The industry that has covered more than 1.81 million square kilometers of the planet’s arable land with genetically modified crops is at the center of a massive change. The improved techniques for modifying the genome of crops are already bringing a new generation of plant varieties to the market. And around the world, legislators are trying to adapt.
With this paragraph, Heidi Ledford, a science reporter for the internationally renowned journal Nature, began on April 12, 2016, a brief presentation of the redefinition of restrictions on genetically modified species by American legislation. Is this introduction celebratory or cautionary? The CRISPR/Cas9 technique 1, described (and unfortunately is) “the holy grail of genetic engineering,” is already unleashing the biotechnological alienation of all living species, including our own.
On the surface, the axis of rotation of this release of the many billions is technological developments. Based on the biotechnological know-how of the 1980s and 1990s, genetic modifications in the DNA of various organisms were made through “synthesis” of the target organism with segments of DNA from another organism, usually bacterial. The result was the creation of chimeras: organisms with collages of base sequences in their “genetic code.” Due to this type of manipulation, the alien meaning of the word “mutated” arose.
And much more. Mainstream biotechnologists always (as they do now) claimed that such recombinations and “syntheses” were safe. They could not prove it: the position that genetic reconstruction of any organism cannot remain confined only to that specific species, since the entire “biological material” of the planet, regardless of the millions of final forms it takes, is in constant exchange, was scientifically founded. Far more so than the arbitrary—but commercially profitable—claim that a mutation here will stay here and that’s it, so we will reap its fruits.
There was, however, a deeper issue. Biotechnologists claimed that they knew how every DNA and every gene worked; yet they were lying. As they continue to do. The deterministic, linear interpretation of the “behaviors” of nucleotide sequences became dominant and remains so; however, it is simply ideological projection. And, at best (not good at all, in any case), a statistical conclusion. A year and a half ago, we extensively referred to the demystification of genetic determinism, of the “certainties,” that is, that the such-and-such gene determines the such-and-such chemical reaction which, in turn, produces the X or Y result in the functioning of the organism; a demystification that comes from… biotechnologists! 2
Indicatively, the geneticist (researcher at the medical school of Stanford…) Bruce Lipton answered the two questions below as follows: 3
…
Question: So you’re saying that when journalists refer to publications by cellular biologists and geneticists, from top scientific journals such as Nature and Science, they still interpret them through the prism of genetic determinism, reinforcing the mistaken idea that scientists will save us from our genes.
Bruce Lipton: In reality, “we read the secret of this gene” is more unreliable than the “we read the stars” of the old developed astrological systems.Question: What does it mean, then, that gene expression is not static?
Bruce Lipton: Epigenetic control supports that information from the environment changes the action of genes, without changing the DNA code. This remains the same, but its expression changes [that is, the biochemical reaction that results in the production of a protein changes]. Each individual gene, due to epigenetic regulation, can give 30,000 different variations of its expression.
…
The statistical “proof” of the role of the x or y gene is so crudely and blatantly biased, that if there were broader social awareness regarding the assumptions and the “work axioms” of biotechnologies and genetics (as well as many other scientific fields), these studies and research programs would have been banned. Here’s how it works: we have 1000 samples of a certain nucleotide sequence (with observed variations in the x gene), and we “suspect” that these variations are associated with phenotype A or B—be it a characteristic, behavior, or trait in the studied organism. We compare these 1000 samples with the corresponding individuals of the organism, and if this behavior, characteristic, or “anomaly” appears in a sufficient percentage, then the correlation of the x gene with it is considered proven! Statistically, yes (if statistics can prove anything), but… This is what we have, and this is what we’re selling!
The studied “anomaly” never actually limits itself to the DNA with the variation in the x gene! No matter. Whatever exceeds the linear “cause-effect” correlation is simply omitted, or discreetly referred to the vast reserve of “statistical anomalies” which, who knows, might someday in the future provide the material for yet another techno-scientific paradigm shift that will finally cast biotechnological determinism into the historical dustbin.
