Does science have enough knowledge about DNA to be

able to predict and master the effects of gene transfer?

SUMMARY
In genetic engineering of food, DNA code sequences (genes) are artificially inserted into
the DNA code sequence of the host. An inserted gene will mostly cause the production of
new proteins, in most cases foreign to the host species.

Knowledge about DNA is incomplete for the following reasons:

• The research approach ("reductionism") for investigating DNA and its

interactions with the cell has yielded a fragmented picture, lacking appropriate
means of arriving at an understanding how the parts interact as an integrated
whole.
• In biotechnology, DNA and other molecules involved have been treated as
"micro-objects" made up of material particles. Even if the treatment as "objects"
has provided relevant information about the DNA coding of proteins, recent
research indicate that this is only part of the story. New experimentally findings
demonstrate that quantum mechanical phenomena do play an important role in the
workings of DNA and its control of cellular processes. This means that DNA is
not a "micro-object" that can be taken apart and manipulated mechanically
without completely unforeseeable complications. In other words, the theoretical
foundation of genetic engineering is demonstratedly seriously incomplete.
• Science only knows the function of genes constituting less than 2 percent of the
DNA in a cell. The investigation of the remaining 98% of DNA has just begun. It
may have important influences and interactions with the known genes.
• The one-gene-one-propety doctrine, which is the very basis of genetic enginering,
is outdated. The Human Genome project and other reserach has established
beyond any doubt that the effects of a gene are dependent on interaction with its
context. There is not enough knowledge to make it possible to predict all the
effects of a gene in a foreign context.

General Conclusion

Due to the very incomplete knowledge about DNA, it is neither possible to reliably
predict the influence of a gene transferred to a foreign context nor the effect of any other
genetic manipulation. Molecular biology has predicted and verified that unforeseeable
metabolic disturbances may occur due to gene transfer. But, in addition to this, it cannot
be ruled out that there might occur complications, the nature of which cannot even be
predicted because of the incompleteness of knowledge.
Thus, there is no basis today for excluding that so far unforeseen consequences of gene
transfer may add to known risks that may make GE organsims unsuitable or even harmful
as food. And it cannot be excluded that the abnormality introduced into DNA through
gene transfer may make such genes harmful to the environment in ways that cannot be
imagined presently.

From other kinds of interventions there is extensive experience that artificial

manipulations of biological systems, in spite of incomplete knowledge, inevitably lead to
unpredictable complications some of which may be harmful and difficult to master.

An important consequence of this is that geneticists and molecular biologists don't have
the knowledge and methods required to realistically judge the effects of genetic
engineering.

It is therefore unacceptable and potentially dangerous that geneticists and

molecular biologists have an almost exclusively dominant position in the national
and international bodies that evaluate the safety of genetic engineering.

"We know far less than one per cent of what will be
known about biology, human physiology, and
medicine.

My view of biology is 'We dont know shit.' "

Dr. J. Craig Venter, Time's Scientist of the year (2000).

President of the Celera Corporation. Dr. Venter is recognized as
one of the two most important scientists in the worldwide effort
to map the human genome.

Source: "The Genome Warrior", The New Yorker Magazine, June 12, 2000.

Contents

1. Is the scientific approach used by molecular biology sufficient to yield

exhaustive knowledge of biological systems?

• a. Is knowledge of DNA sufficient to enable prediction of all the effects of

inserting a foreign gene?
• Is the doctrine "one gene - one property" valid?
• Summary

1. Is the scientific approach used by molecular biology sufficient to

yield exhaustive knowledge of biological systems?

A. Is the "reductionistic" method sufficient?

The approach used by molecular biology is called "reductionism". It

dominates not only in molecular biology but in most aspects of modern
bioscience. It is based on the idea that by analyzing the parts into the
minutest detail, it will be possible to deduce the properties of the whole.
No doubt, molecular biology has achieved very advanced methods of
analyzing the finest parts of living cells. But will this knowledge yield
sufficient information to understand the whole? This has been the object
of debate for decades.

