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

From: [email-masked] (Joe Toth)
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 22:31:40 -0500

GENE TINKERING BLUES
                    Volume 1  Issue 3   August  1996

        by Prof. Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of
Western Ontario

GENETIC EXPERIMENTS THREATEN SOUTHERN ONTARIO

During the past year gene tinkered crops have begun to flood the
marketplace. These crops need not be labeled nor have they been tested to
assure their safety both for humans and for the environment. Such
production is going forward even though there is clear evidence that about
one in ten tinkered genes escapes from its original crop and spreads to
weedy relatives.  The  crops designed to resist viruses incorporate virus
genes that recombine with wild viruses to create stronger
(super) races of viruses. The greed of multinational companies that own
most tinkered crops drives them to risk human and environmental  injury
>from  crops that are  designed to grow obsolescent from spread to weedy
relatives.
        Recently Agriculture Canada began testing a gene tinkered
construction in Southern Ontario that has frightful characteristics. The
population of this area are being used as white mice in a gigantic
experiment. The experiment is a poor one because its results will not be
clearly and carefully recorded and public relations experts from government
and multinational  companies will obfuscate the results and trick and
mislead the public about them.
        The questionable experiment is to insert a gene for scorpion toxin
into an insect virus then to spray the tinkered virus onto produce crops in
the field. The tinkered virus is now highly potent in destroying insects
both pests and their natural predators and the pollinators.
        The  scorpion toxin may not be threatening to humans as a toxin
when it is eaten but its impact on cuts and open sores is a concern. Such
toxins are frequently allergens as well as nerve toxins.  Food allergy
causes effects ranging from migraine headache to death.
        The danger from a small field test is tangible provided the
experiment is not well thought out and controlled. Genetic recombination is
a significant concern in such experiments. The scorpion toxin gene can be
spread by recombination to insects that suck blood as well as insects that
suck plant juice. The virus that acquires a toxin gene will achieve a new
ecological niche and is likely to be a formidable parasite.

               SCORPION TOXIN WILL BE SPREAD BY INSECT VIRUSES
                GENETIC RECOMBINATION CAN MOVE THE TOXIN GENE
               INTO WIDE RANGING INSECT PESTS OF PLANTS AND MAN

        Even though it is relatively inexpensive to monitor the scorpion
toxin using a technique called ELISA and to monitor spread of the toxin
gene using PCR (a highly sensitive technique used in genetic
fingerprinting) such monitoring will not be done in Ontario. The reason
that the experiment will not be monitored is the mistaken belief that the
scorpion gene will not be an advantage to the insect virus which will die
out and have to be continually replaced from the company store.
Furthermore, it is equally clear that the agricultural authorities are not
eager to have adverse monitoring reports slow the development of a product
capable of enriching companies beyond their wildest dreams.
        The use of  a scorpion genes to enhance the killing ability of
insect viruses is not new. Somewhat similar experiments on trees sparked
violent controversy in the United Kingdom. Most of the tests on gene
tinkered crops  have been done in the United States and Canada and most of
the marketed gene tinkered products have been released in the United States
and Canada.  While the issue has sparked extensive debate in Europe the
extensive testing  in North America has mainly been ignored by news media
and government.  Most of the huge North American population is unaware of
the testing and marketing of unlabelled gene tinkered crops even though the
populations are totally immersed in news media of rich variety but little
diversity.
        The use of microbes to control insects is well established. A
bacterium called Bt has been used to fight insects for many years. The
bacterial toxin that kills insects has been added to the genes of potatoes
and corn among a growing number of crops.  Such gene tinkered potatoes are
being marketed in Canada. The gene tinkered crops have two disadvantages,
first the crops promote rapid  appearance of resistant crop varieties and
second, the Bt toxin may cause allergies in some people or toxicity in
people taking ulcer medication or antacids(the toxin is inactivated in the
acid environment of the stomach). The gene tinkered insect virus bearing
scorpion toxin will be sprayed on leafy vegetables such as  lettuce. People
eaten poorly washed lettuce will ingest  modified virus. The toxin  is
known to cause allergic responses along with poisoning animals and people.
Furthermore, recent studies show that  people may take genes form viruses
or modified food  into the genetic makeup of their tissues.  Vaccines are
being created by injecting or feeding genes containing the information for
epitope creating the vaccination.  However, gene products like scorpion
toxin are very likely to make tissues autoimmune, in turn creating diseases
related to arthritis, Lupus and a range of related conditions. If people
are not made aware of their exposures they will  never learn what caused
their diseases.
        Gene tinkering has already caused profound alterations on the
environment through the extensive testing programs in Canada and the United
States.  Current test are growing riskier all the time even though release
of a carelessly gene tinkered health food product caused death of at least
37 Americans and crippled thousands.  We must insure that gene tests and
releases  do not kill and maim thousands more.

http://www.hagelin.org/hagelin

---

From: [email-masked] (Tracy Aquilla)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 19:54:09 GMT

>GENETIC EXPERIMENTS THREATEN SOUTHERN ONTARIO
[snip]
>both pests and their natural predators and the pollinators.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is incorrect. The virus in question (AcMNPV) is capable of infecting
only a very small number of insects, all of which belong to the Lepidoptera.
There isn't a single predator or pollinator species which has been shown to
be susceptible to the virus. Your post consists of inaccurate reporting at
best, and outright lying at the worst.

