COMMENT AND The Human Genome - A Big White Elephant

[Guest guest]

AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY........BASED ON WHAT? A COMMITEE WHO DECIDES WHAT THEY

" THINK " THE sequence " IS " . IT IS completely made up, hypothetical, based on

opinion out of thin air.......

like the West Nile Virus that is most probably a mutation of a " lab created "

societally introduced monkey simian virus via the vaccine highway, improperly

assessed by lab scientists unfamiliar with it's cellular clinical

manifestations, generated due to immune suppression of the host via

poisoning, allowing adaptation into the cellular matrix to advance

significant clinical inbalance leading to demise of the individual............

And that you can take to the GENE BANK!!!!!!!!!

Kindest Regards,

Donna M. REILLY

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------

<A HREF= " http://www.i-sis.org/elephant.shtml " >

http://www.i-sis.org/elephant.shtml</A>

ISIS Report - June 9 2001

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho was invited to the Green Research Forum in the European

Parliament to debate Framework VI, the European Union’s Research Funding

Programme 2002-2006. She argues that the massive divestment of public

research funding into health genomics is aimed at bailing out an industry

already in trouble over GM crops, and in danger of being driven to bankruptcy

by the human genome. The real disaster, however, will fall on public health.

It prevents scientists and civil society from addressing the real causes of

ill health, which are overwhelmingly social and environmental, and will end

up victimising those most in need of care and treatment. Here is the complete

text of her contribution to the Biotechnologies Panel.

The Human Genome - A Big White Elephant

Green Research Forum, European Parliament, Brussels, June 6, 2001.

Mae-Wan Ho

Institute of Science in Society,

24 Old Gloucester St., London WC1N 3AL UK

The human genome may go down in history as the biggest white elephant for

humanity. It cost a lot and is useless, it does not work, and is so expensive

to maintain and grows so big so fast that it will bankrupt the industry as

well as entire nations [1]. The only clear message in the ‘book of life’ is

" there is no one home, life is not to be found here " . Craig Venter, whose

company Celera raced the publicly funded sequencing consortium to the

finishing line, said as much, " We simply do not have enough genes for this

idea of biological determinism to be right. The wonderful diversity of the

human species is not hard-wired in our genetic code. Our environments are

critical. " [2].

I was researcher and lecturer in genetics throughout the mid-1970s to the

early1980s when new discoveries on the fluid genome made headlines every

week, overturning the most deeply held convictions of classical genetics.

Craig Venter may have just discovered that genetic determinism cannot deliver

the goods, after sequencing the human genome. But many of us knew that

genetic determinism had died with the revelations of the fluid genome, if not

before [3].

The scientific establishment has remained firmly wedded to genetic

determinism, if only because it is indispensable for business. It is also

fuelling the resurgence of eugenics and genetic discrimination, and making

even the most unethical uses seem compelling, such as the creation of human

embryos to supply cells and tissues for transplant in so-called

‘therapeutic’ human cloning [4].

I started my career in human biochemical genetics, studying genuine genetic

diseases that could be attributed to mutations in single genes. These account

for no more than 2% of all human ailments. But diagnosing and curing rare

single gene defects simply " did not fit the business model " . So, ‘genetic

defects’ and ‘gene therapy’ expanded in recent years to include the far

more

common and potentially highly profitable diseases such as cancer, heart

disease, AIDS, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Francis , head of the

public human genome consortium, runs a laboratory in the US National

Institutes of Health. He is now engaged in a " huge and very complicated "

search for genes for adult-onset diabetes [5]. Adult-onset diabetes, like

asthma and cancer has reached epidemic proportions over the years, increasing

from 4.9% in 1990 to 6.5% in 1998, in both sexes, across all ages, ethnic

groups, education levels, and in nearly all states in the United States [6].

That should have alerted all rational scientists to look for environmental

causes instead of genes.

and other proponents of the human genome project perpetrated the

ultimate genetic determinist myth that the human genome sequence contains the

‘blueprint for making a human being’. The public has paid out billions of

dollars in the United States and hundreds of millions of pounds in the United

Kingdom. Now, dozens of genome sequences later, the sequencers haven’t a clue

of how to make the smallest bacterium or the simplest worm, let alone a human

being. The human genome may consist of up to 98.9% ‘junk DNA’ with no known

function. Geneticists are baffled. " The genome isn’t a code, and we can’t

read it. " [7]

Public investment was needed to keep the human genome in the public domain,

we were told. But that had not prevented any human gene from being patented.

