[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Gene Tinkering: YOU Are The Mice And They Don't Want You to Know



Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> 
> In Article <323CB5C6.235D@atlcom.net>, Mike Zauzig <mzauzig@atlcom.net> wrote:
> >I must speak up here because gene tinkering is something that has
> >bothered me for quite some time.
> >
> >Don't you agree that biological systems are very complicated and that we
> >have only just started to scratch the surface of understanding them in a
> >scientific sense.
> 
> That entirely depends to which biological systems you refer. Of course it
> isn't possible to know everything, but certainly some systems are far better
> understood than others. I agree, we have only "scratched the surface", but
> current knowledge of biological systems is in a rather advanced state.
> 
> >And obviously genetics is not much simpler.
> 
> Of course it's very complex, but that doesn't mean we don't have a very
> detailed understanding of many aspects of genetics. In fact, the wealth of
> knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate.
> 

Knowledge IS increasing exponentially.  But there's a difference between
having lots of data and having a comprehensive understanding.

This reminds me of an interview I saw on television.  The program was
about
the political battle for the forests of the Pacific northwest.  Two
academics
>from  a university in the area (I believe it was U. of Wa.) were being
asked
for their opinions about the forest management plans.  They basically
said
that there was not enough knowledge to predict outcomes.  One of them
stated
that twenty years ago, they thought they knew pretty much everything
about
the area's forest ecosystem; that ten years ago they were realizing that
the
forest is more complicated than originally thought; and that now they
feel
that they actually know very little.

I just feel that the number of variables involved in complex biological
systems makes for a combinatorial nightmare.  The number of genetic
combinations alone are far more than all the world's computers combined
can handle, and genetics is only one small part of biological systems.

Think of how many resources have been spent to understand the human body
and yet we still have a long way to go.  Biological systems are even
more
complicated.  I don't think our understanding of biological systems
comes
close to our understanding of the human body.  (Note that I keep using
the word "systems".)

> >So to
> >say that there is nothing in the scientific literature to support being
> >paranoid doesn't really carry much weight.
> 
> How about the fact that, on the other hand, there IS a huge volume of
> scientific literature indicating that such fears are generally unfounded?
> Willful ignorance of the facts is the worst kind! In order to achieve any of
> the potential benefits of insect viruses as biological controls, we must
> assess the information available and determine a course of action. Based on
> a large body of evidence, the risks involved in applying these viruses are
> extremely small. I've already referred to my doctoral dissertation and
> several other authors in previous posts to this thread. More references
> follow (see below).

Well I hope I'm not willfully ignorant.  I would consider myself more
knowledgable than a vast majority of other people who have zero
background
in biology.  I am interested and do try, but the flood of information is
as
overwhelming to me as it is for everybody else.

> >(e.g. Two hundread years
> >ago, there wasn't much in the scientific literature about germ theory
> >either.)  I think it's a reasonable to guess that there are many
> >concepts to be conceived and facts to be found.
> 
> ...and there always will be, no matter how much information we accumulate,
> but that doesn't mean we don't already have a good idea of what's going on.
> Science has progress far more in the last 20 years than in the last 2000.
> Twenty years ago, there were no complete genome sequences available.
> Certainly there are more facts to be discovered, but the amount of knowledge
> accumulated in recent decades is of a proportion incomprehensible to many
> people.
> 
> It might be wise to identify and try to understand some of the facts that
> ARE currently available before jumping to any premature conclusions.

I feel it is the gene tinkerers that are the ones jumping to the
premature
conclusion that there is enough understanding to safely proceed.

> >From this Joe Blow layman's perspective, it seems to me that we are like
> >toddlers twiddling the knobs of a hifi sterio, with no concept of the
> >consequences of our actions.
> 
> No offense meant, but this may be due to your personal lack of knowledge in
> this subject area. Although you might not personally know how to fix your
> hi-fi once you break it twiddling the knobs, you should not assume that
> nobody else can.

No offense taken.  I am aware of my ignorance.  The more important point
is
whether or not people in the field are aware of and are honest about
their
ignorance.

And the point is not whether or not we can fix it, but whether or not we
have the knowledge NOT TO BREAK IT in the first place.

> >This is important enough to me that I would get politically active if I
> >thought it would make a difference.
> 
> If it's really important to you, you should be eager to seek the knowledge
> you lack which is necessary to understand the risks involved. I suggest you
> spend some time in the library reading some literature on the subject. There
> are many articles from which one can glean a satisfactory knowledge of the
> issues. I have appended a short list below to get you started.

I'm sorry but I simply don't believe that.  I spend a great deal of time
trying to understand as much as possible about my own field of computers
and
it is simply impossible to learn everything.  When it comes to
recombinant DNA
and its possible disruptions to biological systems, I can't even hope
for
knowledge which is "an inch deep and a mile wide".

However, I have truly enjoyed our discussion and I will try to spend
some time
at the library.  (I know that Georgia Tech has a small biology
department and
I suspect that Emory may have one as well.)

> 
> McIntosh, Arthur H., and Rebecca Shamy (1980). Studies of a Baculovirus in a
> Mammalian Cell Line. Intervirology 13:331-341.
> 
> Groner, Albrecht (1986). Specificity and Safety of Baculoviruses, in The
> Biology of Baculoviruses, Vol. I. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, Inc.
> 
> Brusca, J., M. Summers, J. Couch, and L. Courtney (1986). Autographa
> californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus efficiently enters but does not
> replicate in poikilothermic vertebrate cells. Intervirology 26:207-222.
> 
> Wood, H. A., and R. R. Granados (1991). Genetically engineered baculoviruses
> as agents for pest control. Annual Review of Microbiology 45:69-87.
> 
> Hawtin, R. E., L. A. King, and R. D. Posse (1992). Prospects for the
> development of a genetically engineered baculovirus insecticide. Pesticide
> Science 34:9-15.
> 
> The names above are some of the major leaders in the field. If you do a
> search at the library you should be able to find many more recent articles.
> 
> >Unfortunately, the genie's out of
> >the bottle and banning gene twiddling in the U.S. would only push the
> >research off to other places which would be less monitored, less
> >controlled, and less reputable.
> 
> That's already happening in a big way, partly due to so many USA citizen's
> unwillingness to make an effort to learn, and their unfounded fears. These
> and other insect viruses have been in use in China on a large scale for many
> years.

Then we agree on this point (except for maybe the phrase "unfounded
fears").
I'd much rather that research be confined to academia.  I am less
trusting of
commercial control.  And I certainly don't want to see this going on in
non-democratic and/or third world countries.

> >I do ask that anyone involved with genetic engineering think hard about
> >how serious the consequences of their actions could be.
> 
> Why would you think most don't? Most scientists I know tend to be very
> thoughtful and generally don't act in a vacuum.
> Tracy

For the most part I do trust the motives of our scientists.  However, I
think anybody can develop tunnel vision and lose overall perspective,
especially people who are as focused as scientists have to be.



Follow-Ups: References: