Mae-Wan Ho - Biology Department, Open University, Walton
Hall, Milton Keynes,MK7 6AA, UK
Hartmut Meyer - Working Group on Biodiversity,Forum
Environment and Development,Germany
Joe Cummins - Professor Emeritus of Genetics,University
of Western Ontario,London, Ontario, Canada , N6A5B7
*Published in The Ecologist 28(3), 146-153.
Biotechnology crisis management
One sign of big trouble in the biotech industry is when EuropaBio, a
non-Government organization representing the interests of the industry,
launched its multi-million pound campaign to win over European consumers
last summer by engaging the services of Burson Marsteller¹, the
leading consultancy firm for worldwide crisis-management. The clientele of
the firm included Babcock and Wilcox during the Three Mile Island nuclear
crisis in US in 1979, Union Carbide after the Bhopal disaster in India
which killed 15 000, and oppressive regimes in Indonesia, Argentina and
South Korea. According to a leaked document from Burson Marsteller, plans
drawn up to change perceptions on genetic engineering advised the industry
to stay quiet on risks of genetically engineered foods, as they could
never win the argument, but to focus instead, on "symbols, that
elicit hope, satisfaction and caring". It also advised that the best
way of eliciting a favourable response to new products must be to use
regulators and food producers to reassure the public.
Let the regulators reassure the public
And regulators have been most obliging, starting at the highest level.
The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization
(WHO) issued a joint Safety Report on genetically engineered foods, as the
result of an expert consultation held in Rome in October, 1996. The Report
sets international safety standards by WHO's Codex Alimentarius
Commission, which will determine, not only the safety of genetically
engineered foods, but also world trade. It will be illegal for any country
to ban imports of genetically engineered foods, so long as the Codex
considers them safe².
According to the Report, risk assessment is to be based on the "principle
of substantial equivalence". A product assessed to be substantially
equivalent is regarded as safe and fit for human consumption. But,
substantial equivalence can be claimed in advance, in which case,
subsequent risk assessment is most perfunctory. Furthermore,"substantial
equivalence" does not mean equivalence to the unengineered
plant or animal variety. The genetically engineered food could be compared
to any and all varieties within the species. It could have the worst
characteristics of all the varieties and still be considered substantially
equivalent. It could even be compared to a product from a totally
unrelated species or collection of species. Worse still, there are no
defined tests that products have to go through to establish substantial
equivalence. The tests are so undiscriminating that unintended changes,
such as toxins and allergens could easily escape detection. A genetically
engineered potato, grossly altered, with deformed tubers, was nevertheless
tested and passed as substantially equivalent.
Risk assessment based on the principle of substantial equivalence is
the stuff of farce. It isdesigned to expedite product approval
with little or no regard for safety. It is a case of "don't need -
don't look - don't see", effectively giving biotech companies carte
blanche to do as they please, while serving, indeed, to diffuse and
allay legitimate public fears and oppositions.
Meanwhile, the European Commission has set up a European Federation of
Biotechnology Task Group on Public Perceptions on Biotechnology to deal
with public resistance to biotechnology, which is seen to be the biggest
problem for the industry. Generous research grants are given to support
public understanding, and to professors who promote public understanding,
one of whom is John Durant.
Corporate scientists speak for the industry
John Durant is not just a Professor of Public Understanding of Science,
he is also Chairman of the European Federation of Biotechnology Task
Group, a member of the UK Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing and
Assistant Director of the Science Museum in London. The Museum is
currently mounting a major exhibition promoting biotechnology, which
includes a woolly jumper knitted from the wool of Dolly the cloned sheep,
designed by the winner in a children's competition. In a public debate
with one of us, (3) he denied that he was working to overcome public
resistance to genetic engineering. But he did assure the audience that the
technology was absolutely safe, so segregation and labelling of
genetically engineered products were unnecessary. He was also opposed to
any moratorium on releases of genetically engineered organisms, as it
would slow down development and compromise the competitiveness of the
industry in Europe.
