June 2012
One of the first PR sound-bytes fed to the GM-wary UK public was that “scientists know exactly what they're doing”.
If this subliminal message of 'nothing can go wrong, so stop
worrying yourself' wasn't reassuring enough, images were trotted out explaining
that DNA sequences were simply snipped out of a cell (with scissors!) and
popped into another one: clearly just another use of nature by humans, a simple
extension of conventional breeding.
How truthful is this PR?
Certainly, scientists can extract DNA from cells for study and to get
ideas. Certainly, scientists can
engineer precise DNA sequences and can force or smuggle these into living cells
and can (sometimes) make them work. But
“know exactly what they're doing”?
The scissors and bits of natural DNA being moved from cell
to cell, cut-and-paste fashion, simply don't happen. Genetic engineers engineer genes:
they construct a stretch of artificial DNA which they know might generate the
novel protein wanted, and add bits to make it work and bits to stick it in
place. If you want to know how 'natural'
is the resulting gene compared with the real thing, consider the following:
1. Natural genes are
messy
While artificial genes are put together in a neat, compact,
linear form with no extra bits to subvert the protein produced, natural genes
can be messy. A majority of natural
genes exist in a modular format, whose parts may not even be near each other in
the genome. This can create a bit of
mix-and-match in protein production, so that a 'single' gene can vary its expression according to the
immediate needs of the cell. One of the
most extreme examples of this found to date is a fruit-fly gene which exists in
so many separate pieces that it could, theoretically, generate 38,0016
different proteins.
Such intrinsic variability and flexibility in function is
needed for the health of the cell and organism.
None of these qualities can be engineered into man-made DNA.
2. Genes are a very
small part of the story
The DNA of natural genes express natural RNA (molecules
related to DNA) which, in turn, express natural proteins. There are huge stretches of non-gene
DNA. These also express RNA, but the
functions of these molecules are the regulation of the genes, their RNA
and their proteins. Thus, in the living
cell there exists an interaction between the genome (i.e. both genes plus
non-gene DNA), all the RNA (i.e. both protein expressing plus regulatory), and
the entire cellular protein turnover (i.e. creation, change and destruction)
perpetually playing itself out.
Artificial genes, their artificial RNA, and their artificial
protein can't participate in this, they can only dominate.
3. Genes change
Consider the following exciting scientific discoveries:
- if a natural gene is damaged, its function may be taken over by others;
- if one natural gene isn't enough, the genome may make more copies for itself;
- if a gene needs support in its function, it may convert other genes to a form similar to itself
- if a gene's function needs to be changed, it may have chemical markers attached to it;
- some areas of the genome mutate very readily.
Such intrinsic variability and flexibility in function is
needed for the health of the cell and organism.
And that's all we know at the moment.
Given the ever-changing genome described above, do genetic
engineers 'know exactly what they're doing'?
Or, is that artificial piece of DNA which is invariable in structure and
function, has to be forced or smuggled into the nucleus, and is uncontrollable
by the cell nothing more than a carefully designed and constructed disease?
OUR COMMENT
If you want to know more, treat yourself to a subscription
for 'Science in Society' magazine, (see www.i-sis.org.uk/subscribe).
SOURCES:
· Mae-Wan
Ho, Death of the Central Dogma, Are Ultra-conserved Elements Indispensable?,
Subverting the Genetic Text, To Mutate or Not to Mutate?, How to Keep in
Concert, Science in Society, 24
Winter 2004
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.