Already several decades ago, some scientists pointed out that a key feature
of life processess is the great interdependence of the parts. This means that
no part, no detail can be fully understood without reference to all other
parts. They also pointed out that in such systems, the interactions of the
parts leads to the emergence of properties that cannot be deduced from
knowledge of the parts. You will find an excellent overview of this issue
in the book "The Web of Life" by Fritjof Capra (Harper Collins, London,
UK, 1996).

Excerpt from "The Web of Life"

...the key to a comprehensive theory of living systems lies in the

synthesis of two approaches that have been in competition since
the dawn of scientific thought: the study of pattern (or form, order,
quality) and the study of structure (or substance, matter, quantity).
The structure approach attempts to understand the properties that
make up the object of study, while the pattern approach seeks to
understand the relationships between its constituent parts.

When these two approaches are combined with the central insight
of living systems theory — that of the ceaseless flux of matter — it
offers a radically new way of conceiving reality, according to
Capra. Pattern, structure, and process are three different but
inseparable perspectives of the phenomenon of life.
 In effect, this means that to understand any living system, one must
answer three questions: what is its structure? What is its pattern of
organization? And what is the process of life? In Capra's view, this
new approach overcomes two conceptual problems that have
plagued science for centuries. First, the interdependence of pattern
and structure overcomes the traditional division between the
organic and the inorganic, between the living and the nonliving.
And second, the interdependence of process and structure
overcomes the Cartesian split between mind and matter. Source:
"Book review" by Scott London.

In the last decade, there has been a growing realization in bioscience that
the above criticism is justified. For example, the leading science journal
"Science Magazine" devoted a whole issue already to this question, see
Science, April 04 1999. Its introductory article has the title "Beyond
Reductionism". There, the term "complex systems" is applied to designate
systems whose properties are not fully explained by an understanding of
its parts. Examples of successful applications of a complex system
approach are presented including a study of "emergent" properties.

Addition July 2007

Recently, as the result of Human Genome research, a new scientific

method has appeared, called "Systems Biology". It admits that
reductionistic methods are unsuitable for study of Biological systems,
and is developing holistic research methods.

"Biologists, geneticists, and doctors have had limited success in

curing complex diseases such as cancer, HIV, and diabetes
because traditional biology generally looks at only a few aspects of
an organism at a time.

As scientists have developed the tools and technologies which

allow them to delve deeper into the foundations of biological
activity — genes and proteins — they have learned that these
components almost never work alone. They interact with each
other and with other molecules in highly structured but incredibly
complex ways..."

Indeed, understanding this interplay of an organism´s genome and

environmental influences from outside the organism (nature and
nurture) is crucial to developing a — systems — understanding of
 an organism that will ultimately transform our understanding of
human health and disease.

The institute for Systems Biology.

"The world thus appears as a tissue of events in which connections of

different kinds alternate or overlap or combine and thereby determine the
texture of the whole"

Werner von Heisenberg, one of the founders of Quantum theory.

Conclusion regarding scientific methodology

It is thus very evident that the methodology of genetics and molecular

biology, that has been exclusively reductionistic-fragmented, is highly
inadequate for obtaining a realistic understanding of the workings of
genes.

This means that geneticists and molecular biologists dont have the
knowledge and methods required to correctly judge the effects of genetic
engineering.. Yet they have an almost exclusively dominant position in
the national and international bodies that evaluate the safety of genetic
engineering.

B. Is it sufficient to treat molecules like DNA as "microobjects"?

Molecular biological theories treat the DNA and other molecules as

"microobjects" thought to follow essentially the same laws as visually
perceptible objects. These laws are called the laws of "classical physics".
In short, physicists talk about "classical objects" when referring to objects
following these laws.

Present knowledge about genes and gene regulation based on "classical

object" behavior appears to be very far from being able to explain the
extreme complexity and high level of purposeful integration of cellular
processes.

