Gene Technology: Learning How to Argue the Points, From Scratch

There are no maps of the intellectual territory gene technology is uncovering every second. Nor are there any deep academic disciplines holding the thinking together.

There’s something about genetics which has had people speculating at ever more exotic levels since Mendel. It seems to be in the nature of the subject, the manipulation of life, that this new obsession is being propagated like a virus. Science itself is having to learn how to make its own points, for and against, and sometimes molecule by molecule. Even the definition of the issues is an issue of itself. New, often entirely unsuspected, ideas and information, keep shifting the arguments. Medical science, in its traditional haze of hopes and horrors, has found itself fighting ideological wars, while trying to do its job, and to research answers to questions it didn’t even know existed ten years ago. Industrial science, possibly the most competitive of the scientific demographics, is obliged to spend a lot of time and effort in the process of trying to keep in touch with its own technologies. Almost every medical and industrial process stands to benefit hugely from gene technology, and the importance to their client base, sometimes known as the whole of humanity, cannot be overstated. When the history of gene technology of this period is finally written, probably a subsection of the broad classification “The Age Of Stupidity”, its readers will wonder why we were having such a torrid time trying to penetrate the obvious. Well, future readers, the answer is that (a) we’re still pretty much at the “what’s that?” stage with simply identifying things, (b) we don’t have the logic, let alone the methodologies, and (c) it’s a bit difficult to be mentally prepared for an unlimited horizon of possibilities. As a study in human encounters with new experiences, gene technology would be a behaviorist’s dream. The fear of the new, the clumsy pawing at ideas, the savage arguments over rubbing two genetic sticks together…It’s the whole gamut of cave society interactions, at work. It’d be hilarious, if it wasn’t so dangerous. The only mitigation for this particularly chaotic way of looking at gene technology is that the thinking has had to develop to keep track of the arguments and information. I dread to think what the reasoning will look like a hundred years from now, let alone a thousand, but it’s keeping us out of the sort of insularity from issues that is the real danger. Uninformed, we’d have no chance of even trying to handle the problems, socially. Just prior to the Human Genome Project, environmentalists had revived the concept of “ethics”, which had been endearingly dead outside philosophy classes for centuries. Cynics might say that even the use of the word ethics indicates a form of real desperation, in this society. There is no such thing as “Applied Ethics”, anywhere on Earth, and never has been. Now we’re trying to apply ethics to a science where we need to update our vocabularies every day. It’s quite a noble effort, in its way. Whether or not it has any chance of ever happening is another matter. How do you argue something you can barely conceive, let alone describe? It’s a tough enough subject for people who are fully informed, let alone those who don’t even understand the basics, and were never taught to the level of literacy required to learn them without help. This isn’t a learning curve, it’s a learning sphere, and it will have to be treated accordingly. Some examples of the volatility of genes at work: The human and chimpanzee genomes have a net variance of a bit more than one per cent. That’s what relatively minor differences in gene structure can do over a time frame. Totally different species. A virus, picking up DNA from a host, can make huge variations in its structure, instantly. New organisms, of any kind, have unknown genetic potentials for mutation. More or less by definition, any gene structure is subject to change. The degree of change creates further potentials for more changes. The number and incidence of expanding potentials is the framework for an ecology. An artificial ecology, comprised entirely of new organisms, would be almost beyond analysis. Mathematically, you can quantify the number of genes and possibly the likelihood of variance, if you have a working methodology. Biologically and environmentally, you have to take into account some pretty complex factors in just assessing how an organism can affect any part of its environment. All ecologies are a result of their component organisms. If one changes, it can affect everything else. Making even a rough guess about the impact of new organisms on an existing ecology is pure masochism. This is one case where trying to argue is a lot better than not trying. Even if we’re wrong, we can present at least one side of an argument, however badly. We don’t even really know what sort of information is available to support our broad views, because that information is still in its scientific, pre-conversational level, form. I can read a Wiki definition of Gene Expression, and understand most of it. Whether I can make scientifically valid points, or useful contributions, someone else would have to decide. In this case, it’s probably better, and definitely more honest, to illustrate the points with links, rather than provide news items. This is more “ways of reading, researching and understanding the news” than news of itself. One thing I can promise you about gene technology is that it never gets dull. Interestingly, one of the first social products of gene technology was “gene art”. Now all we need is a genetically inclined Monet… I’ve also added a link to one of my own articles, “Prognostic Mutagenics”, which is to show what I mean about trying to make an argument in this field. You’ll notice that the intent is to try to get some systematic approaches to handling specific gene sequences. I hope I’m right, because I can see some horrible situations arising from trying to operate the old “scientific paper” approach in the kinds of volumes gene technology generates. This is a subject where I really do want some feedback. Any criticism, any perspective, feeling, or concern, let’s hear it. Wikipedia- Gene Expression Naturewatch- use of GM animals in experiements study Wikipedia- Mutagen

definition My article on Prognostic Mutagenics Human Genome Project GM food Cornell News- Human/chimpanzee genomes Pebbestee (Dutch site) Gene Art Andre Brodyk Artistic argument regarding use of genetic dynamics as art.