Genetic Engineering file
The Artificialization of Life
Be aware!
There are those minds who are working
towards the realization of
an artificial Paradise on Earth.
It does not matter if you believe it or not,
as long as they believe in it,
it will affect us!
THE HEDONISTIC IMPERATIVE
Heaven on Earth? (the molecolular biology of Paradise)
Try summoning up the most delightful fantasy you can imagine. Try and imagine, too, feeling more blissfully fulfilled in pursuing whatever you love and value than you've ever felt before. Unfortunately it's quite futile. We run such simulations on legacy wetware. Even the most virile imagination today glimpses only a shadow of the biological nirvana awaiting our descendants.
For happiness beyond the bounds of normal human experience will shortly become our genetically pre-programmed birthright. Life on earth is destined to become inconceivably good. The Hedonistic Imperative predicts that we are poised to explore some outrageously beautiful states of consciousness.
Their exotic metabolic pathways are neither more nor less "natural" than any other patterns of matter and energy existing elsewhere in space-time. Yet direct drug-naive knowledge of these (hitherto) genetically-maladaptive forms of mental life has been impossible - at least to emotional primitives like us - owing to the pressure of natural selection. Cruelly, any genetic blueprint for naturally "angelic" minds - if evolved blindly via the mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic variations - entails crossing dips in the evolutionary fitness-landscape.
Such jumps are forbidden for reasons of neo-Darwinian theory. So such minds never evolved; we did instead. Happily, thanks to genetic-engineering and nanotechnology, this glorious spectrum of alien state-spaces of consciousness will soon become safely accessible to us.
Better still, our cheap-and-nasty primordial-DNA-driven minds are destined to redesign themselves out of existence. An enriched neural architecture will disclose ecstasies more deeply intense, diverse and exhilarating than a drug-naive hunter-gatherer psyche can understand.
Such magical modes of well-being are only travestied, alas, by the dry textual placeholders found here. For within a few generations, celestial chemistry of a loveliness that transcends any fantasised Christian afterlife will become the genetically-coded basis of our existence.
Every moment of every day will become a sublime revelation.
Gradients of prodigious happiness will become the everyday norm of mental
health. Post-Darwinian superminds will go on to rewrite the vertebrate genome,
redesign our whole global ecosystem, and abolish suffering and cruelty throughout
the living world. The molecular biology of paradise is closer than we think.
http://paradise-engineering.com/
http://paradise-engineering.com/heaven.htm
Race To Control Human Life Via Genetic Patents
Exploding
By James Meek - Science Correspondent
The Guardian (London) 11-15-00
The race for commercial control over the essence of life is threatening to spiral out of control with private firms, universities and charities claiming exclusive development rights over natural processes in the human body at the rate of 34,500 a month. For the first time, research commissioned by the Guardian reveals the awesome scale of the gene rush, as investors, scientists, entrepreneurs and lawyers use powerful new technology and obscure new laws to isolate and patent the genes which make us what we are - before they even understand what the genes do.
Biotech firms say they need patent protection to recoup their investments. But the risk to society is that future medical researchers - private and public - will have to hack their way through forests of patents, paying out hefty licence fees to a host of gene-squatters, before the miracle drugs of the genetics revolution reach the market.
It's like someone buying a street and taking a toll from everybody passing through,' said Thomas Schweiger, of German Greenpeace, which is campaigning against gene patenting. Sue Mayer, head of GeneWatch UK, the independent watchdog body commissioned by the Guardian to analyse the gene patent rush, challenged the basis on which gene patents are granted - that genes, or bits of genes, are inventions'. What's striking is the speed and the scale at which patent applications are being made,' she said.
It's impossible that this is caused by a sudden outbreak of creativity and inven tiveness. Unless people look at the issue seriously, unless the rules are changed in a few years time we will find very basic knowledge and information has been privatised.' Alongside human genes, patents are being sought by organisations, overwhelmingly from rich countries, on hundreds of thousands of animal and plant genes, including those in staple crops such as rice and wheat. Patents are already pending or have been granted on more than 500,000 genes and partial gene sequences in living organisms.
