In what looks to be a complete parallel of the story of Eve in Genesis, Pandora, who in Greek mythology is the first woman on Earth, unleashed all manner of hell on the world through giving in to ill-advised curiosity.

Oops...

Endowed by the gods with every attribute of beauty and goodness, Pandora was sent to Epimetheus, who was happy to have her for his wife, although he had been warned by his brother Prometheus never to accept anything from Zeus. In bestowing their gifts on Pandora, the gods had given her a box, warning her never to open it. Her curiosity finally overcame her, however, and she opened the mysterious box, from which flew innumerable plagues for the body and sorrows for the mind. In terror, she tried to shut the box, but only Hope, the one good thing among many evils the box had contained, remained to comfort humanity in its misfortunes. - Encarta Encyclopedia

Genetic engineering, and synthetic biology, you could say, is like opening the box found within the box....

Two weeks ago, an enormous victory was won.

In a decision handed down yesterday, a Federal Court has ruled, for the first time ever, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture failed to abide by federal environmental laws when it approved a genetically engineered crop without conducting a full Environment Impact Statement (EIS).

In what will likely be a precedent-setting ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California decided in favor of farmers, consumers, and environmentalists who filed a suit calling the USDA's approval of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa a threat to farmers' livelihoods and a risk to the environment. Judge Breyer ordered that a full Environmental Impact Statement must be carried out on "Roundup Ready" alfalfa, the GE variety developed by Monsanto and Forage Genetics. The decision may prevent this season's sales and planting of Monsanto's GE alfalfa and future submissions of other GE crops for commercial deregulation....

In his ruling, the judge consistently found USDA's arguments unconvincing, without scientific basis, and/or contrary to the law. - Center for Food Safety

In particular, I like the use of the words "precedent setting". We hope this victory will be the first of many more. In fact, I hope we can follow the lead of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias.

Who is going to show them the big picture?

Just when you're a little encouraged by the news above, the win of just one battle in the noble war against genetic engineering, take a look at the following. Scientists who spend too much time looking through the lenses of microscopes, rather than sitting up and having a look at the world around them - the bigger picture - are completely ignoring the overwhelming failure of genetic engineering in agriculture, and are racing each other to take this technology to frightening new levels (if that were possible).

In the past 5 years, the science of genetic engineering has made giant strides. Starting from scratch using lifeless chemicals, scientists are now able to create viruses, such as the polio virus. Technically, viruses are not "alive" because they require cells to survive. But soon -- perhaps some time this year -- scientists expect to create bacteria, which are definitely alive. From there, it will be a short step to manufacturing new forms of life that have never existed on Earth before. This startling new enterprise is called "synthetic biology."

... In 2005, researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and the U.S. Centers of Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta announced that "They had resurrected the lethal [1918 flu] virus. They published details of the completed genome sequencing in Nature and details of the virus recreation in Science." (p. 24) The flu virus that swept the world in 1918 was especially adept at transmitting itself from one person to the next, and it was especially deadly, killing somewhere between 20 million and 50 million humans. Reconstructing the virus using gene-splicing techniques may help us avoid another pandemic like that of 1918 -- or it may give some "genetic hacker" an idea for creating mischief on a monumental scale.

Obviously the ability to create the polio virus, or the 1918 flu virus, is an extraordinary scientific accomplishment, but freighted with dark possibilities.

In response to recreation of the 1918 virus, technology gurus Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil told the New York Times, "This is extremely foolish, the genome [of the 1918 flu virus] is essentially the design of a weapon of mass destruction. No responsible scientist would advocate publishing precise designs for an atomic bomb... revealing the sequence for the flu virus is even more dangerous."(p. 24)

Despite such grim warnings, many new start-up firms are competing to find ways to profit from these new techniques.

Craig Venter -- the golden boy of synthetic biology -- and hundreds of other scientists are now trolling the depths of the oceans, the canopies of jungles and the far corners of earth to catalog and patent life's genetic heritage. A new report from the ETC Group titled "Extreme Genetic Engineering" says, "Venter claims that his expedition has discovered 3,995 new gene families not previously known, and 6-10 million new genes -- which he describes as 'design components' of the future."(p. 14)

The gold rush is on. Synthetic biology -- heralded as the next "big thing" to fuel economic growth -- is genetic engineering on steroids. Cataloging our genetic heritage is just the beginning. Armed with desktop synthetic biology machines, scientists can now create DNA on demand, freely combining the best or worst characteristics of any known organism and inventing completely new life forms.

This is all very exciting for scientists and their financial backers who dream of making huge profits....

