entropy
ISSN 1099-4300
www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy
Review
The New Genetics and Natural versus ArtificialGenetic Modification
Abstract:
The original rationale and impetus for artificial genetic modification was the“central dogma” of molecular biology that assumed DNA carries all the instructions formaking an organism, which are transmitted via RNA to protein to biological function inlinear causal chains. This is contrary to the reality of the “fluid genome” that has emergedsince the mid-1970s. In order to survive, the organism needs to engage in natural geneticmodification in real time, an exquisitely precise molecular dance of life with RNA andDNA responding to and participating in “downstream” biological functions. Artificialgenetic modification, in contrast, is crude, imprecise, and interferes with the natural process. It drives natural systems towards maximum biosemiotic entropy as the perturbations are propagated and amplified through the complex cascades of interactions between subsystems that are essential for health and longevity.
Keywords:
central dogma; fluid genome; circular causation; biosemiotics
1. Introduction
It has been almost 20 years since the first genetically modified organism (GMO) entered the market [1].A GMO is simply any organism (plant, animal fungi, bacteria or virus—not strictly an organism)with synthetic genetic material inserted into its genome (“genome” in this context includesextrachromosomal plasmids and mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA); it is made in the laboratory withsterile techniques, which also means without the need for sexual reproduction between donor andrecipient species of the genetic material. The basis for such genetic manipulation was the “centraldogma” of molecular biology due to Francis Crick [2,3], who shared the Nobel Prize with James
Entropy 2013,154749
Watson for the DNA double helix structure [4]. As Oller stated at the beginning of this special issue [5],Crick’s oversimplified dogma proposed that biologically meaningful information could only flow fromDNA through RNA to proteins, and so forth to cells, organs, organisms and species; and nothing could be added to the DNA program from the outside by any means. Gryder et al [6] in this series havedeveloped their argument about cancers on the same doctrine, although both Oller [5] and Gryder et al
[6]acknowledge that the central dogma is an oversimplification. Yet, that dogma remains the basisfor genetic engineering. It is supposed that individual “genetic messages” in DNA are faithfully copiedor transcribed into RNA, which are then translated into proteins via a genetic code; each proteinsupposedly determining a particular trait, such as herbicide tolerance, or insect resistance;one-gene-one-character. Hence inserting a new genetic message into an organism will give it thedesired character to serve our every need. If it were really as simple as that, genetic modificationwould work perfectly every time. Unfortunately things are vastly more complicated.Samsel and Seneff have exposed the-one-gene-one-character fallacy by documenting the wide-spreadimpact of the herbicide-tolerant trait in GM crops on the health of crops, animals and consumers [7].In this article, I review further empirical evidence on how artificial genetic modification disrupts thenatural process, ultimately resulting in the maximization of biosemiotic entropy [5].
Mae-Wan Ho
Institute of Science in Society, 29 Tytherton Road, London N19 4PZ, UK;E-Mail: m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk; Tel./Fax: +44-0-20-7272-5636
Received: 2 August 2013; in revised form: 9 October 2013 / Accepted: 10 October 2013 / Published: 4 November 2013
Leave a Reply