Professor Durant is not alone. There is now a sizable clone of
corporate scientists, not necessarily all working officially for the
biotech corporations, who go about promoting and defending the industry in
roughly the same manner. They dismiss all risks as non-existent or
negligible, while offering caring promises of feeding the starving
billions of the Third World, greener agriculture, cleaning up the
environment, miracle cures for cancer and other diseases, gene therapy,
.... Some of us have heard those promises for nearly 30 years, and still,
the only real success that they can come up with is genetically engineered
insulin. It has been an endless summer of hype and promises that have yet
to bear fruit.
The biotechnology bubble
It is clear that everyone is in it for the money. The risks can be
dismissed by appealing to the benefits, and when the benefits are not
forthcoming, the promises have to be kept alive. Biotechnology is the
South Sea Bubble at the end of the millenium.(4) Billions have already
been invested, and companies are desperate to recoup their losses before
the whole enterprise collapses.
The biotechnology bubble may be about to burst. "Investors have
been stunned more by the absence of profits in their investments than by
medical progress in the sector".(5) According to Investor's Business
Daily's rankings, the sector has hovered in mediocrity for more than a
year. Within a week this March, biotech stocks slipped from 77th among 197
industry groups to 95th. German economist Ulrich Dolata reported(6) that
the original estimates of US$100 billion in world markets for genetically
engineered products by year 2000 is now revised downwards to $48 billion,
of which only $1billion will be in food and agriculture. He also noted
that the maximum number of jobs likely to be created in Germany, assuming
all goes well, is 40 000, which does not take account of jobs eliminated
or substituted by gene technology. However, he ended on a cheery note, and
suggested that the sector may become more "dynamic" in the near
We very much doubt it would. Why? Because the current approach is
entirely misguided by a crude, outmoded, reductionist view of organisms,
and the technology is hit or miss, as well as dangerous.
Reductionist science and hit or miss technology
This is what the public is told:
"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..".(7) This description is typical of literature
supposedly "promoting public understanding", and neatly
encapsulates the bad science of genetic determinism.
It gives the highly misleading impression of a precise technology,
1. Genes determine characters in linear causal chains, one gene giving
rise to one character;
2. Genes are not subject to influence from the environment;
3. Genes remain stable and constant;
4. Genes remain in organisms and stay where they are put.
This is the most extreme version of the classical genetics which has
dominated biology roughly from the 1930s up to the 1970s when genetic
engineering began. It is so extreme that no biologist would admit
to actually subscribing to it. But, why else would they suggest that by
manipulating genes, practically all the problems of the world can be
Genetic determinism goes counter to all the scientific evidence
accumulated especially within the past 20 years, which gives us the new
genetics. What is the new genetics of the present day really like?
- No gene ever works in isolation, but in an extremely complicated
genetic network, the function of each gene is dependent on the context of
all the other genes in the genome. So, the same gene will have very
different effects from individual to individual, because other genes are
different. There is so much genetic diversity within the human population
that each individual is genetically unique. And, especially if the gene is
transferred to another species, it is most likely to have new and
- The genetic network, in turn, is subject to layers of feedback
regulation from the physiology of the organism and its relationship to the
- These layers of feedback regulation not only change the function of
genes but can rearrange them, multiply copies of them, mutate them to
order, or make them move around.
- And, genes can even travel outside the original organism to infect
another - this is called horizontal gene transfer.
- The new picture of the gene is diametrically opposite to the old
static, reductionist view. The gene has a very complicated ecology
consisting of the interconnected levels of the genome, the physiology of
the organism and its external environment.(8) Putting a new gene into an
organism will create disturbances that can propagate out to the external
environment. Conversely, changes in the environment will be transmitted
inwards and may alter the genes themselves.
- Genetic engineering profoundly disturbs the ecology of genes at all
levels, and that is where the problems and dangers arise.
- Genetic engineering is a crude, imprecise operation
First of all, we must dispel the myth that genetic engineering organisms
is a precise operation. It is not. The insertion of foreign genes into the
host cell genome is a random process, not under the control of the genetic
engineer, it is done by means of artificial vectors for horizontal gene
transfer (see Box 1).(2,8-10)
Genetic engineering involves transferring genes horizontally
between species that do not interbreed. Horizontal gene transfer is
naturally done by infectious agents such as viruses and virus-like
elements that are passed from cell to cell, from organism to organism,
many causing diseases including cancer and spreading drug and
antibiotic resistance genes (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. How vectors can transfer genes. The gene(s) to be
transferred (dotted line) are usually integrated into the genetic
material of the vector; viruses can also transfer genes that are not
integrated, but merely packaged within the protein coat.