When GeneWatch UK began its database search last month, patents had been granted or were pending on 126,672 whole or partial human genes. As of this week, however, that number had rocketed by over 34,500 to 161,195, an increase of 27%. The Guardian's research found that:
One firm alone, Genset of France, has applied for patents covering 36,083 human gene sequences. Patents are pending ongenes controlling processes in the human heart, teeth, tongue, colon, skin, brain, bone, ear, lung, liver, kidney, sperm, blood and immune system. The US Department of Health is the world's fifth biggest recorded gene patenter, with applications pending or granted on almost 3,000 sequences 152 patents have been applied for on rice, 21 on HIV, 13 on the eucalyptus tree and 11 on the spider. Among gene patent applicants are Queen Elizabeth college, Dublin (human eye), York University (rice), the Wellcome Foundation (HIV) and ICI (eucalyptus).
Gene patenters are overwhelmingly from the US, western Europe and Japan. Opponents of gene patenting believe companies using genetic information to develop real therapies and diagnostic techniques should be able to use the patent system to claw back the huge investment involved. But they object to firms and other organisations being granted patents for genes when they cannot specify what the genes will be used for.
Genes are isolated by computers on a routine basis,' said Mr Schweiger. There's no special intellectual work required. Even if the gene patenter doesn't ever develop a new drug or therapy with the gene, and somebody else does all the investment to find out what use can be made of the gene, all the investment is done by the second company and the first company still gets the money." Concern is growing in continental Europe over an EU directive adopted two years ago which makes it easier to patent genes. In June, the French president Jacques Chirac wrote to the head of the European commission, Romano Prodi, saying that gene patenting should not be permitted.
Yet delegates to a rare diplomatic conference to revise the treaty governing European patent law, opening in Munich on Monday, are not even planning to discuss gene patenting. The British delegate, Alison Brimelow, said yesterday the issue would not be discussed until next year. The British government has strongly supported liberalisation of the laws on gene patenting, hoping to nurture its own biotech industry and fearful the anti-GM backlash would persuade European and US biotech investors to relocate.
Much of the pressure to liberalise European gene patenting laws has come from the US. Last year the chairman of US drugs firm Pfizer, William Steere, said: Europe seems to be entering a period of the dark ages, where witchcraft and sorcery are prevailing.' The sentiment was shared by Andre Pernet, Genset chief executive. I think the fear generated by the decoding of the human genome, that somehow people's essence' would be captured, has carried over into the gene patenting debate. You don't want to patent a gene and then just watch the patent time deadline melt away like a block of ice. There's no money to be made unless you really want to develop a drug.
Here are some quotes from scientists.
* Dr.
George Wald
Nobel Laureate in Medicine (or Physiology) 1967
Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University.
Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution." " Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms; animal and plant breeding, for example; or the artificial induction of mutations, as with X-rays.
All such earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species. The nub of the new technology is to move genes back and forth, not only across species lines, but across any boundaries that now divide living organisms. The results will be essentially new organisms, self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled.
"Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism, or their neighbors." "It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face.
Our morality up to now has been to ho ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain. For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."
From: 'The Case Against Genetic Engineering' by Georege Walt, in The Recombinatnt DNA Debate, Jackson and Stich, eds. P. 127-128. (Reprinted from The Sciences, Sept./Oct. 1976 issue)
* Dr
Erwin Chargoff,
eminent biochemist who is often referred to as the father of molecular
biology, warned that all innovation does not result in "progress." He once
referred to genetic engineering as "a molecular Auschwitz" and warned that
the technology of genetic engineering poses a greater threat to the world
than the advent of nuclear technology. "I have the feeling that science has
transgressed a barrier that should have remained inviolate," he wrote in his
autobiography, Heraclitean Fire. "Noting the 'awesome irreversibility' of
genetic engineering experiments being planned, Chargoff warned that, "...you
cannot recall a new form of life...It will survive you and your children and
your children's children. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something
so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish
that mine had not been guilty of it."
