GENETIC ENGINEERING AND THE NEED FOR A NEW SCIENCE: PROGNOSTIC MUTAGENICS.
Genetic engineering is the biggest scientific breakthrough since the invention of fire. The living machine of DNA is finally something we can use. Production capacity which dwarfs the industrial revolution is only a few million hours of stubborn research away. For once, public debate is reasonably well informed, and if it’s clogged the issues with speculation, factual or otherwise, at least the bland apathy of the reaction to other sciences has for once been stymied.
Even ethics, that long lost subject, living on handouts since Aristotle and Confucius, has finally been revived as a meaningful term. Clearly, genetics is revolutionizing more than one aspect of human existence already.
A few basic principles here:
1. The objects of genetic engineering are well beyond the basic concepts of hybridizing plants and animals.
2. The capacity to grow industrial, biological and chemical materials in organisms is entirely new. It’s way beyond culturing and other methods. It therefore cannot be viewed as a new way of doing old things in the context of this discussion.
3. I’m all in favor of bioethics, but I prefer them to be based on something more than pure bias, vested interests, and speculation. To me that simply defeats the whole function of bioethics.
4. This is not a simple science. Any notion of easy answers needs to be removed. This is a debate that will be going on for the next few billion years, as long as there’s a human race to argue about it, so let’s get a bit thoughtful, hmm?
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Square 1 of genetic manipulation is the physical alteration of genes, and/or the introduction of new genes into an organism. This is a familiar methodology, and has produced GM crops and clones, as well as materials produced within organisms to allow plants to produce a range of products.
Issues raised by these relatively modest early methods include:
1. The spread of GM canola, and the possible contamination of non-GM crops, and serious debate over the effect of cross-pollination. As a horticulturalist, I can tell you this isn’t an unreasonable or futile debate. Facts matter in science and industry.
2. Peer review on a scale and ferocity rarely seen in the biosciences has been confronting each discovery on an almost molecule-by-molecule basis. Actually it’s good scientific practice to have that level of debate and that level of proof, but it’s been pretty gruesome professionally.
3. As usual, the research, particularly pure research, has been outrunning the debate. (Reasonably so, I might add, in that you don’t take your first baby steps and wait for the reviews before taking any more.) So a lot of informed speculation, ranting, and point scoring has been going on based on obsolete information.
The point is that this level of acrimony and ethos, disinformation and disassociative logic, and specious speculation has been achieved on a bare two decades of research and development. There weren’t any benchmarks, so people had to make them and we’ve wound up with a pretty scratched-up bench.
I used “specious” for a reason. Consider: We’re arguing the long term effects of new organisms in the environment, but have little or no idea what those effects are from actual observation. We’re arguing trans-species transmission of diseases on the basis of GM, when we’ve got plenty of proof from the Plague and other healthy hobbies that rats could pass on a disease quite efficiently without any help from GM. We have discussions of possible mutations, when even the basic elements of mutation haven’t been assessed. We’re producing ethical views based on sound principles, and a handful of data which in historical terms wouldn’t qualify as a teaspoon’s worth of information, in any science.
These are not in any conceivable sense unreasonable grounds for concern. They do have to be addressed. But data is lacking. Hard facts are not speculative things.
For example, if you insert sequence GCCCTAGGTTTTCAAACGT into a grass seed, then grow a few grass plants, do you wipe out all life on Earth? Does it affect cattle grazing on it? Do you get a flying, endearingly un-constipated bull soaring majestically through the air on lilac wings, and keeping graziers in a state of rapture? Would you base your research funding and professional reputation that it does?
This is science, not marketing. In sciences you have to prove your facts, and that wouldn’t be a bad idea for external debate, either. Sorry, graziers, but you’ll find a phalanx of Trappist geneticists on the subject.
I don’t want to overstate this point, so I’ll just say it:
Until we have sufficient data to make reliable predictions about the effect of genetic manipulation in the environment, and as specific instances regarding organisms, we have a few holes in the logic of any argument.
I don’t see how introducing millions of GM organisms into the environment could fail to have an effect, but I’m not going to go and find the nearest soapbox until I know what I’m talking about, and can construct a rational argument.
MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF GENETIC SCIENCE.
Also paved with good intentions is the road to the Supreme Court. This is one of the most sensitive, tensely debated, most heavily funded, parts of genetic research, and if the pure biology is ferocious, the medical aspects are a war.
