OECD GM Edinburgh Conference Fails Acid Test

Fundamental scientific conceptual errors
in the development of recombinant DNA technology

What the Edinburgh process has demonstrated for the entire world to see is that the vision of the scientific community in the field of biology has become ostensibly clouded by the complex myopia of its own specialisations.  Seduced by the charms and narrow focus of the microscope, contextual thinking and the ability to “see the wood for the trees” have all but vanished.

With some fine and honourable exceptions  the world of biology has failed to grasp the overwhelming significance of making fundamental changes to the genomes of animals and plants in ways which ignore the contextual basis by which all evolutionary mechanisms are driven.  These mechanisms have guided the development of species since the moment life began on earth.  

It is neither sufficient nor accurate to say that the development of transgenic organisms to date have not produced evidence of their harm to the environment or human health.  Besides what already resides in laboratory dustbins some transgenic crops that have been released for commercial use in North America have already started to show behaviour which exposes significant unintended disturbances in metabolic and systemic function.  The initial warning signs are now already there.  

In the context of the vast time horizons of evolution’s past and future development the transgenic organisms that have been developed to date represent just the merest few milliseconds at the start of what is proposed to be a prolonged process of radical change to the planet’s biology. This is a process which already recognises few if any boundaries - and it is a process which the draft summary proceedings of the Edinburgh conference clearly envisage as being set to continue indefinitely in both time and physical range.  It is naive to believe that the scientific and commercial interests promoting this technology will encourage substantial limitations on this range in anything other than the short term. Transgenic technology is specifically designed to break biological boundaries that have been robustly established and maintained over enormous periods of time. That is largely the overriding purpose of the technology.  

How have we arrived at such a precarious position? The answer is simple. Modern biotechnology is based on a scientific model for dealing with microscopic scales and phenomena which is out of date. It is a model which has already been abandoned by its sister science of physics - a science which is considerably more advanced in its overall development.  

In dealing with our knowledge of microscopic systems physics has abandoned its previous Newtonian models of understanding in favour of the more profound principles of quantum and field theories.  In this approach to science it is relationships as much as components (if not considerably more so) within physical systems which drive their function and behaviour. It is absolutely clear that in its current state of development modern biotechnology is dominated by component based conceptual thinking.  

It is certainly true to state that all genes, irrespective of organism, consist of the same fundamental components - the nucleotide ‘bases’ of which there are only four.  However, much conceptual thinking in recombinant DNA technology is erroneously based around the assumption that because this universal commonality is shared by all genes and genomes it is reasonable to ‘cut and splice’ genes out of context from one organism to another without the inconvenience of ‘in-principle’ limitations.  

In practice problems associated with this conceptual approach are frequently regarded as technical issues to be overcome with artificial ‘work arounds’ squeezed out of ever increasing research budgets.  Mistakenly these problems are not regarded as fundamental violations of natural law.  Such an approach is an overt demonstration of a basic lack of appreciation of the holistic nature and functioning of DNA in living organisms.  

DNA is a biological language specific to each organism and responsible for generating all its functions and characteristics through the generation of proteins.  The particular language or ‘dialect’ is unique to that organism even though some or many elements of that language may be found in other organisms, especially related ones.  

The nucleotide ‘bases’ comprise the alphabet of the language of each organism. The same four bases are used in the genome of all organisms (whether of the same species or not).  In that limited sense every organism is the same. But we know that all organisms are not the same and that there is huge diversity amongst them.  Those differences are generated not by the use of different components or alphabets, but by the structure of the different ‘languages’ or ‘dialects’ which go to make up the different relationships which exist within them.  

By analogy most European written languages are similarly built from a common (Roman) alphabet. Although in some rare cases it may be possible to ‘cut and splice’ a word from the French language into an English sentence and conserve or enhance its meaningfulness, usually meaning will become distorted. In other words in any language context is paramount.  So also in the languages of genetics - the same gene operating in a different genetic context may have radically different effects, not all of which will be readily apparent or easily understood irrespective of the diligence of risk assessment procedures.  

In the field of genetics biotechnology has to date succeeded in learning the genetic ‘alphabet’ common to all organisms. It has also learnt some of the  words that exist in the language of particular genomes. But not much more. To extend the analogy further genetic engineers know little about genetic punctuation, syntax, grammar, paragraph construction and so on. In other words biotechnology holds some basic knowledge about genetic components but very little about genetic relationships. Without knowledge of such relationships, adequate fluency in genetic language is not obtainable. Without this fluency reliable risks assessment over anything but the short term is a pipe dream.  

Genetic relationships have evolved continuously over billions of years. In the higher organisms, such as in plants, genetic relationships are many orders of magnitude more complex than any sophisticated information system (such as in modern computer technology) that has so far been developed by man.  

In the non-biological sciences (electronics, mechanical engineering etc) the track record and public standing of the scientific community is often exemplary and usually deservedly so. It has brought many advantages to mankind, but its success is in large part due to the fact that it has dealt with creations which it itself has designed. The competent mechanical or electrical engineer is able to calculate the behaviour of his creation even before he has built it - precisely because it is his own design.   

The genetic engineer by contrast does not have this advantage.  The genetic engineer is attempting to make fundamental alterations in a largely arbitrary fashion to a hugely complex system. It is one which he himself did not create in the first place, one whose intricacies of functioning he has little or no knowledge of, and one in respect of which the ‘manufacturers’ manual is in a language in which he has little or no fluency.  Additionally his transgenic ‘creation’ will usually be self-replicating and, unlike most other non-biological man made ‘inventions’, incapable of recall once released into the environment in the event of error.  

13 March 2000  

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@bigfoot.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex

OECD Conference Briefing paper on scientific assessment of risks to health and environment from the environmental release of genetically modified organisms
Prepared by the Natural Law Party, UK

Population duped by genetic engineers - click here

For more information on the risks and failings of recombinant DNA technology in world agriculture visit
www. btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmocarto.htm