* Prof.
Wangari Mathai of the Green Belt Movement Kenya
"History has many records of crimes against humanity, which were
also justified by dominant commercial interests and governments of the day.
Despite protests from citizens, social justice for the common good was eroded
in favour of private profits. Today, patenting of life forms and the genetic
engineering which it stimulates, is being justified on the grounds that it
will benefit society, especially the poor, by providing better and more food
and medicine. But in fact, by monopolising the 'raw' biological materials,
the development of other options is deliberately blocked. Farmers therefore,
become totally dependent on the corporations for seeds".
*
Statement by 24 leading African agriculturalists
and environmental scientists
"We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will
help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On
the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge
and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for
millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves."
Statement by 24 leading African agriculturalists and environmental scientists
representing their countries at the UN in response to claims by Monsanto that
GM crops will help feed the world's growing population.
* Professor
Philip James
"The perception that everything is totally straightforward and
safe is utterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of
what we're getting into." Professor Philip James (author of the "James" report
on the structure and functions of the proposed UK Food Standards Agency to
oversee national food safety standards), Director of the Rowett Research Institute,
Aberdeen, on genetically engineered food. Rowett Research Institute The Foods
Standards Agency Covered up US study shows damage to rats from BST
* Professor
Bevan Mosely
"Well, I agree with you in the sense that when you use these methods you don't
know what part of the chromosome that the new gene is being introduced into
and that is, you know, what I would say is a drawback to the technology."
Professor Bevan Mosely, former head of the Institute of Food Research, Reading,
and a current member of the United Kingdom's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods
and Processes (ACNFP) responsible for reviewing the safety of genetically
modified foods, in a response to the question - "So how can we know that something
isn't really going to go horrendously wrong?" - put to him by Charles Colett
of Radio Wey Valley, Hampshire, United Kingdom, February 1998.
* Bob
Shapiro, Chief Executive of Monsanto
"But we realize that with any new and powerful technology with
unknown, and to some degree unknowable - by definition - effects, then there
necessarily will be an appropriate level at least, and maybe even more than
that, of public debate and public interest." Bob Shapiro, Chief Executive
of Monsanto, admitting that the effects of genetic engineering are unknown
and "to some degree" unknowable (SWF News interview, San Francisco, 27 October
1998).
* Dr
Geoffrey Clements, leader of the Natural Law Party, UK
"The genetic modification of food is intrinsically dangerous. It
involves making irreversible changes in a random manner to a complex level
of life about which little is known. It is inevitable that this hit-and-miss
approach will lead to disasters. It must disrupt the natural intelligence
of the plant or animal to which it is applied, and lead to health-damaging
side-effects." Dr Geoffrey Clements, leader of the Natural Law Party, UK.
Tryptophan toxicity incident - $2 billion in claims for deaths and disease.
*
Professor Richard Lewontin
"An ecosystem, you can always intervene and change something in
it, but there's no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be
or how it might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding
of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we
don't get one rude shock after another." Professor Richard Lewontin, Professor
of Genetics, Harvard University.
*
Colin Tudge, Research Fellow, London School
of Economics
"GM crops really do carry theoretical dangers that could be ironed
out, given time, but will not because the companies that develop them cannot
afford to wait. Šit is entirely unsurprising that GM crops could be toxic.
Most domestic crops have poisonous relatives (potatoes and tomatoes belonging
to the nightshade family, Solanaceae) or are descended from poisonous ancestors
(potatoes, tomatoes, parsnips etc). The modern crops may still contain the
genes that make the toxins: not lost, but merely dampened down. Most genes
are pleiotropic - they have many different and often unrelated effects. Many
genes affect the function of other genes.
Thus an alien gene parachuted by genetic engineering into the genome of a potato or a tomato could well reawaken the ancient genes of toxicity. Now and again we should expect this. We can test to see if this has happened but we cannot do this in one generation. Genes combine through sexual reproduction; a gene that has no effect in one combination may make itself felt in another. We would need to breed a GM crop for many crosses before we plumb the possibilities of any freshly introduced gene. How long would this take? How long can a company wait for returns on its investment? The pressure to cut corners is constant and inevitable" Colin Tudge, Research Fellow, London School of Economics.
