Are Scientists Redesigning Life?

“The time has come,” the Walrus said, “To talk of many things: . . . And whether pigs have wings.”​—Through the Looking-Glass

PIGS with wings? Ridiculous! But scientists are beginning to predict that pigs may have wings in the future. More precisely, there is much talk of using a new technology called gene-splicing to create plants that do not need fertilizers, bacteria that mine ore and oil, and yeast that turns garbage into alcohol. In other words, scientists are starting to redesign living things.

Science fiction? Not when you consider what has already been done with gene-splicing, or recombinant DNA technology, as it is technically known. Here are some examples:

September 1978​—California scientists using a synthetic gene for human insulin were able to make ordinary bacteria into tiny “factories” producing insulin. Insulin, of course, is used daily by many diabetics, some of whom are allergic to the animal insulin presently in use.

July 1979​—Bacteria with human genes added produced a replica of the human growth hormone (HGH) molecule. At present, human growth hormone is the only treatment for pituitary dwarfism, which afflicts 20,000 people in the United States alone. The only source of HGH up to now has been the pituitary glands of human cadavers.

January 1980​—Human interferon, a natural virus-fighting substance, was first produced by bacteria. Previously, interferon could be obtained only from human blood, with 65,000 pints of blood yielding only 100 milligrams of interferon (about 1/280 ounce)! Scientists are hopeful that interferon may turn out to be an antibiotic as effective against viruses as penicillin is against bacteria.

Scientists are enthusiastic about the rapid progress of gene-splicing experiments. If bacteria can be altered to make human insulin, HGH and interferon, what is next? “Anything that is basically a protein will be makable in unlimited quantities in the next fifteen years,” predicts a scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Just what is gene-splicing? How does it redesign living things? What does it mean for the future?

Proteins, Genes and You

MENTION “protein” to most people and they think of a nice, juicy steak. But there is more to protein than that. Meat contains protein because living things, especially animals, are made from countless different types of proteins, each with specific jobs to do.

Types of proteins? Not counting water, about half of your body weight is protein molecules, but not all are the same. Some give strength to your hair, skin and nails. Others, called enzymes, control chemical reactions in your body cells. Still others form antibodies that help your body to ward off disease.

What are proteins made of? All your thousands of different proteins are made by linking together small molecules called amino acids. Only about 20 different types of amino acids are required to construct all the different proteins that help to form all the trees, flowers, animals and people on earth​—just as a mere 26 letters in the English language can be combined to form hundreds of thousands of words!

Living cells hook amino acids together like railroad cars in a long train to make the proteins they need. To make insulin, for example, the cells in your pancreas construct two “trains,” called amino-acid chains, which can fold themselves into distinctive shapes. The first chain is like a 21-letter “word” and the second chain is a “word” with 30 amino-acid “letters.” Then the chains are connected and your body has a molecule of insulin to help to control sugar levels in your bloodstream. Proteins like insulin are vital to good health, as diabetics know.

Plans and Blueprints​—DNA and RNA

But how do your pancreas cells know which amino acids to hook together to make insulin? And what keeps the cells in your big toe from making insulin too? The answer lies in a unique and very large molecule called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), which is mostly contained in the nucleus of each of your trillions of cells. How does it work?

Have you ever been on a construction site? Perhaps you noticed groups of workers​—carpenters, bricklayers, electricians—​frequently consulting blueprints that tell them what to do. Where do the blueprints come from? In the main construction office there are many architectural drawings that are copied on special machines to make the blueprints. Various job foremen take the blueprints out to their crews on the site.

Your cells are like that construction job. In the nucleus (the “construction office”) are the “original drawings” for all the proteins your body will ever need. These “drawings” are the DNA molecules. When you need insulin, the appropriate section of DNA, called a gene, is activated in the nucleus of special cells in your pancreas.

The DNA does not go outside the nucleus, just as original architectural drawings are not generally used on a job site. It is too valuable. Instead, a “blueprint” is made of the DNA gene by a special molecule called messenger RNA (ribonucleic acid). This “messenger” takes the blueprint out of the nucleus to the “job site,” where a crew is waiting to build an insulin molecule.

This crew consists mainly of a ribosome, a sort of master carpenter molecule, and helpers called transfer RNA. The little helper molecules of transfer RNA round up amino acids and bring them to the ribosome. The ribosome “reads” the messenger RNA “blueprint” and makes the insulin chain.

In the “construction office” of each of your cells there are far more “drawings” than any given cell needs to function. The cells of your big toe, for example, have the genes for making insulin, but the genes cannot be activated. These drawings are “under lock and key” in your big-toe cells. Each cell uses only part of the DNA in its nucleus to make the things it needs. We can be glad this is the case, because cells that “break into” a set of drawings they should not use and start making proteins they should not may harm themselves, or other cells, or even become cancerous.