On the contrary, scientists funded by the public have been busy patenting

genes and starting up private companies, with little or no return to the

public coffers [8]. Genes and cell lines stolen from indigenous peoples are

patented, and governments are selling DNA databases of entire nations to

private companies. These patents and proprietary databases not only violate

basic human rights and dignity, they are seriously distorting healthcare and

stifling scientific research and innovation [9]. They should be firmly

rejected by the scientific community.

Now, the elephant attendants are saying the human genome needs more money

before it can deliver the goods. The UK Government is obligingly giving away

£2.5 billion over the next four years to ‘health genomics’, to identify all

the genes that predispose the UK population to disease [10]. The elephant is

growing big fast.

Such massive divestments of public funds are designed to bail out the biotech

industry already in trouble over GM crops, and now showing every sign of

being driven bankrupt by the human genome [11]. But the real disaster will

fall on public health. It is narrowing the options for healthcare and

foreclosing other promising approaches. Health genomics is a major diversion

and obstruction, and is preventing us from addressing the overwhelming

environmental and social causes of ill-health. It will also victimise those

most in need of care and treatment. I call it " a scientific and financial

black hole " [12], a colossal waste of scientific imagination and financial

resources.

In many respects, health genomics epitomises the failures of reductionist

medicine, which have reached crisis proportions. Drug and antibiotic

resistant infectious diseases have come back with a vengeance within the past

25 years. Infectious diseases are responsible for one-quarter of the 53.9

million deaths in the world, second to cardiovascular disease [13]. For poor

countries and children under five, however, infectious diseases top the list,

accounting respectively for 45% and 63% of deaths. Among the factors blamed

are the overuse and abuse of antibiotics, destruction of the environment,

poverty, malnutrition and increase in air travel, all of which serves to

remind us that disease cannot be understood in reductionist terms. One likely

contributing factor that has yet to be named by the scientific establishment

is the rise of commercial genetic engineering within the same period [14].

Genetic engineering, in agriculture as in medicine, uses the same tools and

makes the same kinds of artificial constructs, all of which enhance

horizontal gene transfer and recombination, precisely the processes that

create new pathogens and spread drug and antibiotic resistance genes.

The other big killers are cardiovascular disease, which tops the list at 31%,

and cancer at 13%, after infectious diseases. Both cardiovascular disease and

cancer are predominantly illnesses of rich industrialised nations. Cancers

are linked to ionising radiation [15] and to the hundreds of actual and

potential carcinogens among the industrial and agricultural chemicals

polluting our air, water and soil [16].

The incidence of cancer is known to increase with industrialisation and

pesticide use. Women in non-industrial Asian countries have a much lower

incidence of breast cancer compared to women living in the industrialised

west. However, when Asian women emigrate to Europe and the United States,

their incidence of cancer jumps to that of the white European women within a

single generation. Similarly, when DDT and other pesticides were phased out

in Israel, breast cancer mortality in pre-menopausal women dropped by 30%.

Environmental influences clearly swamp out even large genetic differences

[17].

Health genomics research will do nothing to identify or remove the causes of

cancer. Instead, it will identify all the genes that ‘predispose’ the

victims to cancers, to enable corporations that have made lots of money

polluting the environment with carcinogens to make lots more money selling

diagnostic tests and ‘miracle cures’. Patients are bankable assets, and

terminal cancer patients all the more so.

The disease statistics are bad enough. But the cures may be far worse.

Successive studies have documented a rising epidemic of iatrogenic diseases,

ie, diseases caused by medical treatments, interventions and drugs. Doctors

are now the third leading cause of death in the US [18], responsible for some

250 000 every year, among which are 106 000 due to non-error negative effects

of drugs. The problem is not confined to the US, it is endemic in all

industrialised countries that adhere to the same reductionist model of health

and disease: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain. We can already see

the tip of the iceberg in the new classes of iatrogenic diseases that ‘health

genomics’ will bring. Clinical trials of ‘gene therapy’ have killed six

and

caused more than 650 adverse events [19]. The ‘miracle cure’ for

Parkinson’s

turned into an irredeemable nightmare because the cells from foetuses

transplanted into five patients’ brains grew uncontrollably [20]. And watch

out for viral pandemics if xenotransplantation is to go ahead [21].

A sweeping paradigm change is long overdue. The human genome, like the genome

of any other organism, is fluid and dynamic. Genes function organically, in

entangled networks that respond from moment to moment to the changing context

of the whole organism in its ecosystem. They are not mechanical elements

operating in fixed circuit boards. Let me give a few recent examples of how

genes, genomes and organisms respond organically to their environment,

demanding a radical rethink of the conventional approach.