* Sir
John Scott, President of the Royal Society, New Zealand.
"[Most scientists] warn that it is likely to be impossible to enforce
[labelling] laws once many [GM] food products enter food processing systems...
I don't think many scientists would oppose labelling of something clearly
modified, but the problem arises in the use of overseas ingredients which
may have been modified." Sir John Scott, President of the Royal Society, New
Zealand.
*
Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign
"We don't know what genetic abnormalities might be incorporated
into the genome [the individual's DNA]. I'm more worried about humans than
about the environment, to be honest. One of the problems is that because it's
a long-term thing, you need to do long-term experiments." Gordon McVie, head
of the Cancer Research Campaign.
* Colin
Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University
"I see worries in the fact that we have the power to manipulate genes in ways
that would be improbable or impossible through conventional evolution. We
shouldn't be complacent in thinking that we can predict the results." Colin
Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University and President
of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
* Professor
Arpad Pusztai
"If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We are putting
new things into food which have not been eaten before. The effects on the
immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge anyone who will say
that the effects are predictable." Professor Arpad Pusztai, of the Food, Gut,
and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute, on the health
risks associated with genetically engineered food. And on the ability of the
regulatory system to cope with prospect of the arrival of large numbers of
GM crops: "Once the floodgate was opened, it's almost impossible. A committee
cannot deal with it." No faith in GM approvals system
* Professor
Richard Lacey, microbiologist
"The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a
testing procedure to assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods
when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or
public interest reason for their introduction." Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist,
medical doctor, and Professor of Food Safety at Leeds University, world famous
for his accurate prediction of the dangers of " Mad cow disease". Professor
Lacey has spoken out strongly against the introduction of genetically engineered
foods, because of 'the essentially unlimited health risks' And additionally
with reference to the BSE crisis, "We know to our cost that an organism which
was utterly unknown to science 30 years ago, the prion, is capable of jumping
from species to species, and changing its own physical characteristics each
time it crosses the barrier. This shows that it is impossible to forsee what
dangers lie in store... If we continue to create new life forms artificially,
we lay ourselves open to the possibility of similar unimaginable dangers."
New Scientist - BSE's hidden horror.
* Dr.
Philip Regal, Professor of Ecology
"Over the last fifteen years, I and other scientists have put the
FDA on notice about the potential dangers of genetically engineered foods.
Instead of responsible regulation we have seen bureaucratic bungling and obfuscation
that have left public health and the environment at risk." Dr. Philip Regal,
Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior at the University of Minnesota
and an internationally recognised plant expert, on the decision (May 1998)
by concerned scientists and consumers to sue the US Federal Department of
Agriculture (FDA) for failing to protect public health and provide consumers
with relevant information about GM foods: Details of FDA lawsuit launched
May 1998 More information on the work of Professor Regal
* Andrew
Kimbrell, Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment
(CTA)
"The FDA has placed the interest of a handful of biotechnology
companies ahead of their responsibility to protect public health. By failing
to require testing and labelling of genetically engineered foods, the agency
has made consumers unknowing guinea pigs for potentially harmful, unregulated
food substances." Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the International
Center for Technology Assessment (CTA), commenting on the same FDA court action.
International Center for Technology Assessment Andrew Kimbrell interview on
the hazards of human and animal cloning.
* Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A's [Food and Drug Administration] job." Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, in an interview with the New York Times Sunday Magazine.
* UK
junior environment minister Angela Eagle
"[The release of novel GM rape plants] may pose unique risks to
human health and the environment, which could include toxicity and allergenicity
to humans, gene transfer to other oilseed rape crops, and effects on other
species." UK junior environment minister Angela Eagle's warning to MPs, which
was reported in Farmers Weekly 23rd January 1998 as being in conflict with
the Government's own advisory committees on GMOs. GM OSR cross pollination
found up to 2.5 km away - Scottish Crop Research Institute.
