Today there spreads the news about that the European Union has accepted the introduction of the cultivation in Europe of a type of potato transgénica, called AMFLORA, of the German group BASF. At first it will be assined, they say, to the animal feeding and his starch it will be used, they say also, for industrial uses. But the thing has not stayed here; the commercialization of three corn varieties has been accepted also transgénico of the company Monsanto, which although they will not be able to be cultivated, yes they will have free route in the commercial circuits. All these decisions have been provided with the support of the minister of Spain corresponding and denounced by the organization "Som what Sembrem".
José A. Estévez Araújo comments in the magazine Meanwhile, the risks of the products transgénicos, multiplied after the refutation of the "dogma of the genetics" done by Barry Commoner and in "Punts of Sight" we spread it, for his undoubted interest and actuality, from the version of "Dempeus per Salut Pública" and because the work of the author of the article - the teacher and friend Estévez Araujo - the maximum diffusion deserves.
The refutation of the "dogma of the genetics" Barry Commoner, to his more than eighty years, keeps
on writing interesting things. Last year Molecular Genetics published a titled article “: An Example of Faulty Communication Between Science an the Public” (“molecular Genetics: an example of frustrated communication between the science and the public”, appeared in the magazine Organization Environment, 22, 1, pp. 19-33). In this article, Barry Commoner gives concluded the "dogma" that has presided at the genetic investigation from the discovery of the double helix more than fifty years ago. The above mentioned dogma establishes that each of the genes that is part of the ADN codifies the production of a protein, which, in turn, is responsible for the generation of a certain hereditary feature. In accordance with this, a specific gene would be the one that would give the "order" to prepare the protein that does that our eyes are of a certain color. The same would happen with the rest of our hereditary features. Each one would be a product of a protein synthesized in accordance with the program contained in a gene. A causal relation would exist, this way, unilineal inherited gene - proteína-rasgo. Every inherited feature would be programmed in the only gene and every gene would programme the only protein and the only feature. As there said the author of the "dogma", James Watson (one of two scientists who discovered the structure of the DNA), the formula is so simple, elegant and adds that it cannot but to be real. Nevertheless, some recent discoveries have put it seriously in question.
The first one was the culmination of the project Genome which target was to identify the genes that integrate the DNA of the human being. The scientists were hoping to find several hundreds of thousands of genes. Nevertheless, they met that the DNA humanized only it was containing 21.000. More or less the same ones that that of a fly. That was implying a severe disparity between the number of genes and the number of proteins that the human being synthesizes. These can reach the 400.000, while those scarcely overcome the twenties thousand. The idea of the mail gene - protein was remaining this way seriously raised doubts. There was appearing the problem of how it was possible that the proteins of the human being were twenty times more numerous than his genes.
The results of the project ENCODE, to which Commoner refers
in detail in his article, constitute the first approach the desvelamiento of the mystery. ENCODE is a project of international genetic investigation in which more than 35 laboratories take part. To understand the meaning of his discoveries it is necessary to study in depth a little how there works the chemistry of the genetic heredity (a more detailed analysis, which cannot be reproduced here for space reasons, can be in the article of Commoner).
The genes are done of cuatros chemical substances, the nucleótidos, which are represented by means of four capital letters A, T, C and G. The gene is composed by a sequence of these basic components in a certain order. These sequences consist of several hundreds of nucleótidos. The nucleótidos sequences determine the sequences of amino acids that constitute a protein. To a certain sequence of A, T, C, and G there "corresponds" a specific sequence of twenty different amino acids that form every protein. This way the relation is established between the genes and the inherited features, since every protein is responsible for one of these.
Now then, the information contained in the DNA does not transmit
straight to the mechanisms responsible for the synthesis of the proteins, but the communication is realized by means of a messenger, the RNA. The RNA would re-duplicate in his interior the sequences of nucleótidos of the genes, although replacing the T (tiamina) with an U (uracil). It is in this process of transmission of the genetic information necessary for the synthesis of proteins where there are located the most important discoveries of the project ENCODE. We will allude to two of them that are those that more clearly they put in question the "dogma" of the genetics. The first one is that in the process of transmission of the information the nucleótidos can recombinarse. That is to say that the sequence contained in the DNA can give place to multitude of different sequences in the RNA, resultant from the new combinations of his elements. Making use of an analogy that the proper Commoner suggests, it is as if the elements (letters) of the word were re-combining LOVE in the process of his transmission and the words could form ROME, BRANCH, or MULBERRY before coming to the recipient. If we think about words consisted of hundreds of letters (like the sequences of the genes) we will understand that the combinatorial possibilities are immense. This “alternative assembly” as Commoner names it (for opposition to the normal assembly in which the nucleótidos sequence does not falter in the process of transmission of the information), it makes possible that only one gene could be responsible for the generation of multitude of different proteins. Every "transmission" can give to a sequence different from nucleótidos and, therefore, to the assembly of a chain different from amino acids. This way, for example, the gene that forms our “musical ear” is responsible for the synthesis of more than 500 different proteins in the snail placed in our internal ear.