Because of this, already over 30 years ago, physicists and theoretical

biologists suggested that key processes in the cell may occur on a quantum
 physical level. At this level all particles have a wave-particle duality. That
is, differently from classical objects, they behave partly as particles and
partly as waves. Also constellations of particles (like a gene) have a wave
aspect that can mediate interactions at a distance. It has been suggested
that this wave aspect may be the basis of the remarkable and incredibly
complex integration and coordination of life processes.

Interestingly, certain analyzes indicate that the wave property is strongly

predominant in the essential molecules of life, that is, DNA, RNA and the
proteins (See Cochran A. "Quantum Wave Predominance in Proteins",
Nanobiology (1993) 2, 31-33).

Processes in living organisms now considered or suggested to involve

quantum-mechanical phenomena include enzyme-substrate interactions,
protein synthesis, cell division, cellular communication and information
processing. All these phenomena can be affected by a genetic change.

One reason why quantum physics has been largely left out in Molecular
Biology is that its major focus has so far been on DNA coding. This does
not require quantum physics. Another reason is that quantum physical
theory has so far not provided workable mathematical models for handling
the wave mechanics of aggregates of particles.

Recently, however experimental results have been reported that indicate

that some, and perhaps important, aspects of genetic regulation are
mediated at a quantum level. Especially the research of Gariaev et al has
provided important evidence, see

ƒ "The DNA-wave Biocomputer" (an MS Word document) and

ƒ "Crisis in Life Sciences. The Wave Genetics Response".

This research has generated seeds to entirely new theories about the DNA
regulation of cellular processes. This research is just in the very beginning
and has already revealed huge "white areas" of ignorance about DNA.

This lends further support to our opinion that we know far too little to
be able to manipulate DNA without the risk of completely
unpredictable consequences.

For more, see "Quantum phenomena in Biology".

"What really astounds me is the architecture of life. The system is

extremely complex. It's like it was designed...There's a huge intelligence
there"

Dr. Gene Myers, Celera Corporation. Architect of the Celera Genomics

Human genome map in cooperation with Dr. Craig Venter.

Source: San Fransisco Chronicle, Feb 19 2001.

Conclusion regarding quantum mechanical aspects of DNA

Molecular Biology has largely not considered the quantum mechanical

aspect of life processes (as appropriate means have been lacking). Recent
experimental research indicates that this aspect must be considered for a
full understanding of the extreme complexity and remarkable integration
of life processes.

So already from a basic theoretical standpoint it is apparent that there are

very important deficiencies in the methods used to acquire knowledge
about DNA and how genes work and interact.

Therefore it is impossible to master and predict the effects of gene

manipulation using the methodology of genetics and molecular biology.

This adds further strength to our conclusion that genetics and

molecular biology cannot provide a reliable and sufficient basis for
realistically judging the safety of genetic engineering.

2. Is present knowledge of DNA sufficient to enable prediction of all

the effects of inserting a foreign gene?

Molecular biology has advanced far in describing the structural genes that
determine the properties of the bodily parts. These are the simplest part of the
genetic system. But knowledge about the important regultory genes that regulate
the activity of all the structural genes is incomplete. The codes of these genes are
only partially known.

Altogether, the genes constitute less than 2% of all DNA. The rest, more than
98% of all DNA was long called "Junk DNA" by molecular biologists, as they
were unable to ascribe any function to it. Recently it has been found that the it
seems that this "Junk" is structured in an orderly way resembling a language. But
the meaning of this language is completely unknown. The last few years some
experimental observations indicate that the part of DNA that does not consist
of genes may have various functions including regulation of the activity of
genes. But little is yet known about it. (see also "Junk DNA").

In any case, this indicates that a very large part of DNA, over 98% may have
important, yet to a very large extent unkown functions.

One more dimension of the "domain of ignorance" about DNA is the histone
system. Histones are protein structures that are associated with the DNA string.
They were formerly believed to function only as a scaffold making it possible to
pack DNA tightly. However, in recent years increasing evidence have appeared
indicating that they play an important role in the expression of genes. They may
also be involved a/o in DNA repair, replication and recombination.