* George
Gaskell, professor of social psychology
"There are a lot of people in Europe in favour of biotechnology, who are prepared
to take risks, but a considerable number are resistant and see no benefits.
Many people see biotech taking us into the realm of unknown dangers. ...This
is a Pandora's box and a lot of people wonder whether it's worth opening it."
George Gaskell, professor of social psychology at the London School of Economic.
* New
Scientist 4th January 1997
"If it's safe, then prove it." Editorial headline on genetically engineered
foods, New Scientist 4th January 1997 Media cover up on gmo cancer threat.
* Dr
Michael Antoniou, senior lecturer in molecular pathology from London
"Information provided to governments and food suppliers by the biotechnology
industry is not fully representative of the technical limitations of genetic
engineering, and therefore does not give a complete picture of the potential
dangers in its use." "Once released into the environment, unlike a BSE epidemic
or chemical spill, genetic mistakes cannot be contained, recalled or cleaned
up, but will be passed on to all future generations indefinitely". Dr Michael
Antoniou, senior lecturer in molecular pathology from London, biotechnology
advisor to the farming and food industries, and chief biotechnology advisor
to the Natural Law Party Dr Antoniou on Genetic Engineering NLP wins vital
soyabean genetics case against major Dutch retailers Dr Antoniou on GM crops.
* Professor
John Fagan, award-winning Geneticist
"The process of genetic engineering always involves the risk of altering the
genetics and cellular functioning of a food organism in unanticipated ways.
These unanticipated alterations can result in GE foods being allergenic, toxic,
or reduced in nutritional value". Professor John Fagan, award-winning Geneticist,
Maharishi University of Management, Iowa, USA. Dr Fagan on the dangers of
genetically modified food.
* Malcom
Walker, Chairman and Chief Executive of Iceland Foods
"Millions of ordinary people are very worried about genetically modified foods
and I am one of them....With genetically modified foods I believe we have
reached the thin edge of the wedge, we are messing with the building blocks
of life and it's scary." Malcom Walker, Chairman and Chief Executive of Iceland
Foods, 26th December 1996 Iceland Foods ban GMOs French supermarket boycotts
suppliers who do not label GM foods.
* Jonathan
Porritt, patron of The Soil Association
"The huge arrogance of the companies developing GMO crops and their
determination to destroy the line of accountability which links the developer
to the product is breath-taking. When something goes wrong, as it inevitably
will, there will be a great benefit to those who have taken a stance against
genetically modified organisms." Jonathan Porritt, patron of The Soil Association
Illegal GM soya beans planted in Brazil US imports illegal GM maize into Europe
Mistake leads to unauthorised release on GM oilseed rape in Swedish trials
Monsanto sends genetically modified sugar beet to Dutch sugar refinery by
mistake Biotech company releases unapproved genetically modified plant material
into Canadian environment.
* Tewolde
Berhan Gebre Egziabher of the Institute of Sustainable Development
"There are still hungry people in Ethiopia, but they are hungry because they
have no money, no longer because there is no food to buy ....we strongly resent
the abuse of our poverty to sway the interests of the European public." Tewolde
Berhan Gebre Egziabher of the Institute of Sustainable Development in Addis
Ababa, in response to a comment in late 1997 by a British scientist who claimed
that those who want GMOs banned are undermining the position of starving people
in Ethiopia.
* Colin
Pickthall, Member of Parliament for West Lancashire
"Monsanto claims in its letter to me that there is no difference between ordinary
soya beans and what it calls round-up soya beans, and therefore that they
should not be segregated. I maintain that members of the public who notice
what is going on simply do not believe that, and will increasingly demand
to know what is in the food they eat - roundup or otherwise... the Government
and the EU should resist the power of the giant food companies in the United
States, which are effectively dictating what we must eat, without giving any
convincing estimates of the long-term effects." Colin Pickthall, Member of
Parliament for West Lancashire, speaking in the House of Commons, 13th December
1996 Canadian Government report on toxic effects of BST Canadian government
scientists claim BST approval coercion BST background Milk composition of
cows fed on gm soya changes Leaked document on biotechnology industry public
relations strategy.