Natural agents are limited by species barriers, and all cells have
mechanisms that break down or inactivate foreign genes. However,
genetic engineers make artificial vectors for transferring genes by
joining together parts of the most agressive agents to overcome all
species barriers. Most of the genes causing diseases are removed, but
the antibiotic resistance genes are left in so that cells carrying the
vector can be selected with antibiotics (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Genetic engineering makes use of artifical vectors for
replicating and transferring genes. The gene to be transferred
(transgene) is inserted into a vector containing one or more
antibiotic resistance marker genes which makes it possible to select
for cells that have taken up the vector carrying the transgene. The
vector carrying the transgene and marker gene(s) can either be
replicated many times in the cell or become integrated into the
genome. The integration is random and not controllable by the genetic
Artificial vectors and the genes they carry have the potential to
spread horizontally to a wide range of species, to recombine with
their genes to generate new viral and bacterial pathogens. It is this
very danger that persuaded molecular geneticists to impose a
moratorium on genetic engineering in the Asilomar Declaration of
1975.(11) But commercial pressures soon intervened. Regulatory
guidelines were put in place, and commercial production began. Those
guidelines are far from adequate in the light of recent scientific
evidence as eight scientists have argued in a new report which links
genetic engineering biotechnology to the recent resurgence of
This gives rise to correspondingly random genetic effects, including
cancer.(12) Furthermore, and this is important, the foreign genes are
equipped with very strong signals, most often from viruses, called
promoters or enhancers, that force the organism to express the foreign
genes at rates 10 to 100 times greater than its own genes. In other words,
the genetic engineering process, both by design and otherwise, completely
upsets the first two levels in the ecology of genes - the genome and the
physiology - with dire consequences.
Unsustainable and unwholesome
There are many signs of the problems caused in genetic engineering
organisms. For every product that reaches the market, there are perhaps 20
or more that fail. It is particularly disastrous for animal welfare.
- The "superpig" engineered with human growth hormone gene
turned out arthritic, ulcerous, blind and impotent.(13)
- The"supersalmon" engineered, again, to grow as fast as
possible, with genes belonging to other fish, ended up with big monstrous
heads and died from not being able to see, breathe or feed
- The latest clones of the transgenic sheep Polly are abnormal and 8
times as likely to die at birth compared with ordinary lambs.(16)
Even products that reach the market are failing, including crops that
have been widely planted.
- The Flavr Savr tomato was a commercial disaster and has
- Monsanto's bt-cotton, engineered with an insecticide from the soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, failed to perform in the field
in both US and Australia in 1996, and suffered excessive damages from
- Monsanto's 1997 Roundup resistant cotton crops fared no better. The
cotton balls drop off when sprayed with Roundup and farmers in seven
states in the US are seeking compensation for losses.(19)
- The transgenic "Innovator" herbicide tolerant canola failed
to perform consistently in Canada. This has led the Saskachewan Canola
Growers Association to call for an official seed vigor test.(20)
- A number of different viral-resistant transgenic plants engineered
with a viral gene actually showed increased propensity to generate new,
often super-infectious viruses by recombination.(21-24)
- There is widespread instability of transgenic lines, they generally do
not breed true.(2,8,25)
According to Bill Christison, a representative of family farmers from
the United States, who attended a recent Conference in the European
Parliament on genetic engineering biotechnology,(6) transgenic crop
failures are under-reported.That, plus the restrictive contracts on
transgenic crops imposed by the biotech companies - which make it unlawful
for farmers to save seeds for replanting - have drastically reduced uptake
for 1998. For example, transgenic soybean, unlike transgenic cotton, has
not been reported as having any problems, and it was anticipated that 30%
of soybeans planted in 1998 will be transgenic. This has now been revised
downwards to around 25% at most. One reason is that in Missouri, the
transgenic crop is showing a five bushels per acre disadvantage in yield
compared with the non-transgenic.