The knowledge of these functions of histones is still very incomplete. Recently it

has been suggested that they have an own code language that is yet unknown. The
authors conclude that understanding the rules and consequences of the histone
code will impact on many, if not all, DNA related processes with far reaching
implications for human biology and disease. (Brian D Strahl, C.David Allis.
"The language of covalent histone modifications." Nature, Vol 403,pp 41-45,
2000).

The presently known parts of DNA have complex, reciprocal interactions. It

seems reasonable to assume that interactions, if they occur, between the vast
unknown parts of DNA and inserted genes, may likewise be of a reciprocal kind.
In any case there is no scientific basis today for exluding the possibility that there
are such interactions of significant importance.

Conclusion regarding knowledge about DNA

Increasing evidence indicate that the 98% of DNA has an important regulatory
function, the nature of which is very little nknown. Moreover the histones
surrounding DNA seem also to have important regulatory functions. There exists
no knowledge how the insertion of a foreign gene can influence the regulatory
function of these elements and how they, in turn, can influence the inserted gene.
This is an additional reason why the consequences of gene insertion is
unpredictable.
"These findings demonstrate the fragmentary nature of current
knowledge of genome structure and function and regulation of gene
expression in general, and the limited understanding of several
physiological, ecological, agronomical and toxicological aspects
relevant to present-day and planned genetic modifications of crops."

Visser, A. J. C.; Nijhuis, E. H.; Elsas, J. D. van; Dueck, T. A. "Crops of

uncertain nature? Controversies and Knowledge Gaps Concerning
Genetically Modified Crops. An Inventory. "Plant Research International
(No. 12, 2000) 70 pp. To abstract.

3. Is the doctrine "one gene - one property" valid?

When genetic engineering was conceived over 30 years ago, it was believed that
genes are carriers of single traits - stable units, that govern the activities of the cell
unidirectionally and without any influence from the neighbouring genes.

But this is not the case - Genes are variable, changing their behavior and even
their structure because of influences from other genes or because of influences
from the conditions in the cell and the environment. So genes are not stable
carriers of well defined properties as was believed when genetic engineering was
invented. For further details, see "The new understanding of genes" at
http://www.psrast.org/newgen.htm.

Because of this, a foreign gene may have unexpected effects, not appearing in its
normal context. There are experimental observations verifying unexpected effects,
see http://www.psrast.org/molbeng.htm. Recently, the National Academy of
Science in the US has warned that because of this, there may occur unintentional
"comopositional changes" including the appearance of unexpected harmful
substances, see National Research Council, "Genetically Modified Pest-protected
Plants", URL: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309069300/html/63.html#page_top.

Conclusion regarding the one-gene-one-property doctrine

This doctrine is outdated. It has been well established that the effects of a gene is
dependent on interaction with its context. The insertion of a gene into a foreign
context therefore has unpredictable effects that may be of significant importance
for the safety of the organisms as food as well as for the stability and functioning
 of the GMO. For more see "Human Genome research has confirmed the fallacy of
the one gene - one property doctrine", footnote 2.

"Genes exist in networks, interactive networks which have a logic of their

own. The technology point of view does not deal with these networks. It
simply addresses genes in isolation. But genes do not exist in isolation.
And the fact that the industry folks don't deal with these networks is what
makes their science incomplete and dangerous."

Dr. Richard Strohman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell

Biology at University of California, Berkeley. From his article Crisis
position.

General conclusion

(This is the same text as in the beginning of this document)

General Conclusion

Due to the very incomplete knowledge about DNA, it is neither possible to reliably
predict the influence of a gene transferred to a foreign context nor the effect of any other
genetic manipulation. Molecular biology has predicted and verified that unforeseeable
metabolic disturbances may occur due to gene transfer. But, in addition to this, it cannot
be ruled out that there might occur complications, the nature of which cannot even be
predicted because of the incompleteness of knowledge.

