He
contends that cells, protein and enzymes use DNA as a kind
of scratchpad.

In a recent survey, 95 per cent of Canadians want labeling
of genetically modified foods.  They are rightfully
suspicious of the  biotechnology industry which says that
its methods are "specific, precise, and predictable."
That's highly unlikely.

Biologist David Suzuki warns that we are becoming unwilling
guinea pigs in an experiment never before conducted.  We are
consuming GM foods in which genes have been transferred from
one species to another.  The long term effects of these
foods is unknown. "Any politician that tells you these
products are safe, and that it's known through scientific
testing is either very, very stupid, or they are lying", he
says.

go back to my Columns in the