It is important to realize that the failures are not just teething
problems. They are systematically caused by a reductionist science and a
hit or miss technology. The transgenic foods created are unwholesome,
because they involve stressing the developmental and metabolic system of
organisms out of balance. There are bound to be unintended effects
including toxins and allergens, which current risk assessments are
designed to conceal rather than reveal.(2)
The major problem is the instability of transgenic lines.
Beware of transgenic instability
Traditional breeding methods involve crossing closely related varieties
or species containing different forms of the same genes, and selection is
practiced over many generations under field conditions, so that the
desired characteristics and the genes influencing those characteristics,
in the appropriate environment, are tested and harmonized for
stable expression over a range of genetic backgrounds. Different genetic
combinations moreover will vary in performance in different environments.
This "genotype-environment" interaction is well-known in
traditional breeding, so it is not possible to predict how a new variety
will perform in untested environments. In many cases, new varieties will
lose their characters in later generations as genes become shuffled and
recombined, or as they respond to environmental changes.
This problem is greatly exacerbated in genetic engineering, First of
all, completely exotic genes are often introduced into organisms.
Secondly, the procedures for creating transgenic organisms inherently
generate increased genetic instability, In plants, the genes are often
introduced into cells in tissue culture, and transgenic plants are
regenerated from the cells after selection in culture.
- The tissue culture technique itself introduces new genetic variations
at high frequencies, these are known as somaclonal variations.(26)
That is because the cells are removed from the internal, physiological
environment of the plant which, together with the ecological environment,
keep gene expression, genes and genome structure stable in the cells and
the organism as a whole. Unilever used tissue culture techniques to
regenerate oil palms for planting in Malaysia several years ago. This has
now been abandoned as many plants aborted in the field or failed to
- The process of gene insertion is random and many secondary genetic
effects can result, as mentioned earlier.
- The extra DNA integrated into the transgenic organism's genome
disrupts the structure of its chromosome, and can itself cause chromosomal
rearrangement, further affecting gene function.
- The integrated vector containing the transgene(s) and marker gene(s)
has the potential to move out again or reinsert into another site, causing
further genetic disturbances.(2,8,9)
- The highly mosaic character of most vector constructs make them
structually unstable and prone to recombination.(9) This may be why
viral-resistant transgenic plants generate recombinant viruses more
readily than non-transgenic plants (see earlier).
- The use of aggressive promoters and enhancers to boost expression of
transgenes stress and unbalance the physiological system and increases
instability, as already stated before.
- All cells have mechanisms which silence foreign genes.(29) One common
mechanism is methylation - a chemical reaction that adds a methyl group to
the base adenine or cytosine in the DNA (there are 4 bases in DNA,
adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine) - as the result of which, the gene
is no longer expressed.
Transgene instability occurs both in farm animals(30) and plants.(31)
The transgenic sheep Tracy, engineered to produce human alpha-antitrypsin
at high levels in her milk, failed to reproduce a single female offspring
that matches her performance. That is why cloning techniques that resulted
in Dolly was contemplated. Much more is known about instability in plants.
In tobacco, 64 to 92% of the first generation of transgenic plants become
unstable. The frequency of transgene loss in Arabidopsis ranges
between 50 to 90%. Instability arises both during the production of germ
cells and in cell division during plant growth. It can be triggered by
transplantation or mild trauma.(18)
Transgenic lines, therefore, often do not breed true. A typical
case(32) is the supposedly non-allergenic rice produced in Japan,(33)
which turned out to be both ineffective and unstable. The transgenic
plants of the second and third generations showed only 20-30% reduction of
the allergens. The project has been abandoned since.(34,35) The
instability of transgenic lines create difficulties in quality control and
traceability. It also raises serious safety concerns. A transgenic variety
with a certain gene insert may be assessed safe, and completely change in
characteristics when the insert moves to another position in the genome.
At a seminar given by scientists working for the biotech industry
during the Biosafety Meeting in Montreal in May, 1997, a delegate from
West Africa asked, "How old is the oldest transgenic line?" None
of the scientists answered the question. There is, in fact, no data
documenting the stability of any transgenic line in gene expression, or in
structure and location of the insert in the genome. Such data must include
the level of gene expression as well as genetic map and DNA base sequence
of the insert and its site of insertion in the host genome in each
successive generation. No such data has ever been provided by the
industry, nor requested by the regulatory authorities.