Many bacteria are now found to change reversibly from a benign,

non-proliferative phase to a pathogenic, proliferative phase, depending on

ecological conditions [22]. Some scientists are now rethinking the failed

conventional model of killing pathogens with new, ever more deadly

antibiotics as bacteria become resistant to the old ones [23]. They are

designing drugs that physiologically tame the bacteria, rather than kill

them. A logical extension of that approach is to find how ecological balance

could be achieved, so bacteria do not become virulent.

The dominant reductionist model of cancer says cancer is caused by mutations

in specific cancer genes and cancer-suppressing genes. There is growing

evidence that those gene mutations are neither necessary nor sufficient for

cancer to develop. Every cancer has a different genetic signature. In fact,

every cancerous growth in an individual differs in genetic signature. The

cancerous state is a physiological response of the cell to its environment,

which is ultimately the whole organism in its ecological context. Cancer is

associated with gross genetic instability that gives rise to large genomic

abnormalities [24]. Cancer cures based on single molecular interventions

offered by health genomics will therefore be largely irrelevant and

ineffective. The emphasis must be prevention rather than cure. The phenomenon

of spontaneous cancer remission should also be much more thoroughly

investigated. Remissions can occur after various experiences that affect the

whole body, such as fever, a change of diet or change of life-style.

There have been a large number of observations suggesting that genes in

bacteria and other organisms can mutate in response to environmental

challenges, so as to enable them to survive [25]. There is evidence that

defective genes in human beings can also regain function by mutation. Cells

in the body of individuals born with defective genes have been found to

revert spontaneously to functional states [26]. Thus, rather than persist in

futile and dangerous attempts at ‘gene therapy’, substantial effort ought to

be redirected towards elucidating the physiological and environmental

conditions that can encourage the body to mend its own defective genes [27].

We have had decades, if not centuries, of reductionist, mechanistic science

that has given us a surfeit of knowledge of the parts, not all of which has

been put to good, sustainable use. Now is the time to complement this

knowledge of the parts with investigations aimed at knowledge of the organic

whole [28] that can truly bring health and well being to the community. In

particular, I propose that we target at least part of our research budget to

the following areas which are currently either grossly under-funded, or not

funded at all.

1. Ecology and Energy Use in Sustainable Systems

* To investigate the precise role of complexity and biodiversity

* To elucidate energy-relationships, energy use, renewable energies

* To identify biophysical indicators of ecosystem health

* To develop non-invasive, non-destructive technologies for monitoring and

regulating environmental quality

2. Science of the Organism and Holistic Health

* To articulate a concept of an organic whole as the basis of health

* To identify biophysical and dynamical indicators of health

* To develop non-invasive, non-destructive technologies for monitoring

health and for quality control of food and other agricultural produce

* To develop effective therapeutic methods based on minimum intervention.

3. Working Science Partnerships

* To enable scientists to work directly with local communities

* To revitalise and protect traditional agricultural and healthcare systems

from biopiracy and globalisation

* To develop appropriate sciences and technologies

4. Science and Technology Monitor

* To monitor new developments for social/ecological accountability and

safety

* To promote critical public understanding

* To promote science-public dialogue and public participation

Key words: human genome, health genomics, eugenics, genetic discrimination,

antibiotic resistance, infectious diseases, iatrogenic diseases, cancer

Acknowledgment

This report was researched by Sam Burcher, n Haffegee, Nick

Papadimitriou and .

References

1. See Ho, M.W. (2001). The human genome map, the death of genetic

determinism and beyond. Third World Resurgence 127-128, 14-18.

2. Cited in " Men and women behaving badly? Don’t blame DNA " Robin McKie,

Observer, Feb. 11, 2001. See also " Gene code opens new fields of medicine "

Tim Radford, The Guardian Feb. 12, 2001.

3. See Ho, M.W. (1998, 1999). Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare?

Turning the Tide on the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business,

Gateway, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin, Continuum Books, New York.

4. See " The unnecessary evil of 'therapeutic' human cloning " Mae-Wan Ho and

Joe Cummins. ISIS News 7/8 Feb. 2001. Also, Third World Resurgence 127-128,

43-45

5. See an excellent essay, " A Map to Nowhere, The genome isn't a code and we

can't read it " , by Tom Bethell, The American Spectator, April 2001.

6. Mokdad, A.H., et al. (2000). Diabetes trends in the US: 1990-1998.

Diabetes Care 23, 1278-83.