Evidence is accumulating that we really don't know how to control this new technology. For example, Greenpeace just released a report documenting the growing number of cases of unapproved GMO [genetically modified organisms] food crops showing up in regular food crops. GMO rice, corn, soy, cotton and other crops have now 'contaminated' the gene pools of their non-GMO cousins in 142 different incidents since the introduction of GMO crops 12 years ago in 1996.

If we can't control the spread of GMO crops -- relatively large, visible organisms -- how will we control microscopic viruses and bacteria?

... The common theme is that corporate profits are the primary motivation for all of these innovations. When profit comes first, there is often little room for ethical and democratic exploration of better alternatives.

... If society does create rules for the development of synthetic biology it should remember that, "scientists are ill-equipped by their training to grapple with the ethical and moral dimensions of their work. Scientists have no equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath -- "First do no harm" -- that guides the behavior of physicians. The Hippocratic oath counsels restraint, humility, and caution. In science, on the other hand, wherever your curiosity takes you is the right place to go, even if it takes you into "a darker bioweapons future." - Precaution.org

Couple that free-to-roam scientific curiosity with corporate self-interest - and we risk large scale biological and agricultural meltdowns. There's a serious need to change the base charters of The Corporation, now - while they're rushing headlong, competing against each other, to bring these troubles to the world.

Consider what the article said: "The gold rush is on. Synthetic biology -- heralded as the next "big thing" to fuel economic growth -- is genetic engineering on steroids." The words "fuel economic growth" - think about them for a moment. The economy, that big bloated product of our consumerism, is pictorially compared to a vehicle (a monster?), needing constant replenishment - fueling - in order to survive.

Small wonder that so many people have lost faith in science, scientific progress, and the promise of America. As the editors of Nature said in 2004, "Controversies over genetically engineered crops and embryo research are leading people to question how carefully scientists consider the possible consequences of their work before barreling ahead. This is no small concern for science, as it has already led to restrictions."

But of course it isn't just scientists who are responsible for speeding the deployment of ill-considered technologies onto the world market. The underlying engine for all this reckless behavior is an economic system that requires economic growth year after year.

Looking into the future...

Our society has grown dependent upon economic growth for achieving "liberty and justice for all." You say your slice of the pie is unacceptably small and you're having to sleep under a bridge? Don't worry -- economic growth will make the whole pie larger, so your tiny slice will grow too. Thus domestic tranquility, justice, fairness, and fulfilling the promise of America are all dependent upon economic growth. We don't have any other widely-approved way to distribute the benefits of the economy, except through economic growth. We have forgotten the alternative, which is sharing....

Until we devise a steady-state economy that does not require perpetual growth, investors will keep us on this awful "next big thing" merry-go-round, our quality of life continually threatened anew by the ill-considered products and unanticipated by-products of feral science. - A Darker Bioweapons Future

In regards to genetic engineering, here is a pertinent passage from a well respected British scientist, Reader in Biology at the Open University, UK, and a Fellow of the US National Genetics Foundation:

"...we are told that: "Research scientists can now precisely identify the individual gene that governs a desired trait, extract it, copy it and insert the copy into another organism. That organism (and its offspring) will then have the desired trait.."

This reaffirms the genetic determinist idea that one gene controls one character trait, and that transferring the gene results in the transfer of the corresponding trait to the genetically modified organism, which can then pass it on indefinitely to future generations. It presents the process of genetic modification as a precise and simple operation.

The above account - so typical of that found in publications promoting 'public understanding' - is based on a simplistic assumption of genetics that both classical geneticists and plant breeders have rejected for many years, and which has been thoroughly invalidated by all the research findings in the new genetics.... Unfortunately, most molecular geneticists, apart from being absorbed into industry, also lack training in classical genetics, and suffer from a severe molecular myopia that prevents them from appreciating the implications and broader perspective of the findings in their own discipline. - Genetic Engineering, Dream or Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, p. 130, 131.

Can we not see that the same reductionist industrial mindset that has brought 'unintended consequences' upon us with genetic engineering, has the grave potential to bring far, far worse through synthetic biology? Many of the scientists that are wielding the microscope are conscientiously singleminded in their concern for: 1) gaining recognition, and 2) fulfilling their responsibilities for their employer. "Scientists have no equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath". I don't think we can afford to be so cavalier with the building blocks of life. It is human megalomania in its most dangerous form.

Further Reading:

• Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease
• America's Masterplan Is to Force GM Food on the World
• Frankensoya: Monsanto and Genetic Engineering Are Destroying Argentina's Farmlands
• We Need GM Food Like a Hole in Our Kidneys
• Food Production & Genetic Engineering
• The Doomsday Vault & Seed Preservation

Want to comment? Visit the Celsias Lounge and find or start a topic!