One does not have to be prescient to see that transgenic instability
makes biotechnology a bad investment. It may well ruin our agriculture and
Agricultural genetic engineering destroys biodiversity because
ecological relationships are ignored.
-Broad-spectrum herbicides used with herbicide-resistant transgenic
crops, such as glufosinate(36)Novartis' Basta) and glyphosate(37)
(Monsanto's Roundup) destroy plants indiscriminately, many of which are
habitats for wild-life. They are toxic to animals and human beings.
Glufosinate also causes birth defects and glyphosate is mutagenic.(38)
Yet, the European Commission has approved 4 transgenic crops which are
resistant to these toxic herbicides.(39)
- Resistant transgenic plants can become weeds themselves or
cross-pollinate with wild-relatives, creating resistant weeds.(40)
- Food plants are now being engineered to produce industrial chemicals
and pharmaceuticals. These will surely cross-pollinate and contaminate our
food supply for years to come.(2)
- Transgenic plants with insecticidal genes not only harm beneficial
species directly, but also indirectly down the food chain, such as
lacewings and ladybird eating prey that have fed on transgenic
plants.(42,42) In a field trial of Bt-cotton in Thailand, 30% of the bees
around the test-fields died.(43)
- Transgenic crops with insecticidal genes or herbicide resistance genes
actually favour the evolution of resistances.(8)In other words, they
exacerbate the problem they are supposed to solve.
Pesticide resistance, a major and persistent problem in intensive
agriculture, has become a textbook example of the supposed power of
natural selection to increase rare random mutations. That is a myth. In
reality, pesticide resistance turns out to be a classic case of feedback
regulation in the ecology of genes of the new genetics. It is due to
genetic changes that can occur in most, if not all individuals in pest
populations in response to sublethal levels of pesticide. They do not have
to wait for rare random mutations. This has been known for more than 10
years. The genetic changes are part and parcel of the physiological
mechanisms common to all cells challenged with toxic substances,
including anti-cancer drugs in mammalian cells or antibiotics in
bacteria.(8,9) Similarly, resistance to herbicides readily arises in
plants exposed to the herbicides.(44)So, using herbicides with resistant
transgenic plants will also hasten the wide-spread evolution of herbicide
tolerance among weeds, even in the absence of cross-pollination.
For all those reasons, agricultural biotechnology is a bad investment
which will kill off all the wild-life, until nothing is left but pests and
weeds. So much for the supposed benefits of biotechnology in food and
agriculture. What about human genetics and medicine?
The human genomania
We must expose some of the most outrageous myths that have been
perpetrated, before dealing with the more serious propositions.(8) The
greatest myth is that the human genome project will uncover the genetic
blue-print for making a human being, so that one can recreate the whole
human being from the DNA sequences. In fact, the isolated DNA can do
nothing by itself. Nor can one deduce from the sequences anything about
the human being. There are at least 10 000 genes in the human genome, each
with hundreds of variants. The number of possible combination of genes,
assuming only 10 variants for each gene is 1010000. For
comparison, the total number of particles in the universe is 1080.
There is no doubt that each person is genetically unique, as mentioned
before, and it is thus impossible to predict the life of the individual
from the DNA sequence of the genome, even if one believes that genes
determine our destiny. Furthermore, 95% of the DNA in the genome is
so-called "junk" DNA, because no one knows what it does.
For the same reasons, it is outrageous to suggest that there can ever
be a completely "personalized medicine" that matches a person's
DNA. The thoroughly immoral suggestion of cloning headless human embryos
to supply organs and cells for custom-made transplantations is also highly
impractical.(45) The technique, which made Dolly, involves transferring a
nucleus from a cell of an adult to eggs from which the nucleus has been
removed, and allowing the egg to develop into an embryo. The success rate
is less than 1%, so an army of human female donors will have to be lined
up to provide "empty" eggs. There is much current doubt as to
whether Dolly was in fact cloned from the nucleus of an adult cell.(46)
Adult cells accumulate systematic and nonsystematic changes in the DNA
which make it very unlikely to support normal development.(8)
Gene therapy suffers from all the problems associated with making
transgenic organisms. The technology for inserting genes into the genome
is hit or miss, There has not been a single case of documented success in
gene therapy.(47) On the contrary, severe, nearly fatal immunological
reactions have developed to at least one gene therapy vector,(48) while
the dangers of generating viruses from gene therapy vectors cannot be
lightly dismissed.(8)Naked viral DNA is much more infectious than the
virus itself,(9) and there are many dormant viral sequences in all genomes
with which gene therapy vectors - all derived from viruses - can recombine
to generate new viruses.