The alternative assembly is not an extravagant or unusual phenomenon, but it is possible to produce at least in 60 % of our genes. This phenomenon would have had to ruin himself to the dogma of the genetics. There is already no causal relation unilineal between inherited gene - proteína-rasgo, but the same gene, in the same organism he can programme the synthesis of multiple proteins (and, therefore, multiple features) different.
But the discoveries of the project ENCODE do not remain only there. Also they revealed the existence of phenomena of genetic merger: in the process of transmission of the information two genes can combine his components sequences and give place, this way, to proteins different from those who would stem from the sequence of one or from other. The genes merger also a protein throws for ground the dogma of a gene a feature.
Commoner wonders why these discoveries have had resonance so small in the means, including the scientific publications. What is the reason to that has not made public to himself the refutation of the dogma of the genetics? Apart from the reasons at that Commoner aims, although in narrow relation with them, it is necessary to indicate the enormous interests that make a detour to the genetic investigation. The scientists who are employed at this field know long ago that the dogma does not work. They have verified it in multitude of experiments and frustrated projects. But it is very possible that it is convenient that the public opinion (and perhaps also the politicians who subsidize the research projects) are supported in the inopia.
The genetics is a big business nowadays. And the question of the "dogma" can make be in danger his benefits. Some practical consequences of these discoveries, which Commoner indicates, reveal it. For example, the illusory character of the gene therapies (that seem, on the other hand, to have showed extensively his defeat), or the inability to establish firm causality relations between certain genetic characteristics and certain hereditary illnesses. But here we are interested in especially those who refer to the transgénicos or genetically modified organisms.
The transgénicos are a product of the genetic engineering, which
began developing in the seventies of last century. By means of more or less sophisticated operations of “it cuts away and sticks”, the genetic engineering allows to assemble genes of a being belonging to a species to the DNA of a being of a different species. Thus they can be generated in second being proper characteristics of the first one. For example, there has been used the gene responsible for the luminosity of the fireflies to obtain phosphorescent flowers.
In the last decades the products of the genetic engineering have turned into a very important income source. This is especially true in case of the seeds transgénicas designed, patent and commercialized for companies like sadly famous Monsanto.
The cultivation transgénicos has generated suspicion reactions, especially in Europe. Really already there have been discovered concrete damages that they can cause both to the health and to the environment. Jeremy Rifkin has spoken even about the possibility of a "Chernobil Genético" if this type of cultivation proliferates. In any case, the putting concerning the genetic dogma raises added suspense and makes to foresee new dangers.
The companies that commercialize the OGMs say to us that his products are absolutely sure. They affirm that the gene traspuesto to the DNA of his seeds will only realize the function for which it has been foreseen. This way, for example, the corn transgénico that is cultivated profusely in our country contains the gene of a bacterium that produces a species of natural insecticide. This way, the corn transgénico can “to defend itself” himself opposite to certain plagues that the asolan without need for insecticides. There have already been indicated some potential dangers that this corn can have transgénico: to contribute the generation of "super-bugs" resistant to insecticide, to increase the resistance of the "weeds" as a result of phenomena of crossed pollination, to contaminate corn plantations not transgénico, to provoke allergic reactions in those who complete it … But now, one is added to all these dangers more that it derives from the indecisiveness of the effects that can provoke this gene. If as a result of the “alternative assembly” only one gene can generate multitude of proteins (and, for extension, of features) different: who assures to us that the effects of the “insecticide gene” in the corn transgénico it should not produce effects different from the due ones? What guarantee do we have of that the action of the gene does not turn to the corn in anything poisonous, for example? How can we know the effects that will produce this gene in another plant in whose DNA gets for effect of the crossed pollination?
Before these shaded perspectives there is imposed the application of the beginning of precaution. East consists in that when there are reasons científicamente founded to foresee that the use of a certain technology or product can suppose a danger, it is not necessary to hope that a relation of firm causality should be established between the product or technology and the effects harmful to prohibit it or to withdraw it. The burden of proof is invested. It is to the interested company in his commercialization to which it is up to prove his harmlessness. Only when it is demonstrated that the product or technology in question cannot produce the damages that were afraid his use or commercialization will be able to be authorized.
The Catalan parliamentarians who pushed last summer the Popular Legislative Initiative back to prohibit the transgénicos without at least nor to discuss it should take good note of the warnings that stem from the article of Commoner. The refutation of the "dogma" of the genetics helps to raise doubts moreover about the harmlessness of the products transgénicos. And the danger is the sufficiently founded from the scientific point of view as not to hesitate to apply as soon as possible the beginning of precaution. 
José Antonio ESTÉVEZ ARAUJO
Professor of Philosophy of the Right, faculty of Right, University of Barcelona
Member of the group of writing of the magazine Meanwhile
Comments
No comments:
Post a Comment