NEW!

UNRAVELING THE SECRET OF LIFE: DNA self-duplication, the basic precept of biotechnology, is denied

by Barry Commoner
GeneWatch
May-June 2003

References

Unraveling the DNA Myth: The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering

by Barry Commoner
Harper's Magazine
February 2002

Synopsis
References

More Positive Comments Than Critical Ones

As noted in the accompanying summary of the readers' judgements of the article's value, it provoked considerably more positive comments than critical ones. Perhaps the most striking feature of the positive responses is that they revealed in these readers a lively interest in the fundamental issues raised in the article that clearly pre-existed its publication. Thus, J.R., writing from a molecular biology research laboratory in Montreal, Canada, commented that "more evidence supporting the article's thesis might be found in the physical and chemical nature of chromatin structure" - an area of research that has revealed a number of phenomena that cannot be explained by the conventional theory. Similarly, M.D., who is with a commercial firm, writes:

"In my opinion the idea that we inherit mitochondria from our mother directly has always presented a problem with regard to DNA. Of course I wasn't able to get a satisfactory answer to this question from my biology professor in college as UCSD resides firmly in the 'land of Crick.' But it strikes me as a glaring omission considering the role that mitochondria play in metabolism. I would think that mechanisms of 'cellular energy' would take precedence over mechanisms of 'cellular replication.'"

This last point is a perceptive reference to the fact that the replication of DNA is an energy-requiring process that is necessarily dependent on energy generated by mitochondrial protein enzymes.

These examples are cited to make a simple but meaningful point: These readers had themselves encountered experimental results that, in their minds, raised serious questions about the validity of DNA's exclusive molecular control over genetics.

Even readers with little direct experience in molecular biology have contributed incisive questions about some of the fundamental issues raised by the article. S.W., a computer scientist who, "as an educated biological layman found the article quite thought-provoking," asked several questions that, to my knowledge, have rarely been raised in the literature of molecular genetics:

"Is there any evidence that proteins that participate in protein synthesis and folding are the first to be assembled in a fertilized egg...or would it be reasonable to assume that these 'helper' proteins are assembled without 'help' (since no help may be available when they themselves are assembled."

In the same way, there is evidence in the readers' responses that because divergent results are often of little interest to molecular geneticists, research aides may be deprived of exposure to such data. Thus, S.N., a technical assistant in a large, well-known biotechnology company, writes:

"Sorry for my English. I'm learning that language at the moment. I read your article 'Unraveling the DNA Myth' with a lot of interest. Can you send me the list of references. Especial the reference about the Belgian researches which found abnormal DNA in the plant's own DNA. The people in our company which I ask about this statement never hear this before."

There is also evidence that readers who are experiencing the commercial impact of biotechnology in the United States have responded to the article with new insights. Thus, F.J. writes from South Dakota:

"I am a farmer and in the past 30 days finished planting Roundup Ready [transgenic] soybeans. After reading your article I can picture in my mind the fact that I'm sitting in the middle of acres of soybeans trying to define their new genetic structure using this new material placed there by clever humans. I would like the list of sources used to write this article. It shows how poorly we pay attention in this country. The information you presented should be front page news everywhere in this country."

What is most encouraging about the responses to the article is that several of them foresee a paradigm shift that will restore genetics to its proper place as an essential, but subsidiary, part of the science of life - biology. This hopeful view is corroborated by the surprisingly large majority of respondents, especially those in the related sciences, who supported what the Harper's article had to say. Thus, J.R. from a molecular biology laboratory in Montreal (cited earlier):

"This article provides a preview of the oncoming paradigm shift within genetics written in understandable and provocative prose. The loss of faith in the 'central dogma' of inheritance, which is bound to the simplistic notion of nucleotide sequence, needs to be understood by the educated public. Indeed, this knowledge provides strong criticism against over-manipulation of organism's genetics for commercial means."

This conclusion is forcefully illustrated by the personal account of a practicing molecular biologist, Matt Scholz, of the Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy at the University of Arizona, in a letter to the editor (published in the May 2002 issue of Harper's) that I am compelled to quote in its entirety:

"I must admit that as a professional devotee of the Central Dogma, I bristled initially as I read Barry Commoner's article "Unraveling the DNA Myth." After careful consideration, though, I've realized he's right.

Biology is in the midst of a paradigm shift tantamount to the shift that occurred in physics when the ordered classical view of the atom was scrapped for the statistical vagaries of quantum theory. The more conservative patriarchs at the National Institutes of Health will surely object to Commoner's irreverence for Watson and Crick just as Einstein scoffed at Bohr's impatience with cosmic master plans ('God doesn't play dice'). Like Einstein, they are beguiled by elegance.

But there is something more at play here. The coffers of politicians overflow with Monsanto coinage, and biology is increasingly being defined by corporatism rather than by empiricism. The difference between this paradigm shift and the preceding one in physics is that the battle isn't over ideas but profits. Thought is increasingly commodified in what many regard as one of the last revered venues for the free exchange of ideas."

NEXT