Changing the Plans

Most professional architects would strongly disagree if you suggested that the complex set of drawings used to control the construction of a giant skyscraper came into existence just by accident. Those drawings required a highly skilled, well-trained architect. The DNA in the cells of all living creatures contains instructions far more complex and detailed than a set of architectural drawings. Is it not reasonable that DNA​—which controls the precise “construction” of bacteria, maple trees and people—​should be the product of a Master Architect? That Master Architect is Jehovah God.​—Gen. 1:11-28.

Ask any good architect how he feels about it when unauthorized, unqualified people make changes in drawings that have been painstakingly prepared for a specific building. He does not like it, because he knows that the person altering the drawing has probably not considered the overall consequences of his change. True, a rest room might be enlarged, but what will happen when valuable space is lost from the entryway? What will happen when the plumbing has to be redesigned?

Scientists are now able to change the DNA content of living creatures​—altering the “architectural drawings” provided by the Creator. In some cases these changes, such as inserting genes for human insulin into bacteria, are said to be for humanitarian, medical purposes. Other changes, such as inserting viral genes into embryonic mice, are more for scientific curiosity about what makes cells work.

Although scientists are now able to alter genes, they are far from fully understanding how genes operate. In 1979 the New York Times reported: “The structure of animal genes, including those of humans, is far different from what had been believed for at least 20 years, new discoveries have revealed.” What happened? It was learned that animal genes do not usually work the same way as bacterial genes, as scientists had thought. Animal genes are more complicated and contain long sequences of information that are not understood. In effect, scientists have learned that reading bacterial “master drawings” will not teach a person how to read human “master drawings,” as they had expected it would.

Scientists also have learned recently that the genetic code of DNA molecules is not constant, as had always been thought. It turns out that the code is slightly different when the DNA is not in the nucleus, but in different parts of the cell called the mitochondria. “The dogma that the genetic code is universal has been shaken,” admitted New Scientist magazine. Why does the code change? They do not know. “Some questions raised by the revelations of genetic analysis may never be answered,” comments New Scientist.

No wonder, therefore, that people are concerned about possible dangers in genetic research! Most biologists now claim the research poses few risks, but do they really understand genetics well enough to know? Scientists claimed that atomic testing in the American West posed no dangers to the public back in the 50’s, but the cancer rates of people living downwind of those tests now indicate that the scientists were mistaken.

Is it possible that, as they tinker with forces and biological processes they do not fully comprehend, scientists will accidentally unleash on mankind some terrible new disease? Some people think this possibility exists.

Just what are scientists doing to those genes anyway?

[Picture on page 4]

Just as a mere 26 letters in the English alphabet combine to form hundreds of thousands of words, only 20 different amino acids construct all the different proteins that form all trees, flowers, animals and people on earth

[Pictures on page 6]

nucleus

messenger RNA

ribosome

transfer RNA

amino acids

Promises and Plasmids

CELLS are very small. About 500 average-sized cells could fit on the period at the end of this sentence. Yet each one of those cells generally contains all the DNA needed to construct a living creature, such as you.

Obviously, if cells are small DNA molecules must be very tiny indeed. They are shaped like long, twisted threads, so long that all the DNA in your body laid end to end would stretch to the sun and back many times! But the threads are very thin, only about one ten-millionth of an inch (1/400,000th mm) across.

To complicate matters, these long, thin threads of DNA must somehow be packed inside the cells, and the only way to fit them in is for them to be twisted up into very tight bundles. This makes it difficult for scientists to locate the exact areas of the particular DNA molecules they may be interested in, the genes. Scientists cannot just put a cell under a microscope, find the gene they want and then extract it with tweezers and put in another gene.

Plasmids to the Rescue

It turns out, however, that bacteria often contain some DNA molecules that are easier to work with. These strands of DNA are more or less independent from the rest of the DNA in the bacteria, forming loops all to themselves that can easily be passed from one bacterium to another. They are called plasmids. At present plasmids are the keys to gene-splicing.

Splicing genes into plants and animals is not so easy because these cells do not have plasmids, and their genetic regulatory systems are much more complicated. But scientists are hopeful that such splicing will soon be possible. If they succeed, then they will be able to put genes in plants from bacteria that fix nitrogen in the soil so that it will not be necessary to add nitrogen fertilizer to the soil. They are also hoping that someday they will be able to cure genetically caused diseases, like sickle-cell anemia, by replacing defective genes in humans.