We will dwell a bit more on the issue of genetic predeterminism because, as an ideology that appears disguised as an unshakeable, supposedly scientific truth, it was the main front of conflict between defenders of (earlier) mutants and opponents of the release of genetically modified organisms into the natural environment… And it is the front that, based on new technological developments, mainly CRISPR/Cas9, is being attempted to be erased, overcome by the biotechnologies of the 4th industrial revolution; to be silenced and disappear.
In Cyborg 8 we noted:
…
As if the discovery of this unknown (and chaotic) continent, of epigenesis, was not enough, there came an entirely new and unexpected development, perhaps delivering the graceful final touch to genetic determinism—at least among specialists. According to a very recent publication in the journal Nature Genetics, the way DNA is “packaged” within the cell affects its function!
What happened? First, a technological advancement: the ability to observe DNA in three dimensions—and not as a two-dimensional line. Thus, since the “thread of life” is folded and refolded many times (and not stretched lengthwise), base sequences (and therefore genes) that are distant from each other linearly can be found right next to each other topologically. Researchers (from the medical school of Case Western Reserve University) discovered that topologically neighboring sequences (the corresponding genes) influence each other in their activity. As a result, genes that have traditionally been associated (through conventional genetic determinism) with various illnesses (such as rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and at least six autoimmune disorders) are expressed differently, influenced (in an unknown manner) by their “neighbors.”
This particular study did not reach a definitive conclusion regarding whether these “neighbors” play a role regardless of their identity, or whether there are specific “neighborly relationships” that produce certain effects. Nevertheless, it is significant: beyond what is called in epigenetics the natural and/or social environment—which acts through consciousness and perception on genetic “blueprints”—there exists yet another factor, this time an internal-external one, that affects gene expression. And that is the (random?) “folding” and the “loops” of DNA…
…
Epigenesis and topology of dna: it is not a matter of two factors of structural uncertainty side by side; but of uncertainty squared!! A kind of biological Heisenberg Principle 4 not simply within any “holy grail” but at the very foundations of the entire religion of biotechnologies and genetic engineering!
Of course, this is unacceptable!!! Not from a formal scientific perspective… But certainly from a commercial one. If the only thing that biotechnologists on the planet should admit they know is that they know nothing (and that it is not expected they will learn anything in the coming decades), who would fund research, careers, travel, conferences, technologies, etc.? Put differently: if there is to be no commercial profit from one genetic technique or another, if it cannot be sold in one way or another, then what is the point of all this work? If new kinds are not going to enter the market (as Heidi Ledford states with “disarming honesty”, considering it a commonplace, in the original excerpt), then what value do all these things have?
This is what it’s about. Exactly. “Value” does not arise either from “scientificity” nor from the “general good”. These are promotional pap. “Value” arises from the market, that is, from profitability. 5
the market is not mutated!
Because that’s how things stand, uncertainty regarding the kind of consequences that mutations (more correctly: 1.0 mutations) have on life as a whole on the planet and especially on the life of our species, over various time periods (immediate, medium-term, long-term), was something particularly annoying for companies in the industry. Doubt very quickly gained ground within proto-cosmic societies, and this is proven by the major difficulties that biotech food giants encountered in conquering the planet: social difficulties but – and this was what concerned them – legislative/regulatory obstacles. It is also proven by all sorts of forgeries they attempted in order to overcome such obstacles; by the blackmail they engaged in; and by various other things that it is not the place here to recount.
Any technique that would relieve genetic modification from the “marriage” of commercial life forms with viral or bacterial DNA would remove, that is, the risks of chimerism from its commercial exploitation, would be more than welcome. And such techniques have been found. 6 Crispr/cas9 is the most recent (and the most easily “persuasive”) crown of them.
And so, just before the mid-2010s, the American “Food and Drug Administration” service, responsible for regulating the market of genetically modified organisms in the USA7, began to have less and less work! At least 30 types of genetically modified plants using the ZFNs and TALENs methods (from soybean seeds that produce soybean oil with a longer shelf life in summer markets to pink-fleshed pineapples) were relieved of any mutation-related restrictions, from cultivation to advertising, including of course special labeling and any other reminder that they are genetically modified species. The reason? Simple! It is not (say both the “experts” and legislators) about DNA from different species being combined; but about a type of “self-mutation,” which is common in life itself! Therefore, no regulation or special treatment is needed.
