Genetic Engineering - Dream or Nightmare: Turning the Tide on the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business [Paperback]

Accounts of the new world of the genome are confusing, has noone noticed? The reason is that we no longer live in the Age of Darwinism, although the authors don't let on. Not here. After a head-on assault at genetic engineering, the author presents a clear, if brief, and perhaps transitional and incomplete, debunking of Neo-Darwinism, on the basis of the same material present though disguised in typical texts. The fallacies of genetic determinism, the misleading reductionism of the 'selfish gene' mythology, the fluid genome, Lamarckian evironmentally induced change in DNA, and much else, simply leaves the standard view in the dust. All this in between an aggressive, and quite controversial, attack on the alliance of biology and big business, accompanied by scorchers about the sources of Darwinism in nineteenth century ideology. A sock in the jaw. No doubt a number of statements here are open to challenge. But the basic thrust of the book puts the rest of the profession to shame. Noone can fool anyone anymore, and a more comprehensive and critical version of this type of book would help. But the current profession is not in the business of making biology clear to the public, in the reign of bad science and big business.

The first three chapters of this book are excellent and extremely important. They should be read and re-read by everyone on the planet who can read. Please note that I am not basing my review on whether or not you should get a book on genetics, I would instantly give it a five if it was compared to almost all other subjects, which in comparison are unimportant and of little consequence. Genetic engineering is something that could destroy us all, things are looking very grim right now with the way it's headed and the amount of money involved.

Mae Wan Ho gives great information and does some excellent analysis of the shady corperate entities around, which exist only to make money and are under extreme pressure to push and twist things as much as they can in order to have their way... and mutilate all our food forever and to not allow our children the opportunity to eat natural food ever again. Mae Wan Ho talks about the extreme dangers of genetic engineering, the cover-ups, the destroying of people's property, the patenting and irreversible modification of life according to "their" wishes etc. Great. Peple everywhere would benefit from reading this. She already had some shots about Darwinism, but we'll let that slide, we all have our own opinions.

Then for the next four chapters (and one chapter later), she goes on a bizarre crusade against Neo-Darwinism. She goes by the logic that if epigenetics are involved and the Weissman barrier is broken, that genetic engineering will never work properly because the genes will be affected by the environment and things will be all out of balance. Maybe humans will pick up the GM genes etc., this is not a line of argument I would choose. I believe we have vastly better arguments and clear truths to show that GM foods are wrong in every way and could destroy us all.

She goes on and on about an alleged "reductionist" philosophy that other people have, and about how biotechnology will never work because of epigenetics. She constantly talks about these supposed ideologies and philosophies that those like Darwin are supposedly following, when she herself is obviously not after the truth at all, just using whatever method she can to try to undermine their position.

The ironic thing is that despite pointing fingers at people like Darwin and saying why he was attracted to "genetic determinism", it's sooooo obviously SHE HERSELF that's being led by an ideology when discussing the question of Darwinism. If she has issues with this, then should should write her own book on it. I don't know whether it would go in the philosophy or evolution section but she shouldn't fill such an important book with this nonsense. If talking about genes makes her feel small then those are her OWN ISSUES, she shouldn't mix them with objective science.

If neo-Darwinism is completely true it would make little difference to genetic engineering. Not in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it will ruin the biotechnology companies plans... that's what we want!

What we want to know is if in 200 years time our descendants will have REAL FOOD, or if they are living miserable lives with horrible food that causes all sorts of horrible anomalies and diseases, just like processed food has caused. And cursing their ancestors who did this to them and caused them to live in permanent misery. Maybe they won't exist at all, maybe our "descendants" will not be our children, but extremely mutated entites that were once Human or maybe no life will exist at all.

She repeatedly states how "Neo-Darwinism" is a "dominant theory that purports to explain every aspect of the organism yet ends up obscuring the organism completely from view". This is just not true. It explains a lot, nobody said it explains everything about the organism. You can know where every piece is on a chessboard without understanding anything about the position. Gene banks and horrible travesties like that are disgusting things that are a threat to our humanity, but they are not an idea of Darwinism.

She throws around the word "Neo-Darwinism" as if it's some kind of terrible thing, so much so that I looked up Neo-Darwinism online to see if I knew what it really meant. Despite some misuses of it by it of people talking about social issues. It's not a philosophical/ethical judgement and it's not something that biotechnology companies would want to uphold as far as I'm aware. It's an attempt at truth. And truth is NEVER bad. I have no idea what it is that bugs Mae Wan Ho so much about "genetic determinism".