THE only thing undisputed about genetic medicine is that it has more ramifications than anything except possibly humanity itself. Each hormone, each disease, each painstaking bit of research is a battle. “Every chromosome a class action” is about as close to a description of the likely results of gene therapy gone astray as I think we need to go.
If anyone thought that the medical research sector was a simple case of “Go see what Johns Hopkins has got today, and we’ll get out the petty cash and wind up the spreadsheets to see how to make some money out of it”, think again. Every argument about medical use of gene technology has one basic point: “Does it work?” The discovery of so many genetic factors in disease has added fission power to the research, and lines of thought are splitting like any atom.
This is top line medical research, as well as genetic science. It’s all relevant, and it all has to be researched in a level of detail that would get Da Vinci feeling a bit overworked. This is the coalface, and it’s barely been scratched.
The opportunities for lousy levels of information in debate are equally daunting:
What are the pathology requirements for researching the safety of a procedure? Ten years of samples from Mr. Smith? How does that time frame go with our funding, and will we be able to buy another light globe in year 9 of the program? What are the legal ramifications of Mr. Smith turning into a goldfish? How does the Supreme Court feel about researchers not checking things like that?
If you grow a shirt in a broadleaf plant, and it turns out to be a deciduous shirt, and you get fired because it fell off one day, whom do you sue? Ditto, the cherry blossom dress that attracts so many insects?
If someone eats a product which when subjected to certain levels of acidity in the gut, say from drinking wine, and explodes due to excessive fermentation in the colon, what first aid, and what cleaning enzymes should you use? Does your insurance cover both?
If a word of that sounds over the top, it’s not even the beginning of the possibilities.
Imagine a single treatment able to cure all normal diseases. One capsule, half an hour. No more Downs Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, TB, AIDS, cancers, birth defects, crippling arthritis, anaphylaxis, depression, schizophrenia And that’s just from current perspectives.
Meanwhile, where’s the debate gone? Into metaphysics. Non-existent/conjectural/ monsters and diseases have become more dangerous, somehow, than the real ones. Ethical positions have been created to address issues which haven’t even been raised by any facts. That doesn’t make the concerns necessarily invalid, but you have to wonder if all this omniscience on both sides of genetics is talking with its brain.
“What happens if.?” is a perfectly reasonable question, for researchers, doctors, legislators, and the public. As a matter of fact, if that question were asked in more public debates about the sciences, like economics or politics, this would be a much better world. This is a brand new science. There are no precedents, and no road map. In practice, someone paying attention to where the road goes is a good thing.
Debating what the destination may or may not be, with the healthy option of having no idea where you’re going is another matter. Do you not invent fire, because someone may get a bit singed? A bit of objectivity might help. Medicine is a tough enough subject without spurious departures into fictional problems. Few doctors would shower their pharmaceutical and therapy providers with flowers and chocolates on a bit of guesswork, however expensive. The ailments listed above, alone, cost many billions per year, and cause the suffering of hundreds of millions of people at the very least. Controversy deafens every issue. Answers are needed, and they’re still in transit.
MILITARY AND TERRORIST APPLICATIONS OF GENE SCIENCE.
Sorry if you’ve eaten recently, but this is another fun topic. Some delightful person raised the possibility of use of gene science as a way of targeting specific races a few years ago. Disgusting as this possibility is, it’s another imponderable in genetics. Devastating prospect, and does less damage to real estate. The neutron bomb of the 21st century. Think anyone would try using it?
There are other things, too, just in case we were all feeling too smug. There are enzymes which can do the same job as a school of piranha, just be more thorough. Then there’s the diseases, the toolkit that fits in your watch. Viruses, bacteria you could fill a dictionary with sub text on each species, and that’s without referring to artificial organisms.
Here we have a topic for either a film or a global obituary. It hasn’t been raised much, but the storm over genetic targeting was terrific. Again, we bump into speculation as a way of life in public debates. No facts, thankfully, in this case, but lots of genuine concerns, unspoken, because of lack of information, or spoken, trying to head off an awful possibility.
What do you do about a weapon like that, except try to fight it? How do you fight it, without the research? How do you debate it, with any side of the debate, coming from whatever perspective, guessing?
A NEW SCIENCE- PROGNOSTIC MUTAGENICS
Having probably lost you your lunch with the preceding title, I’ll try to make it up to you. All of the above leads to one pretty reliable conclusion: we need to know what these things will do. We need to be able to predict the effect of gene science accurately.