Calyst, for example, one of the growing number of biotech companies producing (and of course: patenting) genetic modifications in plants, had one of its latest “jobs” pass through the control of the American Food and Drug Administration service, without the additional requirements, obligations, and inspections concerning genetically modified organisms, even in the USA. What does it sell? A “minor genetic intervention” in a variety of wheat, which significantly reduces the likelihood of flour molding during storage. This “minor genetic intervention” does not improve the lives of those who eat pasta; however, it improves the shelf life of flour and thus the profitability of flour industries that will sell “long-life flour” first. The fact that this “minor genetic intervention” is no longer considered a mutation frees the hands of this particular company. Similar decisions free the hands of others.
These are entirely natural processes, say supporters (of ZFNs, TALENs, CRISPR/Cas9 and whatever else emerges), technoscientists and companies alike. It is the way mutations occur in nature. If regulations are to be imposed on them, then all animal species should undergo constant genetic scrutiny! With reductio ad absurdum, human-induced, industrial, commercial mutations emerge from human institutions and return to the “freedom of nature”! Perfect neoliberalism!!
From a standard, technocratic perspective, these advocates are right. Indeed, technoscientists have managed to mimic the way a bacterium or a virus, through an enzyme or a protein, “intervenes” in foreign DNA; and, possibly, integrates itself partially into it. This development occurs at a time when technoscientists from other specialties are mimicking with increasingly convincing means speeches, movements, and various behaviors of different animal species, including our own; converting them into motion (of the new) machines, robotics and digital.
But the argument of “naturalness” is a deception! In “nature,” however it may be conceived, many things happen; perhaps everything. For example, there is natural radioactivity; does this legitimize atomic weapons? Volcanic eruptions occur, spewing millions of tons of scorching lava that burns everything in its path; does this justify the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest? Earthquakes occur that can obliterate vast areas of the Earth’s surface; does this legitimize wars or the systematic demolition of Palestinian homes by the Israeli state? Solar (magnetic) storms occur; does this legitimize new “electromagnetic” bombs?
No! Whatever happens in “nature” is random, without design, without purpose; without commercial gain, without patents. If “natural mutations” lead to the destruction of one or more species, “nature” will not weep. It is not guilty, “nature” gains nothing from it. Genetic engineering is not, therefore, “natural,” nor could it ever be, no matter how well geneticists may invoke either “nature” or “God”! The interventions of genetic engineers, their modifications, are neither random, nor purposeless, nor unprofitable!!! They have very specific goals. Namely, one: the profitability of the company that will patent and sell the “correction.”
If this is understood, as it should be, at the outset of a process of “scientific colonization” characterized by fundamental ignorance on the part of specialists—an ignorance stemming from an incalculable indeterminacy squared—then the argument about the supposed innocence of 2.0 mutations regarding their “naturalness” is ideology cubed! “Nature” does not pursue anything through random mutations, therefore it is not guilty: it has no malice. The geneticists who invoke it, however, have and provide malice!
“Natural accidents,” even the extinction of species, are simply what has been called “natural selection.” Technological accidents, that is, the consequences of targeted mutations masquerading as “natural” and carried out with far greater ignorance than that of irresponsible nature, constitute capitalist selection: if the pink pineapple is not going to propagate, then for what (damn) “natural” reason should anyone bother genetically modifying the classic pineapple?
the general attack of capital: the apple does not fall far from the tree
As you can read on other pages of this issue (the spectrum of control…) genetic engineering specialists, generously funded by big pharma companies, after the invention of new genetic engineering techniques, and especially crispr/cas9, are sticking out their tongues. It is now scientifically verified, they say, that from now on genetic interventions are not mutations – from a legal (state) perspective. Consequently, whoever continues to oppose the free circulation of relevant goods (but also the necessary “intellectual property” titles) have humble, ideological motives. And thus they should be treated: as “enemies of progress”.
