A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Immunology Forum » A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech

Page 1 of 1

Author

Message

JOHN

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:05 am

Guest

NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/business/yourmoney/01frame.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

July 1, 2007
Re:framing
A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech

By DENISE CARUSO
THE $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a
discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it
was founded.
Excerpt...We're learning that many diseases are caused not by the action of
single genes, but by the interplay among multiple genes, Ms. Caulfield
said. She noted that just before she wrote her article, scientists
announced that they had decoded the genetic structures of one of the most
virulent forms of malaria and that it may involve interactions among as
many as 500 genes.
Even more important than patent laws are safety issues raised by the
consortium's findings. Evidence of a networked genome shatters the
scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today's
commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to
pharmaceuticals..........

As with viruses, we have no idea of the complex interactions between genes.
There can be billions of viruses in a glass of water. Some are highly
resistant to chlorine such as the tobacco mosaic virus.
Human pathogenic viruses have not been proven to survive chlorinated
drinking water. RBO

Russell B.Olinsky, M.S.
Environmental Specialist

Bryan Heit

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:27 am

Guest

JOHN wrote:

Quote:

That the large majority of genetic traits are multigenic in nature (i.e.
the product of multiple genes, interacting with each other). Isn't news.
Hell, the first descriptions of multigenic traits date back to the
late 1800's. For every disease, or trait, caused by a single gene there
are dozens (if not hundreds) caused by multiple genes.

Biotech is well aware of this. They've always been aware of this. It
is not a problem for them; it simply limits what they can do cheaply.

Quote:

She noted that just before she wrote her article, scientists
announced that they had decoded the genetic structures of one of the most
virulent forms of malaria and that it may involve interactions among as
many as 500 genes.

Wow, did she f*ck up that one. Malaria has approx 5,300 genes.
Proteome studies point towards a *minimum* of 5,700 interactions.
Theoretically there could be several billion interactions. If the human
genome is of any indication, there should be millions of interacting genes.

http://www.nature.com/nature/malaria/index.html

Quote:

Even more important than patent laws are safety issues raised by the
consortium's findings.

Not really. If you have a system in which several genes are required
(i.e. are indispensable), and you hold the patent on just one of those
genes, you effectively have control over all research and products
regarding that process.

That said, I wouldn't be too disappointed if something brought down
current gene-patenting procedures. They've absolutely crippled some
forms of scientific research.

Quote:

Evidence of a networked genome shatters the
scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today's
commercial biotech products

Umm, no. "Networked genomes" as you call them are taken into account
during environmental and health risk assessment. Obviously I cannot
speak for all countries, but here (Canada) the risk-assessment process
was specifically designed to be independent of gene interactions. Which
is a fancy way of saying the risk assessment is based on the genetically
modified organism; rather then the gene in isolation. It also means
that if you swap an "approved" gene into a new species you have to
re-certify, in case new genetic interactions crop up.

As far as I know most western nations use similar standards.

Quote:

, from genetically engineered crops to
pharmaceuticals..........

As with viruses, we have no idea of the complex interactions between genes.

Actually, we know far, far more about the genetic interactions which
occur inside of viruses then we do for any other form of life. The
reason for this is simple - viruses have extremely simple genomes (as
few as 8 genes) compared to that of a bacteria (hundreds to thousands of
genes) or mammals (15-25 thousand genes) or plants (5 thousand to
100thousand genes).

In the case of some viruses we know all protein interactions within the
virus itself, as well as all of the interactions (at least those of
biological significance) within the viral host.

Quote:

There can be billions of viruses in a glass of water.

Sounds dramatic. Isn't really though. Most (>99%) are bacteriophage -
meaning the infect bacteria. Even in area where human/animal viruses
are common in water, they make up only a tiny amount of the viruses present.

Quote:

Some are highly
resistant to chlorine such as the tobacco mosaic virus.

Not that resistant. The "fact" you quote here actually has to do with
decontaminating seeds - the concentration of bleach (10-15%) needed to
kill TMV also kills the seeds.

Quote:

Human pathogenic viruses have not been proven to survive chlorinated
drinking water.

But not due to resistance to bleach, but rather due to improper water
treatment before addition of bleach. If you don't clear out enough of
the organic matter the bleach simply reacts with that, and doesn't touch
the virus. Remove the organic matter and the bleach is then "free" to
kill the virus (same holds true for bacteria). Its a pretty common
problem in western Canada, where a lot of water supplys have high
amounts of organics due to the fact that the water gets "filtered"
through a forest before it gets to the plant.

Bryan

Page 1 of 1 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:33 am Science Forum Index