>when it is eaten but its impact on cuts and open sores is a concern.

It is a "concern" only to the uninformed. See below for some facts.

>experiment is not well thought out and controlled.

Although this is also untrue, such experiments have all been quite well
controlled in the past, and there is no reason to assume that this will
change in the foreseeable future. Apparently Prof. Joe Cummins is completely
unfamiliar with baculoviruses and the vectors derived therefrom.

>Genetic recombination is
>a significant concern in such experiments.

This is quite false. If the gene were to somehow recombine into the insect
genome, it would kill the insect! Please cite some literature to support
your assertions, if you can. I doubt you will, because there is no
literature to support any of the assertions you have made thus far.

>The scorpion toxin gene can be

This is absolutely unsupported by any scientific literature. There has never
been identified any baculovirus capable of infecting any insect that sucks
blood or plant juices. You are either ignorant or you are lying. Either way,
your report represents highly irresponsible behavior for a scientist. 

>               INTO WIDE RANGING INSECT PESTS OF PLANTS AND MAN

I defy you to provide even a single reference to a peer-reviewed journal
article which supports this assertion. The evidence is overwhelmingly
contrary to the statements above. (See below for some citations.)

>fingerprinting) such monitoring will not be done in Ontario.

It is NOT inexpensive; ELISA and PCR are actually very expensive to perform
on a large scale, and in any case such monitoring is absolutely unwarranted
by the evidence available in the scientific literature.

>capable of enriching companies beyond their wildest dreams.

To which products do you refer here? There are no engineered insect viruses
available in any market of which I'm aware. Even if such a product were to
be developed, it is highly doubtful that it would have a market.

>However, gene products like scorpion
>States.

If this is true (which it is not), you have not supported your statement
with ANY evidence! How can you call yourself a scientist?

>Current test are growing riskier all the time even though release
>37 Americans and crippled thousands.

I assume this reference is to tryptophan, but as in the rest of your post,
there is no reference to any literature or evidence to support your claim.
Tryptophan is not a food product and the case in question did not involved
any "tinkered" gene! You ought to do some reading before you post such
nonsense in the future. Such poor reporting will do little to further your
reputation as a scientist.

Below, I have posted a brief excerpt from a literature review I wrote a few
years ago. It addresses the issue in question from a scientific standpoint,
as opposed to the fiction which has been presented thus far. Those
interested in researching the topic may consult me for a list of references
(I can provide hundreds of citations).

    For centuries, the pathogens of insects have been considered to be
potentially useful as insecticides, based on the frequent observation of
naturally occurring epizootics contributing to significant reductions in
insect pest populations (Gelernter and Federici, 1990; Kaupp and Sohi, 1985;
Tanada, 1963). However, until recently (i.e. 1980s), little scientific
research has been aimed specifically at developing insect pathogens as
insecticides, due mainly to significant economic and political barriers and
a general lack of knowledge concerning the biology of insect pathogens. Over
the last twenty years, due to the increasing public demand to find
alternatives to synthetic chemical insecticides, scientists studying insect
pathogens, particularly the bacteria and viruses, have acquired a
substantial volume of knowledge concerning the biology of these microorganisms.
    The nuclear polyhedrosis virus of Heliothis zea (HzSNPV; Elcar-Sandoz)
was the first commercial viral insecticide to be registered for general use
in the United States, but is no longer in production (Ignoffo, 1973;
Podgwaite, 1985). Other NPVs have since been approved, although some are for
use only by the United States Forest Service (USFS-USDA), and several
baculoviruses are now registered with the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for use as insecticides on a variety of plants
(Podgwaite, 1985). However, considering that more than 1200 cases of viral
infections of insects have been reported and only six viruses are registered
as biocontrol agents (Martignoni and Iwai, 1986a; Podgwaite, 1985), it seems
obvious that there are still substantial problems associated with developing
the vast potential of viral insecticides for biological pest control.
    It is generally accepted by the scientific community that these
insect-specific pathogens are not a threat to non-target species, including
humans (Brusca et al., 1986; Doller, 1985; Groner, 1986; McIntosh and Shamy,
1980; Rice and Miller, 1986). However, as more insect pathogens are
developed as insecticides, the public will likely challenge the safety of
the practice of spreading bacteria and viruses on food crops intended for
human consumption, whether or not these microbes have been genetically
engineered. This is a major barrier to the development of viral
insecticides. For this reason, it is essential to develop basic molecular
models describing the mechanisms of viral pathogenesis, with emphasis on the
specificity of insect viruses, particularly with respect to the nuclear
polyhedrosis viruses (NPVs; Family: Baculoviridae, subgroup A, which are
rapidly being developed as insecticides; Hawtin et al., 1992; Wood and
Granados, 1991), in order to conclusively demonstrate the safety of viral
insecticides as a rational means of biological control.