“A bug is being perfected, which is capable of recovering oil, while others are being programmed to extract metals from below the earth’s surface,” writes Drummond C. Bell, chairman of National Distillers and Chemical Corporation, in Leaders magazine. “The new frontier has already produced, or is on the verge of producing, human insulin to combat diabetes; cancer-fighting interferon made from human cells; and vaccines to prevent diseases such as hepatitis and malaria; as well as hormones to remedy dwarfism and hemophilia, and others that will accelerate the growth of cattle and hogs. Discoveries in progress also include a low-calorie, high-fructose sugar, plants capable of generating their own fertilizer from the air, a strain of wheat with double the protein content of current strains and another variety of wheat that requires a tenth of the water of those farmed today.”

Also, it is now claimed that through gene-splicing a safe, effective vaccine against foot-and-mouth disease in livestock has been produced.​—Time, June 29, 1981.

No wonder gene-splicing has suddenly become a big business. However, this shift from laboratory bench to production line has some people alarmed. Why?

How Do You Splice a Gene?

SUPPOSE you wanted to splice a gene. How would you go about it?

First, you would need the gene, a section of DNA containing the “code,” or “master drawing,” for a specific protein. “Gene machines” are now available to synthesize simple genes from inert chemicals. More complicated genes might have to be located and isolated from the DNA of living cells.

Next, you would need a plasmid and a special chemical called a restriction enzyme, which chemical would break the plasmid open at the right spot, leaving “sticky ends” for the attachment.

You might also need to make sure that your new gene was properly attached to a special gene that acts like an “on switch” for the gene you want to splice. Otherwise your new gene might never work. After all, neither the plasmid nor the bacteria you are putting it into have any real use for the new gene. The gene is not doing them any good, so why should the bacteria waste time and energy producing whatever the gene codes for?

The idea of the “on switch” is to trick the bacteria into thinking they are producing something they need, when really they are producing something you need. The switches are called “regulatory genes.”

Now, put the combined regulatory gene and the new gene together and mix them up with lots of sticky plasmids. Some of the plasmids will hook up with the new genes and form themselves back into loops. Next, put the “spliced” plasmids in a dish with lots of bacteria, and some of the bacteria will absorb some of the plasmids. Bacteria swap plasmids commonly. Plasmids, for example, are usually where they get new genes that make them immune to antibiotics.

If all has gone well, at least some of the bacteria will have absorbed plasmids with your new genes on them, and at least some of the plasmids will be operating inside the bacteria, using the bacteria’s ribosomes and other “workers” to produce whatever you want produced. The bacteria have become a tiny “factory” at your service. But this factory has the special advantage of reproducing itself. The bacteria divide and produce more bacteria, all containing your special gene, all making the protein you want.

[Picture on page 8]

gene + plasmid = modified plasmid → absorbed by bacterium

Gene-Splicing, Inc.​—A Risky Business?

“IT WAS an action rarely precedented in science,” marveled Science News magazine. In 1974, just as scientists were beginning to develop the basic techniques of gene-splicing, an urgent warning was sounded concerning possible hazards of their experiments. What was so unusual about that? Those issuing the warning were not ill-informed alarmists but the very scientists in the forefront of genetic research.

Their concerns were expressed in what became known as the “Berg letter,” named after Paul Berg, a Stanford University scientist who shared a 1980 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his gene-splicing work. Another prominent signer of the “Berg letter” was James D. Watson of Harvard, who became famous in 1953 when he helped figure out the structure of DNA (for which he also received a Nobel Prize).

Berg, Watson and nine other distinguished scientists were concerned that gene-splicing might lead to “the creation of new types of infectious DNA elements whose biological properties cannot be completely predicted in advance.” In other words, what if somebody created a new germ and it got loose and caused a terrible disease epidemic? The letter called for a moratorium on certain types of experiments and for the development of guidelines to make sure all future experiments were safe. The “Berg letter” resulted in an elaborate set of guidelines on gene-splicing issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Meanwhile, it was becoming obvious that, risky or not, gene-splicing was a potential gold mine for business. Could bacteria make a cheaper, more reliable insulin? As biology professor Jonathan King points out, “the sale of insulin to diabetics is a $100-million-a-year-business.” Could better genes in plants improve crop yields, or reduce the need for fertilizer, or create plants that are more nutritious? Imagine the market for such plants. “Agriculture is still the world’s largest business,” notes biology professor Bonner of Caltech.

These possibilities have led to the rapid formation of new types of businesses specializing in genetic engineering. One such company, Genentech, was cofounded in 1976 by a professor who had signed the “Berg letter.” The professor put up $500 for his share of Genentech, but when the company’s stock went on public sale in 1980, his shares were suddenly worth $40 million! Obviously, people who buy stock think gene-splicing is going to be a big business. “This work is broader in importance than anything since the discovery of atomic particles,” boasts one drug company vice-president.

In the last few years, numerous small firms such as Genentech have been started, and giant corporations like Standard Oil of California, Monsanto and Du Pont are spending millions on genetic research. Last June the Supreme Court of the United States created a stir by ruling that genetically altered forms of life could be patented like any other invention.