Let me tell you that Darwin is one of my most respected figures and role-models ever. I wish I could be a great thinker as he was. It was his wisdom and observations that taught me so much about the world, it taught me why we should live as close to our environment as is possible.... because that is the environment we're evolved to live in.

I very strongly believe Darwin would have been totally against all types of genetic engineering. He didn't seem particularly worried about eugenics implications... nobody was at that time. I believe Darwin would have been the first to change his mind on this and be completely opposed to it, just like he was to slavery and racism, which he was one of the first to campaign against. We generally know that eugenics and atomic bombs are very, very bad things nowadays. We really, really need to have the same sort of attitude towards genetic engineering.

I wish Mae Wan would have stopped trying to second-guess what philosophies and "reductionist" theories people like Darwin and others had. We know the Biotechnology companies are by and large out only to make money, that is a given. However this is awful, truly dreadful wishy-washy vague nonsense about Darwin and Darwinism. Nobody ever said that life is simple.

She talked about how science makes heroes and anti-heroes of people, such as praising Darwin and condemning Lamarck. In fact this is what she is doing herself! It's so obvious it's ridiculous. And she is attributing things to Lamarck that Lamarck wouldn't necessarily agree with at all.

She also makes some inaccurate statements about Lamarck's theories of evolution. Lamarckism is about your germplasm picking up information about the environment on your way through life. Mae-Wan Ho strongly suggests that Lamarck was the founder of epigenetics, which is very inaccurate. Epigenetics is a very small section of evolutionary biology that does indeed appear to contradict neo-Darwinism at this time, although some still doubt this.

I do not believe that this author is genuinely trying to tell the whole truth and be as honest as possible at all times. It's more like she is taking a side and taking an argument and going with it, trying to turn everything into a plus for her desire to condemn the biotech industry. As much as I hate biotechnology, honesty is one of the few things we really, really need here. Honesty is our hope of killing biotechnology before it kills us. Sure, you are expected to argue your case, but only when it's pure honesty. If everyone knew the truth and really understood biotechnology they would banish it forever. If they hear a "side" put on things come hell or high water, people will wonder who to trust and who to believe.

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to genetic engineering whether neo-Darwinism is correct or not! What's important are things like the efficacy of the terminator gene, something mentioned only briefly three times in the entire book! I'm not sure it would be a good thing if Neo-Darwinism is correct.

The terminator gene is supposed to prevent the genes of the artificially created plant spreading wildly out of control and irreversibly changing all food of that type forever, surely it deserves at least a chapter!

One minute she's talking about "the central dogma", the next minute she's on about "the final blow to Genetic Determinism". Hold on, I'm not sure I am willing to throwaway genetic determinism at all yet.

Let me give you a passage to illustrate this nonsense criticism of Darwinism, in the first paragraph she is quoting someone else:

"Emerging out of an era of Romanticism and flowering into an era of "scientific thought", their "mechanical materialism" expresses the prevalent conception of matter as the source and substance of the universe. Feeling, beauty, and moral values are mere illusions in a world of fact, and the human will is powerless against the ineluctable laws of nature and society.

"While it is true that mechanical materialism breeds alienation and a sense of powerlessness, particularly in those who do not possss the scientific knowledge, its explicit aim is otherwise: for it firmly believes in the power of abstraction and reduction to make sense of the untidy, intgangible complexity of real processes, so that humankind might better control and dominate nature. Let us begin with the theory of evolution."

I also don't like her red herring arguments about how "crop yields" won't turn out as high as they expected and about how the crops won't perform and grow like she says they will... But if they do perform well, that won't make a blind bit of difference to it. Maybe eventually they will do well, and what then? We hope that they don't perform well, but only time will tell there. No need for spurious predictions on whether they will or not, it's them doing well is what I'm AFRAID of. I would rather me and my family all starve to death than these things to be inflicted on the world. If they don't perform well, the financial viability of their model will fall apart so it won't be an issue. It just doesn't matter how well they perform... they shouldn't be used at all!!!! If they performed better, that would make us in a worse situation right now, that would mean the alarm should be raised more. If they don't perform well, then everything may be ok for a while so long as the terminator works.

Apart from these complaints and all the chapters on "genetic determinism" this book is informative and a good book. She does make a lot of good point, but this stuff about Darwinism is ludicrous.