    The above excerpt was part of the introduction to my doctoral
dissertation, which directly addresses this subject. Anyone interested in
learning about the viruses in question might start their search by reading
my dissertation. It is available in nearly any library in the world.

Individuals posing as scientists claiming to want to protect the environment
>from  the ravages of the ag-chem business act counter to their cause when
they disseminate false information, such as "Prof. Joe Cummins" has done
here. This is a severe disservice to the public and the environment, as it
presents an unwarranted obstacle to the development of useful biological
controls which could partially replace some of the toxic compounds currently
in use, and it generates unwarranted fears in the public. I abhor such
behavior, and request that you either support your assertions with evidence
>from  the scientific literature or make a retraction. It is the duty of
scientist to act responsibly regarding such matters of fact.

Thomas T. Aquilla, Ph.D.
Entomologist/Insect Pathologist

---

From: [email-masked] (Tracy Aquilla)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 19:58:50 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (BRateaver)
wrote:
>Yes, I knew about that scorpion work, and I did write it up for public
>consumption, somewhere, altho I don't know if I can recall just where.
>
>Thank you for the added details, which I did not know. I admire you for
>having the righteous "nerve" to publicize the hazard.

Typical of such scaremongering, which has become quite common, there is not
a single citation to any SCIENCE in the report! This is most likely because
the scientific literature overwhelmingly contradicts the author's views.
Unfortunately, this report is also typical of the so-called 'junk' (it can't
honestly be called science, in any sense of the word) which plagues the
public of late, in that the author attempts to give his article credibility
by stating his credentials (i.e. "Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of
Western Ontario"). It is a sad day indeed when scientists use their
credentials in such a manner without first consulting the literature on the
topic at hand. It is absolutely clear that the author knows virtually
nothing of the biology of baculoviruses, although it appears by his use of
this title that he would have his audience believe otherwise.

For those people actually interested in learning some FACTUAL details about
engineered baculoviruses, see my previous post to this thread, where I
appended an excerpt from a literature review which I wrote a few years ago.
I can provide hundreds more references upon request. Basically, the question
of whether these viruses are capable of infecting non-target species, such
as humans, has been thoroughly investigated, and in no case has a
baculovirus been shown capable of resulting in a productive infection in any
mammalian species. Furthermore, the toxin genes which have been engineered
into these viruses are under the strict control of viral genetic elements
which can only be expressed in insect cells. This means that the toxins can
have no effect on humans, as humans cannot become infected by the
insect-specific virus.

Pull your heads out of the sand people (or wherever else you have stuck it).
The truth is out there for those with enough sense to seek it.

>Most people in
>academia do not have the intestinal fortitude to speak out.

This is a biased generalization only a fool would fall into believing. Some
of the most vociferous individuals in our society are academics. This is the
principle upon which academic freedom is based!
Tracy

---

From: Don Gholston <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Sep 1996 21:51:38 GMT

In my earlier posting I referred to the amino acid lysine. I should have 
said tryptophan (also a natural amino acid), but otherwise I stand by my 
remarks.

Don Gholston

---

From: [email-masked] (Tracy Aquilla)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 23:52:00 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]>, William R Hite
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]> on  Fri, 13 Sep 96 
>19:54:09 GMT [email-masked] (Tracy Aquilla) wrote:>
>> >of a carelessly gene tinkered health food product caused death of at 
>> >least 37 Americans and crippled thousands.
>> 
>> I assume this reference is to tryptophan, but as in the rest of your
>> post, there is no reference to any literature or evidence to support
>> your claim. Tryptophan is not a food product and the case in question did
>> not involve any "tinkered" gene...
>
>I am not a scientist but what I have read is:
>From the book "Genetic Engineering: The Hazards, Vedic Engineering: The 
>Solutions", Fagan J, MIU Press 1995, p53-54

Ayurvedic medicine doesn't exactly embrace the Western approach to medicine
or biology. I don't have a problem with individuals who have an interest in
'holistic' or ancient forms of medicine, but it should be noted that the two
philosophies are as mutually exclusive as creationism and evolutionism. In
other words, Vedic medicine rejects virtually everything inherent in modern
Western medical practice. It is more of a philosophy than science.

Also interesting is the author's background. John Fagan was a successful
scientist at the pinnacle of an impressive career, when he returned over
$600,000 in grant money to NIH, abandoned his Western beliefs, and gave up
science to delve into the art of Ayurvedic Medicine. My point is not to
attack the author's personal philosophy, but rather to point out that his is
the viewpoint of a highly biased extremist who rejects the most basic
concepts embraced by scientists.

><<
>Genetic manipulations to customize a bacterium for efficient tryptophan 
>production
>
>   Several companies use bacterial fermentation to produce tryptophan 
>which is sold as a human nutritional supplement.

Supplement tablets are not what I'd call food products. The FDA treats
supplements separately from real food.