The “naturalness” of crispr/cas9, as we said already, is ideology cubed. But this awareness alone is not enough to deal with it. When a genetically modified apple that doesn’t brown for a while when cut is produced, or a similar mushroom, whether in supermarkets or in cooking or in pastry making there will be no obstacles; nor, of course, in consumption, where no one knows what they eat or drink if it’s not written in big, colorful letters on the product’s packaging. The food production and trade chain is already hyper-mystified.
Now nothing will be written on the packaging. Although the American state certification that (something funny, for example…) the frog that plays the piano is simply a “natural mutation” (and, consequently, a common pet) is relatively new, it is already urgently shaping the terms of the “market”, that is, of global intra-capitalist competition. The “market” that awaits new fields of capitalist exploitation. Now that populism supports that, finally, genetic interventions are danger-free and, therefore, for the good of humanity (what innovation, right?), who will dare to keep them high on the list of anti-human (and anti-animal) capitalist methods? Only nothing ideologues; “marginal and antisocial” that is…
Will the game over the dipole “good scientists – bad scientists”, “good hands – bad hands” happen again? Perhaps. The history of the 20th century shows, however, that the “neutrality” of technoscience is a good plan B, a convenient point of retreat for capital’s specialists when the mask of its “naturalness” becomes troublesome. And we are not at all sure that technoscientific “kindness” was, from a historical point on, anything more than capitalist “humanity”…
The only certain comfort (though not pleasant) is the power of correlations. When most of the population of the capitalist north will be green with pink spots or checks (all colors and shapes owned by various houses of “biological fashion”, subsidiaries of genetic companies) due to some unconfessed mistake in some crispr/cas9 therapy, then white and black, yellow and red-skinned, all those who were once racially stratified, will be equal.
Equally the same: old technology!
Ziggy Stardust
cyborg #11 – 02/2018
- More details in Cyborg 8, spring 2017, genetic tailoring, the big trick. ↩︎
- Cyborg 7, winter 2016, genetic predetermination; no thanks! ↩︎
- Wherever and previously. ↩︎
- The uncertainty principle, or alternatively the principle of indeterminacy, is a fundamental axiom of quantum mechanics that was first formulated in 1927 by Werner Heisenberg (Werner Heisenberg, 1901 – 1976). According to the uncertainty principle, it is impossible to simultaneously and accurately measure, neither practically nor theoretically, the position and velocity, or momentum, of a particle.
Contrary to the principle of causality, according to the uncertainty principle there are events whose occurrence is not dictated by any cause. (Wikipedia)
Although this principle is recognized by physicists, it has not changed the deterministic obsessions or ideologies, not even of the physicists themselves; and certainly not how the “miracles” of physical discoveries or inventions are presented to the general public. Urban ideology as a whole, and science as a subset of it, cannot acknowledge (let alone coexist with) the irreducible uncertainty in the real world. ↩︎ - Could someone post: how is it possible for treatments that are essentially based on ignorance to have successful results? The truth is that sometimes they succeed statistically – just as other completely unscientific “magic” or autosuggestion used to succeed. Their failures, on the other hand, are concealed (or become “conspiracy theories”). Or they are attributed to anything else except technological-scientific ignorance. ↩︎
- Zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) involve the use of a range of biotechnologically designed proteins (nucleases) that “recognize” and “interact” with various and distinct nucleotide sequences of any dna, modifying them. The operation of Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) technology is approximately the same. In both techniques, the initial proteins (nucleases) were identified, isolated and studied from bacteria. For ZFNs, the “pilot” was Flavobacterium okeanokoites, while for TALENs it was Xanthomonas.
The development of these technologies (as indeed also that of crispr/cas9) signals a completely non-random effort by geneticists to focus more precisely on the “details” of how viral and bacterial dna affects the dna of the organisms they attack. ↩︎ - Because the genetic industry of the liver had already managed to develop first, the not-so-anti-business (to put it elegantly) opinions of the American service in favor of genetically modified organisms became the banner for the attacks of various Monsanto companies on the rest of the planet. Demanding the harmonization of legislation; often with gangster-like threats of “trade war”. ↩︎