The view from NITHIA...
columnist: Michael

Topic: Social and Cultural Issues
Genetic Engineering: Science or Serendipity

---

A lot of the GE debate is after-the-fact; it is post mortum. The multi-national corporations have already done it; it is released into the environment in many forms already...

---

by Michael
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Back when it was still a point of debate (2002) I picked up a pamphlet from the counter top of our local health food store which stated on its cover:

"WARNING: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS IN THE PROCESS OF APPROVING THE FIRST GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FISH. IF APPROVED, THESE FISH WILL BE ALLOWED TO SWIM IN OPEN WATERS AND BE SOLD IN SUPER MARKETS WITHOUT ANY MANDATORY LABELING."

These pamphlets had been put out for circulation by The Center for Food Safety (www.centerforfoodsafety.org), one of a number of such organizations which are concerned with genetically engineered organisms being allowed to enter into our food chain for human consumption and into the environment at large--and rightfully so.

The genetically engineered salmon is not a recent development. I became aware of it in 1999 when the news of its development earned it the name of "frankenfish" in the (backdoor) media. Since that time some 30 other genetically engineered fishes have been developed worldwide among which is included a red carp which has been developed in China which is capable of producing human growth hormone for extraction (i.e. it is a goldfish with the human DNA segment responsible for the production of human growth hormone spliced into its genetic makeup).

The genetically engineered (GE) salmon has been developed for its
tremendously accelerated growth rate--it grows at a rate which is 30 times faster than that of a natural salmon--and for its eventual enormous size--a natural salmon tops out at around 150 pounds whereas the GE salmon can reach 450 pounds!

Now I might have chosen the word "designed" rather than "developed" as it refers to the GE salmon but such is not exactly the case. In the beginning the goal of the biotech scientists was not to "design" a salmon which grew 30 times faster and 3 times bigger than a natural salmon. This was the unintentional result of an intent to "design" a salmon for a far different reason.

The super-grow GE salmon unintentionally came into being when biotech scientists were intending to design a cold-tolerant salmon. In order to design a cold-tolerant salmon they spliced into the salmon a DNA segment from a flounder--a fish totally unrelated to the salmon (the two species could not crossbreed naturally) and which can withstand subfreezing temperatures--so they spliced into the salmon a DNA segment from a flounder that they thought was responsible for the cold-tolerance of the flounder in the hope of ending up with a salmon which could tolerate far colder waters than the natural salmon and thereby extend the area of commercial salmon production into colder waters and thereby greatly expand production capacities. What they ended up with was the super salmon--a totally unintentional, unanticipated result. This is serendipity not science!

But I feel that the case of the GE salmon well illustrates the potential
risks inherent to mans feeble, unenlightened meddling in the genetic make up of the natural order of things. The potential risks are too great to gleefully accept the results of serendipity rather than the intended and anticipated results of their biotech endeavors. The proponents of genetic engineering have an unfortunate confidence in the ability of their science to "control" it. I and many, many others do not share this confidence with them.

The super-grow GE salmon represents a boon to the commercial salmon industry which far exceeds what increased production capacity would have been afforded by the designing of a merely cold-tolerant salmon. In other words, the super-grow GE salmon will be much more profitable--which brings me to my next point--science undertaken in the pursuit of discovering something which is merely profitable is not objective science! Indeed it is frightening science!

Now, in order to understand why the biotech scientists accidentally ended up with the super salmon instead of the cold-tolerant salmon, and why any and all other genetic engineering attempts will have unanticipated consequences, if you will bear with this layman's discussion of his opinion we will move this discussion from the case of the GE salmon to the case of the human genome.

After they had finished mapping the human genome and the results were in the results were not what they had anticipated. Our genome was not that much more complicated and impressive than that of say, a mouse--it was indeed more, just not as much more as had been anticipated. The only explanation was obvious. A single, isolated gene segment does not necessarily perform only just one function. In fact it was obvious that gene segments perform and are responsible for multiple functions, i.e. the isolated gene segment from the flounder that scientists thought would impart cold-tolerance to salmon also had a growth function or perhaps it had a growth function only when it was implanted into salmon--they really just don't know yet. Now the technology must be improved yet another step further in order to be predictable, i.e. they must be able to determine and isolate one function that exists within a gene that has multiple functions and how to extract it in order to achieve predictable results...

...or is it like those corny old "what do you get when you cross a such-n-such with a such-n-such" jokes--but with the biotechnology of today the punch line is no longer humorous when they can reply, "We don't know but let's do it and find out!"   The potential risk lies in that if a GE salmon breeds with another GE salmon or a natural salmon this unnatural trait from a flounder is passed on.  What results is a salmon that is not purely a salmon as representative of salmon which have existed since they were created by God in the beginning.  And the GE salmon is only one of many, many unnatural plants and creatures being designed/developed and introduced with the potential of passing on unnatural traits within the environment.  As biotech endeavors combine the DNA of such differing life forms as goats and black widow spiders; toads, potatoes and silkworms; fish and tomatoes; rabbits and jellyfish what is the risk and potential risk to the natural environment if these chimeric organisms pass these unnatural traits on reproductively into the natural environment?  Reproductive potentials are mathmatically exponential.  What could occurr in the natural environment once this genetic genie gets out of bottle?  I for one do not even want to know--but the genie's already out of the bottle so I'm afraid we'll be founding out all too soon none the less...

In His Love,

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
8 thumbs so far

2008 Michael, all rights reserved.
Published: Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Michael only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Michael is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Michael of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.