>   Not satisfied with the efficiency of tryptophan production, this 
>company carried out further genetic modifications of this organism. 
>These manipulations were successful in greatly increasing output.
>However, Showa Denko decided not to carry out the costly series of 
>safety tests that were done with the earlier genetically engineered 
>microorganism. The company assumed, based on the earlier tests, that 
>the tryptophan produced using the new bacterium was safe and 
>immediately began selling it as a nutritional supplement.
>   Over the next two years 37 people died, another 1500 were partially 
>paralyzed, and 5000 more were temporarily disabled by a syndrome that 
>was finally linked to this company's tryptophan (Ref 13). It was
>contaminated with one or more toxic compounds chemically related to 
>tryptophan.

Actually, I believe what happened was that they started using a different,
unapproved host strain, which turned out to be toxic. This was a human
ERROR, due to the fact that someone 'responsible' was not doing their job
properly. It actually had nothing to do with a genetic experiment gone awry,
as the enviro-terrorists would have the public believe. It was a case of
stupidity, not a lack of knowledge or testing of any product.

>   There is still controversy regarding the cause of this toxicity. 
>since, in addition to using the new genetically engineered bacterium 
>this company had also begun to cut corners in the procedure for 
>purifying their tryptophan. To protect the good name of genetic 
>engineering, the industry has blamed the toxicity on these procedural 
>changes, and the company has destroyed the bacterium, so that further 
>research cannot be done.

This is merely speculation.

>However, scientists who have followed this incident...

Please name some who have spoken out publicly on this issue, besides Fagan.

>...favor the explanation in which genetic manipulations caused 
>the bacteria to generate toxic tryptophan derivatives.

Certainly much of the information in question is proprietary and I'm sure
many of the court documents remain sealed from the public. The facts will
remain obscure in this case. While it is possible that such "genetic
manipulations" were involved, if they were it was in violation of many
regulatory statutes designed to protect the public from such irresponsible
behavior. I might point out that although similar incidents have occurred in
the past, particularly in regard to the pharmaceutical industry, this is the
only significant case opponents of "genetic engineering" have been able to
latch onto as their version of "The Andromeda Strain". (Remember also that
automobiles kill many thousands daily, but we continue to take that risk,
and it's the most significant risk most of us take daily by orders of
magnitude.)

>   The question that this example raises is this: If it is impossible 
>to predict the consequences of altering the genes of a simple, 
>single-celled organism how can genetic engineers say with confidence 
>that manipulations of the far more complex human genome will improve 
>health and not create new diseases?

That's why there's a huge body of regulatory law, requiring extensive
testing of any theraputic compound or device. Why on the one hand does the
public demand cures for cancer and AIDS and on the other condemn the
industry which provides them? If you don't trust your doctor, maybe you
should become a Vedic!

In any case, all this has nothing to do with food, genetically-engineered or
otherwise. If you stick to the topic I was discussing and do some research,
you will find that the alleged dangers from using insect viruses as
biological controls are unwarranted by the scientific literature.
Tracy

---

From: [email-masked] (Tracy Aquilla)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 23:51:48 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]>, Mike Zauzig <[email-masked]> 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.

>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).

>(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.

>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.

>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.

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.

>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

---

From: William R Hite <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:51:16 +0000

>...
> your claim.
> Tryptophan is not a food product and the case in question did not
> involved any "tinkered" gene!
>...

(I do not have access to ref 13 cited but perhaps someone else could 
summarise the details?)

<<

   Several companies use bacterial fermentation to produce tryptophan 
which is sold as a human nutritional supplement. To increase the 
efficiency of tryptophan production, one company Showa Denko, carried 
out extensive genetic modifications of the bacterium used in this 
process. The tryptophan produced by this genetically engineered 
organism was tested according to U.S Food and Drug Administration 
standards, and was cleared for commercial production and sale as a food 
supplement for humans.
   Not satisfied with the efficiency of tryptophan production, this 
company carried out further genetic modifications of this organism. 
These manipulations were successful in greatly increasing output. 
However, Showa Denko decided not to carry out the costly series of 
safety tests that were done with the earlier genetically engineered 
microorganism. The company assumed, based on the earlier tests, that 
the tryptophan produced using the new bacterium was safe and 
immediately began selling it as a nutritional supplement.
   Over the next two years 37 people died, another 1500 were partially 
paralyzed, and 5000 more were temporarily disabled by a syndrome that 
was finally linked to this company's tryptophan (Ref 13). It was 
contaminated with one or more toxic compounds chemically related to 
tryptophan.
   Most likely, the genetic manipulations had increased tryptophan 
production so greatly that the concentrations of tryptophan, within the 
bacteria reached very high levels. As a result, the tryptophan and its 
precursors began to react chemically producing unexpected toxic 
compounds. To date this company has paid over $1 billion in damages, 
and litigation is still in progress.
   There is still controversy regarding the cause of this toxicity. 
since, in addition to using the new genetically engineered bacterium 
this company had also begun to cut corners in the procedure for 
purifying their tryptophan. To protect the good name of genetic 
engineering, the industry has blamed the toxicity on these procedural 
changes, and the company has destroyed the bacterium, so that further 
research cannot be done. However, scientists who have followed this 
incident favor the explanation in which genetic manipulations caused 
the bacteria to generate toxic tryptophan derivatives.
   The question that this example raises is this: If it is impossible 
to predict the consequences of altering the genes of a simple, 
single-celled organism how can genetic engineers say with confidence 
that manipulations of the far more complex human genome will improve 
health and not create new diseases? 