* HRH
the Prince of Wales
"At the moment, as is so often the case with technology, we seem
to spend most of our time establishing what is technically possible, and then
a little time trying to establish whether or not it is something we should
be doing in the first place." HRH the Prince of Wales on genetically engineered
food 19th September 1996 Royal support for genetic food withdrawal.
* Samuel
Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois
"rBGH poses an even greater risk to human health than ever considered.
The FDA and Monsanto have a lot to answer for. Given the cancer risks, and
other health concerns, why is rBGH milk still on the market?" Samuel Epstein,
M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School
of Public Health and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, author of
report which concludes that milk from cows in the US injected with recombinant
bovine growth hormone (rBGH) increases risks of breast and colon cancers in
humans. BST (rBGH) cancer link BST background genetically engineered Bovine
Growth Hormone scandal.
* Dr.
Joseph Cummins
"Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion
of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been shown in
the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new
viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used cauliflower mosaic
virus is a potentially dangerous gene. It is a pararetrovirus meaning that
it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis
B virus and related to HIV." Dr. Joseph Cummins, professor emeritus in genetics
from the university of West-Ontario The use of Cauliflower Mosaic Virus, Joseph
Cummins.
* Warning
from The New England Journal of Medicine
"...the allergic potential of these newly introduced microbial proteins is
uncertain, unpredictable and untestable,..." Warning from The New England
Journal of Medicine in 1996 against the use of micro-organisms rather than
food plants as gene donors.
"Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms; animal and plant breeding, for example; or the artificial induction of mutations, as with X-rays. All such earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species. The hub of the new technology is to move genes back and forth, not only across species lines, but across any boundaries that now divide living organisms.The results will be essentially new organisms. Self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled. Up to now living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in.
Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors. It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain. For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics." Dr. George Wald, the professor emeritus in biology from Harvard and Nobel laureate in medicine BST link to prostate cancer.
* Professor
of Medicine at Oxford University
"It's never been easy to safely introduce genes into cells Š.It has involved
attaching genes to viruses with possible harmful side effects. Getting the
gene - once it's in the cell - into the right place, then finally getting
it to behave itself - to produce the right amount of material in the cell,
to produce it at the right time during a person's lifetime, in developmental
stages and then making absolutely sure that the gene, because it's not in
its usual place, doesn't interfere with any other genes that are near to it
- we haven't really made much progress in any of these phases yet." Professor
Weatherall, Regis Professor of Medicine at Oxford University speaking on BBC
Radio 4 Medicine Now, 27 August 1996 on the experimental nature of genetic
engineering Medical problems and fatalities with genetically engineered insulin
* Joseph
Rotblat, the British physicist who won the 1995 Nobel Prize
"My worry is that other advances in science may result in other means of mass
destruction, maybe more readily available even than nuclear weapons. Genetic
engineering is quite a possible area, because of these dreadful developments
that are taking place there." Joseph Rotblat, the British physicist who won
the 1995 Nobel Prize after years of battling against nuclear weapons Viral
risk from GMOs.
* Dr
Mae-Wan Ho, head of the Bio-Electrodynamics laboratory at the Open University
in Milton Keynes
"Gene technology is driven by bad science. It may well ruin our food supply,
destroy biodiversity and unleash pandemics of antibiotic resistant infectious
diseases." Dr Mae-Wan Ho, head of the Bio-Electrodynamics laboratory at the
Open University in Milton Keynes, UK "The Unholy Alliance" by Dr Mae-Wan Ho
Campaign for Food Safety (formerly known as the Pure Food Campaign) 860 Highway 61, Little Marais, Minnesota 55614 Activist or Media Inquiries: (218) 226-4164, Fax: (218) 226-4157 Ronnie Cummins E-mail: alliance@mr.net http://www.purefood.org
Back
to Health Page
E-Mail
to Light Network
