Biosafety Science

Getting the science right is a fundamental challenge when dealing with pioneering research and new technologies.In a world where human knowledge is ever increasing, yet elusive because of the complexities of nature, of the interactions between humanity and nature and of the dynamics of those relationships over time, an exciting and promising world awaits us if we get the science right.The shift from genetic determinism to modern genetics and the ‘fluid genome’ paradigm raises very basic questions and exposes the assumptions that have been used, and continue to be used, to rationalize and promote genetic engineering (GE), gene biotechnology and many emerging forms of nanotechnology.The new genetics acknowledges that genes have a very complex ecology from which they receive layers of biological feedback over every scale of space-time. The new physics do not separate space and time. While the new genetics have yet to move strongly in that same direction and be mainstreamed, the discipline of “gene ecology” is gaining ground.

The new genetics is holistic genetics. This says that changes in ecological conditions can affect an organism, including its genes and genome. Conversely, a foreign gene introduced into an organism through GE may have influences that propagate outwards to affect the ecosystem. At the same time, a stable, balanced and healthy ecosystem is also essential for the health of genes and genomes.There are also safety concerns over the GE process itself, which greatly enhances the scope and probability of horizontal gene transfer and recombination. This is the main way to the creation of viruses and bacteria that cause diseases. Destabilising genes and genomes through GE can thus be hazardous.

From genetically modified crops and pharmaceutical drugs to health genomics, the hazards are often not known. However, where something can cause irreversible harm, it is right and proper for society, and scientists in particular, to seek evidence that it is safe beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the precautionary principle or approach is crucial.

Unfortunately the quest to ensure safety is often faced with obstacles of denial, and even repression, of knowledge of potential and actual hazards. If we do not seek to ask the necessary questions, if science is not allowed to play its role with integrity and responsibility, then GE will lead to considerable ecological harm and human suffering. At the same time, precious resources needed to support all our societies, especially those in the developing and vulnerable parts of the world, will be wasted.

To ensure biosafety, we need to develop science policies that appreciate the centrality of nature, and connect science with society. Identifying gaps in knowledge, supporting research in holistic sciences and putting the precautionary principle into practice are among the key challenges before us.

Nanotubes highly toxic

An entire molecular electronics industry is poised to take off, much of it on the back of carbon nanotubes. But new research found that nanotubes are highly damaging to the lungs of mice. […]

Nanotechnology, the wave of the future?

Nanotechnology has been touted as a ‘trillion-dollar industry’. However, before attempting to jump onto this bandwagon, developing countries must sift through the hype and consider potential hazards. […]

Lack of Scientific Credibility of GM Food Safety Tests

Ann Clark of Guelph University talks about the lack of scientific credibility in the biotechnology industry’s claims about the safety of GMOs and the need for more and better testing of GM food and crops based on sound science. […]

Lab-created killer virus sparks biotech fears

News that a deadly new virus was created during a genetic engineering experiment has set off warning bells that the use of the technology should be very carefully monitored and regulated. […]

GMO Risks and Hazards: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence of Risk

As more GM foods are being produced and marketed and as many different types of GMOs continue to be released into the environment, the debate on the safety of genetic engineering has intensified. […]

The Principle of Substantial Equivalence is Unscientific and Arbitrary

The Principle is intentionally vague and ill-defined to be as flexible, malleable, and open to interpretation. […]

Unregulated Hazards of ‘Naked’ and ‘Free’ Nucleic Acids

This study highlights the findings in gene therapy and vaccine development that naked/free nucleic acids created by genetic engineering are potentially the most hazardous xenobiotics. […]

The Human Genome Map, the Death of Genetic Determinism and Beyond

Dr Mae-Wan Ho reports on the publication of the human genome map in 2001 and assesses its implications. The findings on the nature of genes is crucial in understanding why genetic engineering is flawed and why it gives rise to serious biosafety concerns. […]

Human Genome -The Biggest Sellout in Human History

This report by Dr Mae-Wan Ho was written before the final publication of the complete human genome map in 2001. […]

The Killing Fields: Terminator Crops at Large

Three scientists, Drs. Mae-Wan Ho, Joe Cummins and Jeremy Bartlett describes what “terminator technology” involves, the scientific implications and its threats to biodiversity and human health. […]