Ref 13: Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and tryptophan production: a 
cautionary tale: Mayeno A N, Gleich G J; Tibtech, 12, 346-352, 1994 

William |WRC Solutions: Computer Consultants|Tel (+44)(0)1695  50470
   Hite |MS-Office, Visual Basic, FTR, Text |Fax (+44)(0)1695 720889
        [email-masked], http://www.u-net.com/~wrcs/home

---

From: "B. McClinton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:55:19 -0700

Tracy Aquilla wrote:

Snip 
> development of a genetically engineered baculovirus insecticide. Pesticide

Tracy,

I agree with you that people should thoroughly research subjects that 
concern them. However, when scientists write papers for journals they are 
writing for their peers (other scientists) not "Joe Public". While this 
form of publication is efficient for communicating with other scientists 
it is an very inefficient way to communicate with non-scientists. 

As you mentioned the volume of new scientific information is 
incomprehensible to many people. Because of this literature reviews are 
tedious and time consuming. Even scientists are now contracting out "lit 
reviews" due to time limitations. Is it reallistic to expect "Joe Public" 
to do this in his/her spare time? No it isn't! They will collect 
information from the most convenient source. They may come across an 
accurate source or they may find a source who received their PhD from a 
"match book."

Creating misinformation is easy for people who can spin a good tale. Cite 
a few references and you've got instant credibility. Since few people 
check references, this is a particularly effective technique. Once the 
misinformation is out, it is difficult to counteract. The scientific 
community needs to be working more actively to get their message out. It 
is the collective silence of the scientific community that plays into the 
"propagandists'" hands. I believe that scientists must take 
responsibility for getting there message out to the public. As 
scientists, if we want to get our message out to them, we must use their 
media, not ours.

Keep up the good fight.

Blair McClinton, P.Ag.

	The truth is out there, if your willing to look.

---

From: Mike Zauzig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 00:55:41 -0400

> 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".)

> several other authors in previous posts to this thread. More references

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.

> 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.

> hi-fi once you break it twiddling the knobs, you should not assume that

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.

> 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.)

> and other insect viruses have been in use in China on a large scale for many

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.

> thoughtful and generally don't act in a vacuum.

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.

---

From: William R Hite <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:09:07 +0000

In article <[email-masked]> on  Mon, 16 Sep 96 23:52:00 GMT 
[email-masked] (Tracy Aquilla) wrote:

> or biology.

Probably not true and not relevant to the discussion. I quoted two 
references, which you asked for. Have you read them, rather than the 
titles?

> ... but it should be noted that the two

Not true. Emotive words irrelevant to a scientific discussion.
 
> science to delve into the art of Ayurvedic Medicine.

Not true. Please provide any evidence you have as to John Fagan's 
motives? What you say is directly contradicting the evidence he gives 
in his own book about his own motives and past and future aims in life.

> My point is not to

You sound like a mugger who says "I did not mean to hurt the old lady".
This <was> an ad hominem attack and as such has no place in a .sci 
discussion. It is clearly a false statement as it stands because
Fagan, even by your own description, is a scientist.

> supplements separately from real food.

Fine.

> stupidity, not a lack of knowledge or testing of any product.

So now we know what your beliefs are Tracy. Why not give use some 
references to research or facts to back them up? You could always,
like a real scientist, start with the Tibtech reference that Fagan
cites.

By the way, I was quoting John Fagan. Is he the <enviro-terrorist> you 
are referring to?

> This is merely speculation.

What is speculative in this paragraph? 1)the controversy 
2) new GE bacterium 3) cutting corners 4) attempt to protect good name
5) procedural changes blamed 6) destruction of bacterium 7) motive for so 
destroying?

Most significantly (to my mind): was the bacterium destroyed? Why?

> Please name some who have spoken out publicly on this issue, besides Fagan.

How could I? I told you I was not a scientist. You are, and are in the 
field, have you <<really>> asked around? Of what relevance is it to 
the truth?

> and it's the most significant risk most of us take daily by orders of

I do not know what the "andromeda strain" is but Fagan's book makes 
little more of the tryptophan issue than I quoted in my first posting.

Regarding automobiles - are you trying to give me a personal course 
in "home risk management"? Please don't. It's incorrect, unscientific 
and not worthy of your credentials.

Regarding the pharmaceutical industry. Now there is a something of
interest. I do not have the reference to hand but there was a recent(ish)
study showing that one third of hospital in-patients were being treated
for iatrogenic (physician induced) complaints. 