7. The following description given by Tom Bethell (ref. 5) is the best that

I have come across anywhere for describing the flexibility and fluidity of

gene function, " Imagine that an intelligence service were to discover some

unintelligible messages being sent by a spy. At first the intelligence agents

naturally assume they are looking at a code. They assume the task of decoding

will be straightforward. But on closer analysis it turns out that the message

means one thing if the signal has been received and acted upon, another thing

if it has been received and not acted upon, another thing if the receiving

apparatus is not switched on, and so on. Rather than just a code the message

is a bit like a set of rules for a rather complex interactive game. There are

feedback loops, and circuits within circuits, and a lot of things happening

inside the cell but outside the genome…. "

8. " Investing in healthcare or the health market? " by Nick Papadimitriou,

ISIS Report April 18, 2001

9. Regalado, A. (2000). The great gene grab. Technology Review

September/October, 49-55.

10. " UK to establish population DNA database " ISIS News 7/8 , Feb. 2001 ISSN:

1474-1547 (print) ISSN: 1474-1814 (online)

11. " Mapping the genome could be route to disaster " Leo , The

Independent on Sunday, Business, 11 Feb., 2001; see also Bethel (ref. 5).

12. Ho, M.W. (2000). The human genome sellout. Third World Resourgence

123-124, 4-9; also ISIS News 6, September 2000 ISSN: 1474-1547 (print) ISSN:

1474-1814 (online)

13. World Health Organisation figures for 1998, WHO website www.who.int

14. Ho MW, Traavik T, Olsvik R, Tappeser B, V, von Weizsacker C and

McGavin G. Gene Technology and Gene Ecology of Infectious Diseases. Microbial

Ecology in Health and Disease 1998: 10: 33-59.

15. Montague, P. (2000). The major cause of cancer parts 1-3, ’s

Environmental Weekly http://www.rachel.org.

16. Steingraber, S. (1997). Living Downstream, Wesley, New York; See

also Are the Experts Lying? Special issue of The Ecologist, 1998.

17. See Ho, 1998, 1999 (ref. 3).

18. Starfield, B. (2000). Is US health really the best in the world? Journal

American Medical Association 284, 483-5.

19. " Gene therapy oversold by scientists who disregard risks " ,

ISIS Report May 17, 2001

20. " Parkinson’s miracle cure turns into a catastrophe " by Boseley, The

Guardian, March 13, 2001.

21. See Ho, M.W. and Cummins, J. (2000) Xenotransplantation – How Bad Science

and Big Business Put the World At Risk from Viral Pandemics, ISIS Sustainable

Science Audit No.2, August 2000 also Third World Resurgence 127/128,46-55.

22. See Ho, 1998, 1999 (ref. 3), final Chapter.

23. See Heinemann, J.A., Ankerbaner, R.G. and Amabile-Cuevas, C.F. (2000). Do

antibiotics maintain antibiotic resistance? Drug Discovery Today 5, 195-204;

also, " Phasing out antibiotics will not reduce antibiotic resistance. The

irrelevance of natural selection " by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS News 6, September 2000,

ISSN: 1474-1547 (print) ISSN: 1474-1814 (online)

24. See Rasnick D. Auto-catalysed progression of aneuploidy explains the

Hayflick limit of cultured cells, carcinogen-induced tumours in mice, and the

age distribution of human cancer. Biochem. J. 2000: 348, 497-506; also "

Rethinking cancer, from cure to prevention " by Goodwin, ISIS News7/8,

February 2001, ISSN: 1474-1547 (print) ISSN: 1474-1814 (online)

25. See Ho, 1998, 1999 (ref. 3), Chapter on " The fluid and adaptable genome " .

26. In heterozygous individuals, ie, those with two different copies of the

gene, one of which is defective, recombination occurs during cell division,

when the two copies exchange parts, and the defective copy gets mended. In

other instances, the functional copy corrects the defective copy by

substituting for it directly. But even in homozygous patients, ie, those

individuals with two identical, defective copies of the gene, both copies

have been found to mutate spontaneously to regain function. See Waisfisz, Q.,

, N.V., Savino, M., et al (1999). Spontaneous functional correction of

homozygous Fanconi anaemia alleles reveals novel mechanistic basis for

reverse mosaicism. Nature Genetics 22, 379-83.

27. " Defective genes can regain function " by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS News 2,

September 1999, Waisfisz, Q., , N.V., Savino, M., et al (1999).

Spontaneous functional correction of homozygous Fanconi anaemia alleles

reveals novel mechanistic basis for reverse mosaicism. Nature Genetics 22,

379-383.

28. See Ho, M.W. (1993,1998). The Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of

Organisms, World Scientific, Singapore.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Institute of Science in Society

Londonia House, 24 Old Gloucester Street London, WC1N 3A1 UK

Tel: 44 -020-7242 9831