We need to be able to study the effects of gene therapies and manipulation systematically, using good parameters and creating a trustworthy supply of information to allow potential hazards to be identified and addressed. This is done where it can be done at the moment, but need I say the process needs all the help it can get to be useful. Important information may be sitting somewhere inaccessible, inconclusive results may have conclusions found by someone else.
Hence the idea of formal study of “Prognostic Mutagenics”- predicting phenomena of change. In practice, this means the study of any line of change of a genetic structure. Literally, you study a gene or a gene sequence, and figure out the ramifications of anything it can do.
So you’ve got a sequence, ACGT, in whatever context the gene works. “What happens if?” it becomes ACCT, in that context? How, why, and when did it do that? What caused it? Could we have predicted that it would do that? What was the process? How do we avoid/cause that to happen?
Given that we’re working with the biggest known naturally occurring molecules, there’s a bit of work to be done. Because genes do some strange things, people need to look at some strange possibilities.
It can be done systematically, it’s just that it would also create more data than the whole of human history to date
What if you could just look up a specific gene sequence, and get all current known findings on potential hazards? At the very least, you’d get a picture of what research has already been done, and what known factors are involved. That could save years. It would also allow peer review, the only working mechanism at the moment, to instantly monitor the entire history of research into published papers and results, not have to laboriously wade through archives.
Try this as a result:
Entry 1. Sequence X caused severe mutation in mice over a period of three months. Changes in hormonal levels were extreme, particularly in the respiratory tract.
Entry 2. Sequence X destabilized in culture after growing normally for three years. CGGGTAAATCGG component disappeared, replaced by GGCTGGAAAAG, process occurred in separate cultures, results identical, replacement sequence identical. Possible nutrient contamination from single source hormone additive, unconfirmed.
Entry 3. Sequence X tested on brassica species A1, A2. Caused massive growth followed by premature decay of plants. Tests show plant growth hormones suffered catastrophic dysfunction, affecting not only Sequence X but also natural hormones.
From which you’d get a general impression that Sequence X was about as useful as a third armpit. If you’re a researcher, you like to know things like that, because it saves you from wasting years of your life following useless sidetracks. However:
Entry 4. Sequence X added to Super Quinoa high phosphate enzymes achieved full sterilization of termites in 120 separate tests in field and lab studies. Termite gut flora were unable to use digestive enzymes.
Entry 5. Sequence X in conjunction with Somethingorotherzine eliminated pathogens in patient suffering infection by viral weapon Victor 19. Sequence X was administered accidentally, owing to recent spraying for termites in ward. Sequence X bonded with aspirin taken orally. It attached to the salicylate, and the compound, in circulation in the blood, neutralized Victor 19 antigens. Stool shows large amounts of Victor 19. Blood test indicates extremely low levels of Victor 19, less than 1 per cent of count from previous day.
Each of these entries, incidentally, comes with something the size of a phone book of related data, but you get the point, a system of monitoring gene sequences and their uses. Sequence X will have a “gene sense”, which is a context for use of a gene in an application, it will have a sequence perhaps longer than your arm, but you can find it. You can also make a few educated prognoses about “What happens if.?”
This may look a bit kitschy to scientific professionals, but I’m a writer, and therefore insufferable, so I’ll do it anyway:
NOTICE THAT THE SPECIFIC SEQUENCE IS USED AS THE REFERENCE, and the rest is number crunching (well, gnawing) as far as use in a database is concerned. Any amount of information can be accessed and correlated. From that series of inputs models and further research can be added to specifically address the matters raised, explore and create a basis for prediction. Arguably, both original researchers and those exploring the results benefit from analysis of the changes observed, and possibilities regarding other changes based on different usages and methods.
Somehow, we need to get ahead of the problems, and have some accessible properly understood basis for public debate, as well as professional. Mythology and policies by voodoo aren’t helping. What’s needed is a map, this is how we could make one, and make some reasonable suppositions about what’s ahead.
Nobody really loses out on a common reference system. Secrecy and patents and funding aside, for once, if someone else is looking over your shoulder for you, or finding the minefield before you go for a stroll in it, aren’t you better off?
I do not accept that genetic science is the product of loony science, nor that anyone’s being “irresponsible by definition” in research and application. Nor do I accept that the concerns can be overlooked, even if some are obviously raised without sufficient information and contain redundancies. It’s going to be hard to live with an unknown technology. Look at computers, and you don’t have to eat them or have them replace a diseased organ.
Thank my genes I’m a writer. There’s some interesting things to write about