In my layman's view the modern pharmaceutical industry was at first 
heralded as a world saver. The pharmaceutical industry, as you yourself
point out, is one of the most highly regulated and studied scientific 
fields. Nevertheless, regrettably, over the years many unwanted 
side-effects of the <wonder drugs> have surfaced. In such cases the 
drugs is withdrawn or used in more restricted ways.

Now scientists of a similar calibre are modifying the genetic 
makeup of <self replicating>, <free standing>, <living organisms> which
form the basis of our food supply. Not only do these organisms provide
our food but they also <compete with humans>, and <every other living
organism> for living space on this planet.

How, if at all, could these genetically modified organisms be <withdrawn>
<if> unwanted side-effects (of any sort) were later discovered?

> industry which provides them? If you don't trust your doctor, maybe you

I'm sorry Tracy - you are letting your emotions slip again.

> If you stick to the topic I was discussing and do some research,

<<You>> asked for references on the tryptophan poisoning incident.

  -> I gave one.

  -> You responded with a load of emotive, off-topic, claptrap.

> biological controls are unwarranted by the scientific literature.

And scientists are completely rational...

---

From: Mike Zauzig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 22:04:54 -0400

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.  And obviously genetics is not much simpler.  So to
say that there is nothing in the scientific literature to support being
paranoid doesn't really carry much weight.  (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.

thought it would make a difference.  Unfortunately, the genie's out of

I do ask that anyone involved with genetic engineering think hard about
how serious the consequences of their actions could be.  I strongly
believe that nature will compensate for just about anything thrown at
her, it's just a matter of whether or not humans will be a part of the
equation when the dust settles.

(Yuk. That sure was depressing.)

---

From: Michael Grosz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 09:17:19 -0700

> especially people who are as focused as scientists have to be.

I first want to compliment everyone in this thread for remaining civil, I 
will do my best to follow suit.  The best way to lose an arguement is to 
stop listening.

Mike, I am a geneticist (I don't mind the term "gene tinkerer", but we 
prefer "gene jockey").  I am currently researching genes which effect 
economically important traits in cattle.

In response to the first passage above, we definitely DO NOT assume that 
it is safe to tinker without causing harm.  The mountains of paperwork 
that we must go through to assure administrators is increasing 
exponentially (that does not mean that I think it is unnecessary).  Our 
proposed experiments go through multiple rounds of peer review and 
critique before we proceed (which improves the science).  The most 
important question asked during these reviews (in my experience) is "are 
we doing this because we SHOULD, or because we CAN?"  Failing to address 
this question is how scientists get "tunnel vision".

At this point, I must make some comments about human nature.  As a 
population, we resist change.  The statement "if it ain't broke..." is 
very appropriate.  Especially more recently, as we have seen the standard 
of living almost constantly increasing, it is easy to say "why take the 
chance?"  These questions are appropriate, and keep scientists focused on 
their objectives.

I do have a serious problem, however, with people who feel it is their 
civic duty to "inform" the populus of the unnatural and ungodly things 
that scientists are doing with their tax money.  There is a large 
difference between scientific critique and these folks.  Almost without 
exception, these "experts" all seem to fall into the same catagory:

1)  They have no accredited education in the field(s).
2)  They belong to (or lead) a non-profit organization.
3)  Said organization is seeking contributions (which are, of course, 
tax-deductible).
4)  They have authored several books (non-reviewed) about the subject.
5)  The message is fear, fear, fear.
6)  They are not taken seriously by the "scientific community".

The scientific community MUST take these people seriously.  Science has 
lost it's credibility in the last 50 years because of their inability to 
DEFEAT these people.  I use "DEFEAT", because I think persuasion is not 
possible.  How many times must a "scientific watchdog" be wrong before 
they lose credibility?

It is terribly easy to scare the public (is it any wonder why politicians 
spend more time talking about why the other guy is bad?).  For every 30 
seconds of air time that Jeremy Rifkin gets, I must spend 30 days 
correcting his false statements.  Of course, he gets air time because he 
is so "controversial".  It took 10 seconds for someone to say that Bovine 
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) is related to Cruetzfeld-Jacobs Syndrome. 
 Were they correct?  We still don't know, but millions of cattle will be 
slaughtered in England to calm the public fears.

In closing, thank you for keeping an open mind.  If you have any 
questions that I may be able to address, I would be happy to try.

-- 
Michael Grosz
e-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: DrD <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:44:43 -0700

Mike Zauzig wrote:
<snip a whole load of stuff that can best be described as:
THERE ARE SOME THINGS MAN WAS NOT MEANT TO KNOW!>
> (Yuk. That sure was depressing.)

To me, the most depressing aspect of all this is your blatant pessimism
and disregard of thousands of years of artificial selection and
crossbreeding in plant and animal species.  Has the human society
reached such a low point that our highest objectives include stifling
innovation because we are so risk-averse?  That is a depressing thought.

Steve Denham

---

From: [email-masked] (Tracy Aquilla)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 00:56:53 GMT

>in his own book about his own motives and past and future aims in life.

Fagan's book is as good a place to start as any. He's also been all over the
headlines over the past year. A search in any library should turn up dozens
or articles.