Thus, there is no basis today for excluding that so far unforeseen consequences of gene
transfer may add to known risks that may make GE organsims unsuitable or even harmful
as food. And it cannot be excluded that the abnormality introduced into DNA through
gene transfer may make such genes harmful to the environment in ways that cannot be
imagined presently.

From other kinds of interventions there is extensive experience that artificial

manipulations of biological systems, in spite of incomplete knowledge, inevitably lead to
unpredictable complications some of which may be harmful and difficult to master.

An important consequence of this is that geneticists and molecular biologists don't have
the knowledge and methods required to realistically judge the effects of genetic
engineering.

It is therefore unacceptable and potentially dangerous that geneticists and

molecular biologists have an almost exclusively dominant position in the national
and international bodies that evaluate the safety of genetic engineering.

Jaan Suurküla M.D.

Published in May 1999. Last update: May, 2009

To the summary of this article.

Addition July 2007

In July 2007 a consortium of 35 groups of leading scientists published the conclusion that
single genes are not carriers of isolated traits after a four year coordinated research effort.
See "Genetech is based on an outdated understanding"

This definitely confirms the point, stated in the article above, that the one-gene-one-trait
concept is wrong.

Although already more than ten years ago there was important evidence supporing this
point, there has been a long period of scientifically ill-founded resistance from scientists
sponsored by the biotech companies, see "Dysfunctional science". The conclusion of this
authoritative consortium definitely puts an end to this pseudodebate that has confused
politicians and postponed and adequate policy for safety assessment of GE foods.

This underscores our conclusion that gene technology is so unpredictable that its
commercial implementation can only be described as seriously irresponsible application
of science and technology with unpredictable, potentially dangerous outcomes.
Therefore it has to be stopped before a major disaster - a "Chernobyl" occurs - we have
most likely already had the "Harrisburg" of genetic engineering, see the Showa Denko
Tryptophan disaster.

Footnote 1.

This footnote has been moved to a separate page: "Quantum phenomena in Biology"

Footnote 2. (added 2001-02-14)

Human Genome research confirms the fallacy of the one gene - one
property doctrine

We are happy to find that the results of the Human Genome project research now
strongly support what we have stated about the fallacy of the one gene - one property
doctrine which is the very basis of biotechnology. In February 2001, Dr. Craig Venter,
world leading expert on Human Genome research said:

"In everyday language the talk is about a gene for this and a gene for that.
We are now finding that that is rarely so. The number of genes that work
in that way can almost be counted on your fingers, because we are just not
hard-wired in that way."

"You cannot define the function of genes without defining the

influence of the environment. The notion that one gene equals one
disease, or that one gene produces one key protein, is flying out of the
window."

Source: Times, Monday February 12, 2001 "Why you can't judge a man
by his genes" http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-82213,00.html

The important connotation of this is that now it can be said with certainty that artificial
insertion of genes is unlikely to yield exactly the "desired effect" of the inserted gene.
Deviations from the desired effect along with unexpected other effects are likely to be the
rule rather than the exception. Such unpredictable effects may include the appearance of
harmful substances difficult to detect.

"Genetic tailoring" of "desirable properties", until now a

favorite propaganda slogan of the biotech industry, turns out to
be a modern variety of "The Caesar's new clothes". /The Editor

Richard Strohman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the Berkeley
untiversity makes similar conclusions in his article about the present status of the
understanding of genetic regulation and the results of the Human Genome Project. See
Toward a new paradigm for life - Beyond genetic determinism

Excerpt:
 If the announcements from the HGP tell us anything, they tell us that we
do not now how organisms make themselves. We are still, as many
developmental biologists have said, in the dark ages about how
organisms regulate their genomes to produce adults.

It is no more justified to assert that genetic engineering is high-tech science mastering its
results. Rather it is groping in the dark - a roulette game with seriously incomplete
knowledge of the consequences. This the key reason why PSRAST demands that genetic
engineering of every kind should be strictly confined within laboratory walls until science
knows enough about DNA to understand what it is doing - which probably will take
several decades and might even reach into the next century.

Source: Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and

Technology (PSRAST)
www.psrast.org