What about mass-screening programmes for so-called single gene
diseases? Sickle cell anaemia is a recessive condition among
Afro-Americans, which means that an individual has to have two copies of
the mutant gene to have the disease. Screening programmes for this
condition has already resulted in individuals who are asymptomatic
carriers of the condition (with only one mutant gene) being discriminated
against in employment and in health insurance.(49) This is socially
unacceptable and economically unsound, and has no scientific basis
whatsoever, for the reasons already stated: it is impossible to predict a
person's health from just one single gene when the other genes are
Two cases may be described to illustrate the fallacy of genetic
determinist thinking.(8) The first is cystic fibrosis, a recessive
condition like sickle anaemia, which requires two copies of the mutant
gene to become expressed.The severity of the disease is extremely
variable. Furthermore, there are now more than 400 variants of the gene
identified, whose effects are largely unknown. The gene is extremely long,
and many more variants are likely to be isolated. While the common variant
results in cystic fibrosis in the North European population, it is not
associated with the disease at all in the Yemanite population. In the
latter population, clinical conditions diagnosed as cystic fibrosis are
associated with a different gene altogether. The same goes for the
so-called cancer gene, BRCA1. A certain mutation in the gene is
associated with 40% of breast cancers in women who have a family history
of cancer - which make up only 5% of all breast cancer cases in women -
but has no association with familial breast cancer in men.
Genetic screening is most often limited to members of families which
already have a history of the condition. But, couples have been subject to
pressures to abort affected foetuses whether they want to or not. Enormous
efforts are now concentrated into hunting for genes for every conceivable
human condition - homosexuality, shyness, criminality, intelligence,
alcoholism where the connection with individual genes become more and more
remote and dubious.
It is all too easy to slide insensibly into what constitutes a harmful
or undesirable gene, and to practice "therapeutic" abortions on
Can we afford to let genetic determinist science continue to dominate
our social and health policies? The dangers of genetic discrimination and
eugenics are real. From the 1930s to the 1970s and in some cases right up
to the 1990s, tens of thousands of people, the majority of them women,
have been sterilized by force in US, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Denmark,
Finland, Italy, Switzerland, Japan, Norway, France, Germany and Austria,
on the basis of "undesirable" racial characteristics or
otherwise "inferior" qualities including poor eyesight and "mental
What about genetically engineered insulin? Certainly, it gives life
support to those suffering from insulin-dependent diabetes. But that does
not help the vast majority of diabetics that are controllable by diet, nor
those that are independent of insulin.
The more general point is that debilitating genetic diseases which can
be attributed to mutations in single genes constitute less than 2% of all
human diseases.(51) How can this justify the current overwhelmingly biased
investment in genetic medicine? The last issue of The Ecologist
(Vol 28 No. 2, Mar/April) documents the dubious record of cancer research.
Billions have been invested into cancer genes and the genetics of cancer,
and still the rates of most cancers are increasing year by year. Tens of
billions have been made in the "healthcare market" for
diagnosing and treating cancer patients to little avail. At the same time,
the impacts of environmental carcinogens and mutagens are consistently
overlooked by the cancer research establishment. It is estimated that
approximately 1% of all genetic diseases are due to new mutations.(8) Are
these the result of environmental mutagens?
The investment in genetic medicine is bad in all senses of the word. It
is a drain on public resources to the overwhelming benefit of the biotech
corporations. At the same time, ever-dwindling public resources are being
misdirected away from the real causes of deteriorating public health. It
is disastrous from the social point of view in promoting genetic
discrimination and eugenics.
Before the bubble bursts...