>Fagan, even by your own description, is a scientist.

The point was to inform those who would not follow up on the topic
themselves of my personal opinion that the author is highly biased. His
religious or spiritual beliefs are his own business, but it's relevant to
the discussion nonetheless.

>organism> for living space on this planet.

Are you really unaware that humans have been doing exactly this for
thousands of years? If scientists (and farmers, before there were
scientists) hadn't been "modifying the genetic makeup of <self replicating>,
<free standing>, <living organisms> which form the basis of our food supply"
for the last 10,000 years, we wouldn't have many of the foods we depend on
today. Before man began manipulating plants and animals through selective
breeding, food crops were non-existent, and what was available had very
marginal utility.

---

From: Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Sep 1996 09:34:17 GMT

I realise, this thread is getting quite indepth but i thought i'd just 
add a very 'general' fact i once learnt that may suggest we have to turn 
to recombinant DNA techniques:-

* Increases in crop yeilds through improved plant varieties, more 
  efficient growing methods etc equals 1% per year

* World Pop'n is increasing at 1.6% per year

Theoretically unless we come up with vast crop yeild improvements, 
eventually we will encounter a world food deficit.

Cheers,

Martin

---

From: Mike Zauzig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:03:49 -0400

Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.

> > (Yuk. That sure was depressing.)

Your interpretation of my viewpoint is flat wrong.  I think a curious
mind is a fabulous thing.  However, with knowledge comes responsibility.

> innovation because we are so risk-averse?  That is a depressing thought.

Firstly, a better word would be fatalism. 

Secondly, I am surprised at how emotional the responses have been from
the "gene jockeys".  Why so defensive?  I thought that an open mind is
essential to scientific thought.  Is it so hard to address the concerns
of others.

Now, are you sincere in equating gene-splicing with traditional breeding
practices?  Because, if you are, I certainly have a lot to learn (which
is very possible).  Right now, however, I would think that genetic
engineering can create gene sequences which almost certainly would never
happen through natural processes no matter what the environment. (Please
correct me if I'm wrong.)

My overall concern is this.  If an engineer makes a serious
miscalculation, a space shuttle could blow up.  If a political leader
makes a miscalculation, large numbers of people can die.  But if a
genetic researcher makes a mistake, the consequences are almost
inconceivable.  The entire web of life on Earth could be rearranged into
who knows what.  And, whereas you would think my primary concern would
be for homo sapiens' place in a new order, I am actually more concerned
about the well being of life on Earth in general.  I realize how
dramatic this sounds, but that is how I see things.

A rogue genetically engineered cow can be controlled and does not
concern me.  A rogue genetically engineered germ is different.

If you are confident in your beliefs, and you care about what you see as
public misconceptions, then you need to address these points in a way
that convinces people like me.  If you can't, then you have no hope of
winning over the anti-science crowd like the creationists.  (Oh boy, I
bet that last sentence will bring 'em down on me like a swarm of bees.)

---

From: [email-masked] (Carter Fields)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 96 02:48:41 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

>concern me.  A rogue genetically engineered germ is different.

I completely agree with you mike, and I am a molecular biologist!  The only 
flaw in your argument:  if you wouldn't alter the germ, then don't alter 
anything (like the cow)!!

By messing with genes, we are being very egoistical...thinking that we "know 
all."

-------------------------
Carter Fields
Northwestern University
[email-masked]

"One person cannot do everything, but everyone can do something....SAVE MOTHER EARTH!"

---

From: [email-masked] (Carter Fields)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 96 02:49:55 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   Martin <[email-masked]> wrote:
>SNIP

Great!  That's what we need, less food!  This way, people will die off so a 
state of equilibrium is reached once again.  Too many people in this 
world...not enough natural habitat.

---

From: Karl Martin Syring <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 19:06:46 +0200

Carter Fields wrote:
> "One person cannot do everything, but everyone can do >something....SAVE MOTHER EARTH!"

Is there somewhere a hidden smiley in the message or can I file
your message for an excellent description of eco-fascism?

Regards
Karl

---

From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:27:30 GMT

>world...not enough natural habitat.
Another great "thinker" with a Final Solution.

And no doubt you will be the first to volunteer to starve to death? 
Or is it only other people who will have to do so, to establish _your_
equilibrium?

Regards

Ralph

---

From: "B. McClinton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:13:28 -0700

> world...not enough natural habitat.

Unfortunately, no one has told the hungry of the world they are suppose to quietly 
starve to death. They are NOT going to go quietly but will plow up every acre (or 
hectare) of habitat for agriculture first. Increasing agricultural yields on 
existing agricultural lands in proportion to population growth is the only way to 
protect existing natural habitats from destruction. 

Blair McClinton
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Evil One)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 07:10:41 GMT

I've been watching this thread for a while now and feel it is time I
posted *something*. I like to think I am an educated person. Granted I
don't hold degrees or such things, but I am capable of cognisant
thought.

	As one individual pointed out already, we have been "tinkering" with
genetic strains for quite some time now through inter-breeding along
with plant splicing etc. Without it, we wouldn't have many of the
strains of wheat and corn and rice we enjoy today. Among other things.