The smell of money is in the air, and, not surprisingly, scientists have recently been spreading the word that perhaps gene-splicing is not so risky after all. They point out that the strains of bacteria used in most experiments cannot survive outside the laboratory. In general, they say, altered DNA creates organisms that are genetic “cripples” and therefore less dangerous to man than the wild variety. Dr. Watson perhaps typifies the new attitude when he now calls his signing of the “Berg letter,” “the silliest thing I did in my life.”

Do scientists have strong scientific evidence for this new opinion? No, admits Dr. Berg. “There isn’t a whole lot more data,” he says. “It’s just that we’ve thought about it a bit more; we’ve come down on the other side of the fence with much the same data.”

Dr. Berg further observes that, “although there are a lot of confident statements on the record, the people making them all have a clear vested interest in the field.”

Similar concerns are raised by science historian Susan Wright, who notes that at least one decision to relax the NIH guidelines “is not based on empirical data but on the opinions of scientists.” The trade publication Chemical and Engineering News admits that, while gene-splicing has a good safety record so far, “a handful of critics, however, say that the case for judging recombinant DNA work to be safe is far from convincing, and that a kind of steamroller effect is smashing any remaining doubts without really answering still open questions.”

The question of safety is especially important now, because small experiments do not make money; massive production facilities do. “Now that the technology is moving out of the laboratory into large-scale commercial production facilities the need for protective regulations is increased enormously,” warns George Taylor, a safety expert for the AFL-CIO. Obviously, there is a big safety difference between having a few bacteria in a petri dish and having large vats full of bacteria pumping out commercial quantities of insulin, interferon, or any other protein.

Yet the guidelines from NIH were intended for laboratory research and were implemented on a voluntary basis. Those guidelines are steadily being relaxed and there is no mechanism to enforce even the relaxed guidelines on industry. Biologist King complains that “the guidelines have now been so weakened that rather than protecting public health, they in fact protect those engaged in the technology from public inquiry and regulation.”

Could man’s haste to exploit this new technology lead to a biological Three Mile Island?

Another question that needs to be asked is, Can gene-splicing really do what scientists claim it will do? It is hoped, for example, that genetically altered plants will be able to fix their own nitrogen from the soil, doing away with much fertilizer and the expense and energy needed to produce it. Could such plants be engineered?

Scientists know that certain plants, such as soybeans, do not need extra nitrogen because they have bacteria living in their root systems that fix nitrogen for them. The bacteria, in return, get food from the plants. This symbiotic arrangement suits both the soybeans and the bacteria, and was apparently designed by the Creator. Scientists would like to improve on the arrangement.

But there are problems. First, it is not nearly so easy to get foreign genes to function properly in plants as it is to get them to work in bacteria. There are no plasmids to help out, and plants are more complicated than bacteria.

But if the genetic problems can be overcome, an even bigger problem of basic chemistry remains. Nitrogen atoms are naturally stuck together in pairs. Before a plant can use the nitrogen, those pairs have to be “pried” apart. This takes a great deal of energy, regardless of whether the nitrogen atoms are pried apart by man in the manufacture of fertilizer, by bacteria, or by the plant itself. “The energy cost that the plant must pay to have that process is not a small cost,” concedes a plant scientist. The lost energy would likely result in smaller plants with much lower yields per acre.

Evidently, then, the Creator’s idea was not so bad after all.

True, gene-splicing can make bacteria produce chemicals men desire. But does it make them better bacteria? No. To the extent that these tiny “factories” are turning out products worthless to them, they are wasting energy that could be used to make them grow faster or stronger. From the bacteria’s point of view, the gene-spliced variety are really inferior.

If man cannot improve on the design of the lowly bacterium, can he truly expect to improve on the design of far more complicated plant or animal cells? Scientists marvel at the flight of the aerodynamically “impossible” bumblebee, the navigational instincts of migrating birds, the long-range communication of whales, the geometric and architectural perfection of bone tissue. Are they really prepared to improve on the Creator’s designs? A young child may have learned to take his father’s pocket watch apart, but does that mean he could design a superior watch?

So it is with modern scientists. They have taken a few simple organisms apart, and they admit they do not fully understand what they have found inside. Since scientists do not understand the function of long stretches of DNA, they claim that such DNA is “vestigial,” or “nonsense.” (Doctors used to talk that way about the appendix and the tonsils, before they learned better.)

There is nothing wrong with intense curiosity about how living things work. If men use their inborn curiosity to learn humbly from the designs of Jehovah God, they will profit. But if they greedily and arrogantly seek to redesign God’s creation radically for material gain, they will ultimately come to grief.

[Blurb on page 10]

What if somebody created a new germ and it got loose and caused a terrible disease epidemic?

[Blurb on page 11]

The smell of money is in the air, and many scientists have decided gene-splicing isn’t so risky after all