You Are Here:
Send URL
Fill in the form below and click on the "send" button. Our server will send an e-mail message to the recipient that includes the URL of the story you want to share.
You can send to multiple e-mail addresses by separating them with COMMAs: a.name@aserver.com, another.name@anotherserver.com
In the 50 years since the discovery of the double helix, science has shown that gene expression is not nearly as simple as the GE industry would like to believe.
Enlarge image
The findings raise serious questions about how Food Standards Australia
New Zealand (FSANZ) assesses the safety of GE foods and the basis for
GE patents.
The research, published in the journal Nature, calls into question a vital assumption of the GE industry - that each DNA sequence can be isolated and has its own function. However, the research found that genes seem to operate in a complex network where they react, interact and overlap in ways that are still far from understood.
The GE premise: The GE industry assumes that genes and their functions can be isolated, patented, spliced into an organism, and controlled. For example, companies like Monsanto have thrived on isolating traits, such as resistance to herbicides, and then genetically engineering them into crops. This simplistic model of how genes operate was developed in the 1950s and is termed the 'Central Dogma'.
New research findings: The research shows that genes cannot be considered isolated units nor can they be controlled. Gene networks are far too complex.
As the research shows, the mechanisms of genes are not yet fully understood. So how can biotech companies control gene interactions or regulators guarantee public safety? The findings could seriously upset gene patenting and established ways of assessing the safety of GE crops.
As Jack Heinemann, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, told The New York Times, "The real worry for us has always been that the commercial agenda for biotech may be premature, based on what we have long known was an incomplete understanding of genetics."
This "incomplete understanding of genetics" explains why GE crops suffer so many unexpected effects. These include an early 2007 peer-reviewed study that found evidence of liver and kidney toxicity in rats that had been fed a GE maize variety (MON863) approved for human consumption.
"Because gene patents and the genetic engineering process itself are both defined in terms of genes acting independently, regulators may be unaware of the potential impacts arising from these network effects," Professor Heinemann says.
The research demonstrates that the basis for genetic engineering used by biotech companies is invalid. Genetic engineering is destined to fail because it can never incorporate the complex regulatory networks now known to exist in organisms. Life is too complex to be engineered.
The research was conducted by a consortium of scientists in conjunction with the United States National Human Genome Research Institute.
The research, published in the journal Nature, calls into question a vital assumption of the GE industry - that each DNA sequence can be isolated and has its own function. However, the research found that genes seem to operate in a complex network where they react, interact and overlap in ways that are still far from understood.
GE assumptions vs the latest research
The GE premise: The GE industry assumes that genes and their functions can be isolated, patented, spliced into an organism, and controlled. For example, companies like Monsanto have thrived on isolating traits, such as resistance to herbicides, and then genetically engineering them into crops. This simplistic model of how genes operate was developed in the 1950s and is termed the 'Central Dogma'.
New research findings: The research shows that genes cannot be considered isolated units nor can they be controlled. Gene networks are far too complex.
What the findings mean for GE
As the research shows, the mechanisms of genes are not yet fully understood. So how can biotech companies control gene interactions or regulators guarantee public safety? The findings could seriously upset gene patenting and established ways of assessing the safety of GE crops.
As Jack Heinemann, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, told The New York Times, "The real worry for us has always been that the commercial agenda for biotech may be premature, based on what we have long known was an incomplete understanding of genetics."
Incomplete understanding
This "incomplete understanding of genetics" explains why GE crops suffer so many unexpected effects. These include an early 2007 peer-reviewed study that found evidence of liver and kidney toxicity in rats that had been fed a GE maize variety (MON863) approved for human consumption.
"Because gene patents and the genetic engineering process itself are both defined in terms of genes acting independently, regulators may be unaware of the potential impacts arising from these network effects," Professor Heinemann says.
The research demonstrates that the basis for genetic engineering used by biotech companies is invalid. Genetic engineering is destined to fail because it can never incorporate the complex regulatory networks now known to exist in organisms. Life is too complex to be engineered.
The research was conducted by a consortium of scientists in conjunction with the United States National Human Genome Research Institute.