Before the bubble bursts, we suggest that the biotech industry should
- Stop throwing good money after bad. Take stock of existing projects
and discontinue those that have all the signs of going down a blind alley,
which may include most projects on genetically engineering organisms.
Don't fool yourselves. Convince yourselves with good data that the
transgenic lines created are genuinely stable and wholesome.
- Stop wasting money on expensive campaigns to change public perception.
The public are smarter and more discerning than you think.
- Stop corrupting our scientists and support research scientists to do
- Invest in basic research to discover appropriate and safe ways to use
genetic engineering technology.
- In the meantime, don't forget to look out for alternative investments
into other technologies that are genuinely environmentally friendly,
caring and sustainable.
In fact, biotech companies would achieve the best public relations and
serve their own interests by supporting a five year moratorium on
releases. This would create a breathing spell for stock-taking and for
honest scientists to do the necessary research.
1. Penman, D. (1997). Stay quiet on risks of gene-altered food, industry
told. The Guardian, Wednesday August 6.
2. Ho, M.W. and Steinbrecher, R. (1998). Fatal Flaws in Food Safety
Assessment: Critique of The Joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food Safety
Report, Third World Network, Penanag, Malaysia.
3. Debate at the Linnaean Society, Burlington House, London, on the
occasion of M.W. Ho's launch of her book, Genetic Engineering Dream or
Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business,
Gateway Books, Bath, U.K., and Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia.
4. Ho, M.W. (1995). Gene Technology: Hope or Hoax? Third World
Resurgence 53/54, 28-29.
5. SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 10, 1998,
6. Genie Genetique, Conference organized by Green MEPs, European
Parliament, Brussels, March 5-6, 1998.
7.Food for Our Future, Food and Biotechnology, Good and Drink
Federation, London, London, 1995, p. 5.
8. Ho, M.W. (1998). Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare? The
Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business, Gateway Books, Bath,
U.K., and Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia.
9. Ho, M.W., Traavik, T., Olsvik, R., Midtvedt, T., Tappeser, B.,
Howard, V., von Weizsacker, C. and McGavin, G. (1998). Gene Technology
and Gene Ecology of Infectious Diseases, Third World Network, Malaysia
and The Ecologist, U.K.
10. Walden, R., Hayashi, H. and Schell, J. (1991). T-DNA as a gene tag.
The Plant Journal 1, 281-8.
11. Berg, P. et al. (1974). Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA
molecules. Science 185, 303.
12. Kendrew, J., ed. (1995). The Encyclopedia of Molecular Biology,
Blackwell Science, Oxford.
13 "And the cow jumped over the moon". GenEthics News
issue 3, pp. 6-7, 1994.
14. Devlen, R..H. Yesaki, T.Y., Donaldson, E.M. Du, S.J. and hew, C.L.
(1995). Production of germline transgenic pacific salmonids with
dramatically increased growth-performance.Canad. J. Fishery and
Aquatic Science 52, 1376-84.
15. Devlen, R.H., Yesaki, T.Y., Donaldson, E.M. and Hew, C.L. (1995).
Transmission and phenotypic effects of an antifreeze GH gene construct in
coho salmon (oncorhynchus-Kisutch). Aquaculture 137, 161-9.
16. "Alarm as cloned sheep develop abnormalities" The
Independent, Monday 19 Jan., p.1.
17. Parr, D. (1997). Genetic Engineering: Too Good to go Wrong?
19. "Seeds of Discontent: Cotton Growers Say Strain Cuts Yields"
The New York Times, November 19, 1997.
20. "Meeting Set to Pinpoint Problems, Find Answers". Western
Producer. November 10, 1997.
21. Vaden V.S. and Melcher, U. (1990). Recombination sites in
cauliflower mosaic virus DNAs: implications for mechanisms of
recombination. Virology 177, 717-26.
22. Lommel, S.A. and Xiong, Z. (1991). Recomnbination of a functional
red clover necrotic mosaic virus by recombination rescue of the
cell-to-cell movement gene expressed in a transgenic plant. J. Cell
Biochem. 15A, 151.
23.Greene, A.E. and Allison, R.F. (1994). Recombination between viral
RNA and transgenic plant transcripts. Science 263, 1423-5.
