| Video
on human breast milk from cows and other farming issues
(RealVideo)
Video
on human breast milk from cows and other farming issues
(RealVideo)
Changing Life on Earth
Humanised pigs and other beings
Pigs with human genes have been in the news recently as Cambridge
surgeons prepare to transplant their hearts and kidneys into human
beings, but this is only scratching the surface of the revolution
taking place in the world
of genetics. Creating superbreeds is nothing new. The first transgenic mammals
were born in 1976, and more than 60,000 are now made in Britain
every year, each of which contains a unique blend of genes from
two or three species. Human genes have been added not only to pigs
but also to sheep, cows, rabbits, mice and fish. Then there's human
cloning.
It is now quite routine to splice new genes into mammal sperm,
fertilised eggs, and cells from embryos, while cloning by artificial
twinning has also become an established breeding technique. The
same cloning method has been
found to work in humans too after experiments by Dr Jerry Hall at
George Washington University and earlier attempts in Britain (all
identikit embryos were destroyed).
British Association delegates recently heard predictions of apples
with antibodies against tooth decay and crops which glowed when
thirsty or diseased. But German scientists in Basle have already
made fruit flies with extra eyes on their wings, antennae and legs,
and scorpion poison genes have been added by Oxford geneticists
to cabbages to kill caterpillars (what about people?).
New genes are big business: Monsanto has developed potatoes with
bacterial insecticide genes to destroy colorado beetle, and ESCA
Genetics has made coffee beans with low caffeine, high aroma and
pest resistance.
Zeneca is working on slow ripening bananas, while DNAP Tech is
doing the same with pineapples and others are creating bio-melons
together with new strains of peas to make "designer starch".
Some 2,000 field trials are now taking place in different countries
of new plants, of which 80 are in Britain. Maybe even roses will
be changed.
Consumers will probably notice little difference because most retailers
are very reluctant to label modified meat, fruit or vegetable products,
fearing a massive consumer boycott as with irradiation. However
labelling may be forced on them after a crucial vote in the European
Parliament later this Autumn.
Computers linked to the internet now dominate the search for genes,
with more than 10,000 gene sequences sent every day from dozens
of countries to the National Centre for Biotechnology in Bethesda
Maryland. Each is matched against other known fragments in the GenBank
with results sent back in minutes.
This growth of knowledge is exponential.
By July 1995 scientists had unravelled 1.8 million base pairs of DNA
encoding all 1,743 genes from the bacterium Haemophilus Influenzae.
By January 1996 the 12.5 million base pairs making up 6,000 genes
in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae were also decoded, and 100 million
base pairs of a nematode worm will be fully analysed by 1998.
By 2005 the entire human genome will be available as a giant computer
listing of 3 billion base pairs at a cost of some £2 billion. Of
course mere strings of code are useless unless we know what they
do.
One way to find out is to insert vast numbers of gene fragments
from one species into another to see what happens, or to analyse
a protein and then work out the gene sequence to make it. That is
how researchers from Genentech taught a bacterium to make human
insulin in August 1978.
Instead of having to design and build a giant biochemical complex
employing hundreds of staff, the entire production was condensed
into the nucleus and cytoplasm of a single cell: the ultimate in
miniaturisation. That cell reproduced itself millions of times over,
in a culturing process similar to that in a brewery, and by the
late 1980s the mutant strain was supplying thousands of diabetics.
Now hundreds of "marker genes" have been identified,
with obvious effects linked to the presence of other sequences.
These markers will help locate the approximate position of other
target genes - say for a tendency to schizophrenia, obesity, diabetes,
extreme shyness, extraversion, creative ability or even intelligence
and athletic ability. But such knowledge without a clear moral framework
could destroy us.
Intelligence is influenced by a wide variety
of factors, however certain genes have already been found which affect
mental ability, such as the Fragile X gene. It is possible that certain
combinations of marker genes may turn out to be associated with higher
than average intelligence, Olympic winners or even preference. Or
perhaps musical ability... A fierce dispute continues over
whether there is any genetic influence on orientation, as claimed
by Dr Hamer at the US National Cancer Institute recently. His data
has been challenged, but his comments about a possible test on foetuses
caused uproar not only among pro-life groups, but also among gay
activists, both horrified at the potential for abuse.
Every time a new gene is identified, a new test can be developed,
but when do you use it? Prophesying illness sounds like a good idea
except that knowledge can be a burden and tests can be wrong.
Genes for Downs syndrome, Huntinton's chorea or cystic fibrosis
are one thing, but what about genes carrying an increased risk of
Alz r's, breast cancer, asthma, heart disease or depression? Is
a twice average lifetime risk sufficient to justify a termination
for those content before to abort only those with major defects?
Widespread gene screening for insurance
purposes is almost inevitable as postal tests become more widely available.
Last month University Diagnostics began advertising a £65 test for
unknown carriers of the cystic fibrosis gene and others will surely
follow. Insurance screening will be necessary to prevent
massive fraud by people taking out huge policies after privately
discovering that they carry genes for such things as breast or bowel
cancer, but screening will also mean that some become uninsurable.
I often ask myself what 's scientists or Japanese military doctors
might have attempted had gene technology been available fifty years
ago. The lesson of history is that somewhere at some time whatever
is possible will be tried by someone.
Human cloning of foetuses for spare parts, human-monkey hybrids
perhaps with some language capability, and designer children are
all today's possibilities with the tools that dictators like Saddam
Hussain may already have, applying exactly the same methods as now
used routinely in animal research and specialist breeding programs.
China has already resolved a breeding dilemma.
In October 1994 it was decreed that all those with unhealthy genes
would be banned from having children. Thus the genetic dream has already
become a nightmare for a fifth of the entire world population.
In the West the dominant forces of the market-place are driving
our own genetic revolution, with 1,250 biotech companies jostling
for venture capital in America alone. Hence the fighting over patents
for creatures designed to suffer such as the cancer-growing oncomouse
(EU patent 0169672), or to patent human genes. Hence also the calls
to follow America by reversing legislation, making Britain a safe
haven for companies on the run from countries like Germany, where
attitudes are far more conservative.
Biotechnology is accelerating ahead of debate. The House of Commons
Committee on Science and Technology has taken until July this year
to recommend that a Human Genetics Commission be established, but
even that would not cover animals or plants, nor such urgent concerns
as British germ warfare research using mutant viruses. Such agents
could be awesome weapons in terrorists hands. The genetic revolution
will continue to pose some of the greatest dilemmas society has
ever faced, and finding answers for the longer term will not be
easy, despite the current tendency to drift on a tide of pragmatism,
justifying almost anything that might relieve human suffering or
save lives. There is no doubt that we urgently need this technology
to cure cancer, cystic fibrosis, AIDS and a host of other illnesses
as well as to feed a growing population, but we are rushing headlong
into a new era without any parallel whatever in the history of human
existence.
We cannot just sit back and let events
unfold. A comprehensive Gene
Charter is needed, and a Global Summit on Biotechnology, agreeing
world-wide safeguards, standards, monitoring and controls. The alternative
could be a profound, irreversible alteration of life on earth within
a hundred years. Super-human and sub-human could yet take on a whole
new meaning. Either we control the technology, or the technology
will redesign us.
Press
/ TV | Lectures | Dr
Patrick Dixon | Future of Banking | Digital Consumers
Genetics and Cloning | Life
& Health | Global Change
| Search our site |
Video / Articles by Patrick Dixon - 24 million requests in year - 10 million visitors - Conference Speech/Event? 