	Look at the lowly potatoe. When Europeans first came upon it, it was
toxic unless prepared the proper way. The Europeans brought it home
and "tinkered" with it until we have today a vast variety of starins
that we enjoy and help feed millions of people.

	Now if you think about it, we see only the successful varieties, not
the unsuccessful ones. Why?, I wonder. Probably because the
unsuccessful ones could not survive in nature. As well, I have never
heard of "Mutant Potatoes" over-running cities or hamlets. So I assume
nature in Her own way figured out a way to control the "misfits".

	More recently, what ever happened to the "Killer Bee" threat? At one
point it was stated they were to over-run the U.S. and possibly
Canada. Maybe it's still there but doesn't sell newspapers anymore.

	We have fought to lower the infant mortality rate worldwide. An
honourable objective with which I agree. But, now we have to feed
those children. Present circumstances being what they are, we are not
capable of it. We have created a Global Time Bomb of immense
proportions and have the means at hand to de-fuse it. But, it requires
us to do risky things. 

	Humans by nature are "tinkers", we can't leave well enough alone.
Without this desire we would still be poking holes in the ground with
sharpened sticks and raiding villages for wives. I feel we should be
careful, but not stifle creativity. I would hate to think we would
encourage a return to the thinking of the 1400's where reknowned
thinkers were placed under house arrest simply because they disagreed
with the conventional thinking of the day.

	The two biggest fears I have is that 1] we don't do anything out of
fear for the possible consequences, 2] we do something rash *without*
fear for the possible consequences. We have to find a middle road
position where most concerns can be met. I would not be foolish enough
to hope that *everyone* would be happy, but at least most.

	Peter

---

From: Mike Zauzig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:07:23 -0400

> [email-masked]

Isn't it obvious that the real problem is overpopulation.  Even if crop
yields are doubled using every means available, if the population keeps
growing, sooner or later there's not going to be enough food.  The Earth
in only so big.  In the mean time, there will be side effects of our
attempts to use technology to solve the problem.

---

From: "B. McClinton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 22:40:35 -0700

> attempts to use technology to solve the problem.

Yes, population growth is the biggest limitation to resource conservation. Empirical 
evidence shows that population growth rates drop as standard of living and life 
expectancy increases. Inproving the lives of third world peoples is crucial for 
stabilizing population growth. This will require both political and agricultural 
stability in the third world for this to happen.

In the meantime, technology has helped minimize the negative effects of a growing 
population. Extensive low-yield agriculture results in deforestation and the plowing 
of natural habitats.

Blair McClinton

---

From: DrD <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 13:57:30 -0700

Carter Fields wrote:

Mike Zauzig <[email-masked]> wrote regarding my comments about his
> By messing with genes, we are being very egoistical...thinking that we "know

I love it, guys.  As far as I can tell, your position is: Death to all
mutations.  Now.  

Either of you may explain any differences between your perception of
your position and my perception.  I'm really curious how you get your
mind around that.  

My position regarding genetic engineering is: Induced mutation, with the
offspring monitored for adverse events.  For the life of me, I cannot
see how this is different from observing natural mutations.  Please
explain where I am going wrong.  I'd hate to think all my training in
animal science has been wasted because I cannot understand this.

Steve Denham

---

From: Mike Zauzig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 22:21:59 -0400

> animal science has been wasted because I cannot understand this.

"Induced mutation"?  That has a nice, soothing sound to it.  Like,
you're
just kinda helping old Mother Nature move along.

OK.  Now explain to me how you "monitor for adverse events" when you
don't have a thorough grasp of the system that the organism is a part
of.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:37:16 +0300

> don't have a thorough grasp of the system that the organism is a part

More to the point: you are NOT inducing mutation of existing genetic material within the 
chemical soup it developed in, you are transplanting snippets of genetic material into 
a totally alien biochemical environment. The analogy is to a crazy quilt of patches - or, 
more dramatically, to Frankenstein: life made up of bits of life.

You mention monitoring results - but in fact the industry is lobbying to make such 
monitoring IMPOSSIBLE. For example, Monsanto and others want to prevent labelling of 
genetically altered foods, keeping you in the dark about the food you eat and making the 
effects of these experiments untraceable. There will be no way to retrospectively link 
health problems with Monsanto products (what clever lawyers they have!).

Go to a good library, and read what scientists said about the safety of DDT and related 
insecticides. Read what the chemical companies said. Then read how the truth came out - 
and how the chemical companies and the scientists (who are often beholden to these 
companies financially) attacked the truth and denied responsibility. THEN read some 
current statistics: these poisons are being sold by the ton to uneducated farmers in 
unregulated areas of the world by these same cynical conglomerates.

Don't take the agribiz and chemical companies' assurances with a grain of salt. If there 
were no risk, they'd be labelling genetically altered foods THEMSELVES as a marketing 
ploy. Instead, they want to make any ill effects untraceable. Why? Because they 
themselves are worried.

Joshua