24. Wintermantel, W.M. and Schoelz, J.E. (1996). Isolation of
recombinant viruses between cauliflower mosaic virus and a viral gene in
transgenic plants under conditions of moderate selection pressure. Virology
25. Steinbrecher, R. (1996). From green to gene revolution. The
environmental risks of genetically engineered crops. The Ecologist
26. Cooking, E.C. (1989). Plant cell and tissue culture. In A
Revolution in Biotechnology (J.L Marx, ed.),pp. 119-129, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, New York.
27. Perlas, N. (1995). Dangerous trends in agricultural biotechnology
Third World Resurgence 38, 15-16.
28. Wahl, G.M., de Saint Vincent, B.R. & DeRose, M.L. (1984). Effect
of chromosomal position on amplification of transfected genes in animal
cells. Nature 307: 516-520.
30. Colman, A. (1996). Production of proteins in the milk of transgenic
livestock: problems, solutions and successes. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 63, 639S-645S.
31. Lee, H.S., Kim, S.W., Lee, K.W., Ericksson, T. & Liu, J.R.
(1995). Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of ginseng (Panax-ginseng)
and mitotic stability of the inserted beta-glucuronidase gene in
regenerants from isolated protoplasts. Plant Cell Reports 14:
32. Meyer, H. (1998). In search for the benefit. Third World Network
Briefing Paper, Biosafety Conference, Montreal Feb., 1998.
33. Tada, Y., Nakase, M., Adachi, T., Nakamura, R., Shimasda, H.,
Takahashi, M., Fujimura, T. and Matsuda, T. (1996). Reduction of 14-16 kDa
allergenic proteins in transgenic rice plants by antisense gene. FEBS
Letters 391, 341-5.
34. Matsuda, T. (1997). E-mail to H. Meyer, 12 Nov. 1997.
35. Tada, Y. (1997). Letter to H. Meyer, 13 August, 1997.
36. Cox, C. (1996). Herbicide Factsheet: Glufosinate. J. Pesticide
Reform 16, 15-9.
37. Cox, C. (1995). Glyphosate, Part 2: Human exposure and ecological
effects. Journal of Pesticide Reform 15 (4).
38. Kale, P.G., Petty, B.T. Jr., Walker, S., Ford, J.B., Dehkordi, N.,
Tarasia, S., Tasie, B.O., Kale, R. and Sohni, Y.R. (1995). Mutagenicity
testing of nine herbicides and pesticides currently used in agriculture.
Environ Mol Mutagen 25, 148-53.
39."Anger over GE crop approval". Splice March/April 1998,
40. Mikkelson, T.R., Andersen, B., and Jorgensen, R.B. (1996). The risk
of crop transgene spread. Nature 380, 31.
41. Birch, A.N.E., Geoghegan, I.I., Majerus, M.E.N., Hackett, C. and
Allen, J. (1997). Interaction between plant resistance genes, pest
aphid-population and beneficial aphid predators. Soft Fruit and
Pernial Crops. October, 68-79.
42. Hilbeck, A., Baumgartner, M., Fried, P.M. and Bigler, F. (1997).
Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis-corn-fed prey on
mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera:
Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology (in press).
43. "Cotton used in medicine poses threat: genetically-altered
cotton may not be safe" Bangkok Post, November 17, 1997.
44. Hyrien, O. and Buttin, G. (1986). Gene amplification in
pesticide-resistant insects. Trends in Genetics 2, 275-6.
45. Butler, D. (1998). Dolly researcher plans further experiments after
challenges. Nature 391, 825.
46. Hodgson, J. (1995). There is a whole lot of nothing going on.
Bio/Technology 13, 714.
47. Connor S. and Cadbury, D. (1997). Headless frog opens way for human
organ factory. The Sunday Times 19 October
48. Coghlan, A. (1996) Gene shuttle virus could damage the brain. New
Scientist 11 May, 6.
49. Hubbard, R. and Wald, E. (1993) Exploding the Gene Myth,
Beacon Press, Boston.
50. Bryce, S. (1998). Governments vs the people crimes against humanity.
Nexus 5, 31-36.
51. Strohman, R. (1994). Epigenesis: The missing beat in biotechnology?