Socialist Action /April 1999
'Morality' and the Patenting of Genes
By NAT WEINSTEIN
We have the privilege to be living at a very unique time in human history.
It is a time when scientific and technological advances have reached a stage
whereby the accumulated discoveries of over 2000 years have begun to trigger
a qualitative leap in control over the forces of nature.
Reports of scientific advances in understanding how nature works are
appearing with increasing regularity. Discoveries made in the last few months
alone are opening the door to a quantum leap in control over the genetic
mechanism of humans and other species. It promises huge benefits for the
human race.
But, as is all too apparent, there are two sides to the vital matter
of scientific and technological progress-one filled with hope, and the other
with despair. But first, the good side:
· · ·
The latest advances in understanding of the working of genes in the double
helix of the human genome and of less complex species promises a cornucopia
of medical advances for humanity.
Using such techniques as finding out the function of each gene in worms
and mice, for instance, provide clues for discovering what they do in the
human genome.
These and other scientific breakthroughs have already laid a firm basis
for a qualitatively longer and healthier lifespan for all human beings.
Just last month alone, a growing number of startling reports by eminent
scientists have appeared. They report discoveries that they claim have put
them at the brink of being able to stretch the human life span by as much
as 200years.
They report that such an extension of life span has been accomplished
in mammals-not to mention in less complex organisms like fruit flies and
worms.
They note, too, that it was accomplished by altering just one or a few
of the thousands and tens of thousands of genes in these organisms-genes
which are similar if not identical to those in the human genome.
(The relationship between genes and DNA is like the relation between
words in the dictionary and the 26 letters of the alphabet. It is estimated
that the human genome contains around 100,000 genes, and the genetic alphabet
containing just four "letters" constitutes some three billion
units in the human DNA.)
In fact, scientists report, the evidence is now overwhelming that the
rate of the aging process determining the life span of each species is not
predetermined and unalterable.
The life spans of all species are based on an internal genetic clock
that governs the rate of degeneration of organs in all species. And that,
in turn, is a product of natural selection, the mechanism of biological
evolution.
Reproduction in all species is a process in which the genetic code of
an organism, its genome, is copied and constitutes the "blueprint"
for the physiology of an individual's offspring.
Mistakes are made in the copying of the DNA constituents of each gene.
And these accidental changes in the makeup of genes that result in mutations
are preserved and proliferate in a species only if it serves to foster
the survival of a given colony of a given species.
The genetically determined rate of aging (the life span of each species)
can evolve in either direction-aging faster or slower-at a rate that maximizes
the survival of each species. In other words, aging and death is not
a mysterious, unfathomable, mystical and unalterable process.
In Los Angeles early last month, New York Times science writer
Gina Kolata reported on a gathering of research scientists in cellular and
molecular biology and related disciplines. The article, "Pushing Limits
of the Human Life Span," reported on the "astonishing success
in recent years in increasing the life spans of laboratory species,"
among them, worms, fruit flies and mice.
Moreover, it was reported, the organisms mentioned had the healthy
part of their lives, their youthful years, extended-not the debilitating
weeks, months, or years of degeneration, sickness, and ultimate failure
of organs that normally precede and cause death.
In recent years, many other momentous discoveries in the field of cellular
and molecular biology laid the basis for those reported last month.
For instance, the discovery that while the cells that make up all living
organisms are able to replicate themselves only a limited number of Times
(about 50 Times in humans), the embryonic cells (stem cells) in all
organisms start out with the capability of multiplying an unlimited number
of Times.
But, that capacity is turned off when each stem cell in the embryo
differentiates into becoming a part of a different developing organ-heart,
lungs, skin, muscle, bone, etc.
Thus, investigation into the possibilities inherent in this phenomenon
has already succeeded in discovering how the "immortality" function
of embryonic cells can be turned on again after it has become specialized
and thereby begins-in a sense-to die.
Biological scientists have noted that the discoveries made in recent
years and months are opening the door to growing new heart, lung, and other
cells of the various organs. No one, they say, really dies "of old
age," it's the degeneration and failure of these organs that causes
death. In principle, they also say, the human life span can be extended
far beyond the norm today, if not indefinitely.
In The Times piece by reporter Kolata, she exemplifies the general
opinion of scientists attending the LA conference. She quotes Dr. Judith
Campisi, who heads the department of cellular and molecular biology at the
Berkeley National Laboratory, who said: "We know we can extend the
life span of mammals. There is no reason to believe we couldn't do the same
today in humans."
And she quotes Dr. Cynthia Kenyon, a professor of biochemistry and biophysics
at the University of California at San Francisco, who concurred with these
words: "It is probably possible. The lights are green everywhere you
go."
Capitalism is not good for your health
Unfortunately, however, the profit system is a giant obstacle standing
in the way of fully realizing the promise of this and other potential benefits
to all humanity.
Nicholas Wade, another science writer for The Times, wrote a follow-up
report on extending life span early last month that-intentionally or not-points
to some of the ways in which capitalism subverts the interests of humanity
to its irrepressible quest for profits. The report is titled, "Primordial
Cells Fuel Debate on Ethics."
Wade explains at the outset of his report: "Officials of the National
Institutes of Health are seeking legal advice as to whether the Congressional
ban on fetal research applies to the primordial human [stem] cells that
scientists announced last week they had isolated and grown in the laboratory
for the first time." (The importance of this achievement cannot be
overstated.)
Now, the ethics in question is not a matter of anything like scientific
experimentation on animals or humans that cause harm or unnecessary pain
to either. It's about experiments with human cells that would otherwise
be dumped into the nearest sewer.
But why is that a matter of ethics? Solely because of the objections
to this research by those claiming expert knowledge on when human life begins.
They tend to be the same people who claim that terminating a pregnancy for
whatever reason equals the "murder of babies."
In 1995, these mischievous fundamentalist fanatics-with the help, to
be sure, of powerful forces in corporate America-succeeded in imposing a
ban on experiments on frozen human "blastocysts" slated to be
discarded.
(A blastocyst is the earliest stage of an embryo. At that stage, the
stem cells are still a microscopic clump. These cells are inactive until
they have been thawed, inserted in a womb and allowed to begin multiplying
on the way to becoming a viable fetus.
These primordial cells, extracted from a blastocyst and successfully
grown in a laboratory for the first time, are the key to the recent breakthrough
that opens the door to the extension of the human life span.)
Where do these blastocysts come from? Women who have difficulty conceiving
or are not able to carry a pregnancy to term may decide to deposit their
eggs in the care of fertility clinics. The eggs are then sometimes artificially
inseminated and frozen for future implantation in the donor's or a surrogate
mother's womb.
The contention of consistent religious fundamentalists is that the 20
or so cells in a fertilized egg are already a "baby," and extracting
these cells from the blastocyst kills the blastocyst and thus is "killing
a baby."
This leap into a realm inhabited by ghosts and souls has an even more
absurd implication since an unfertilized egg cannot grow and be born. This
fact implies that the sperm is what carries the essence of human life (i.e.,
the "soul"), and that the egg is a mere receptacle of life.
But aside from the religious and patriarchal prejudices, the fact is
that in the last few years scientists have succeeded in cloning sheep and
other mammals. The technique of cloning consists in fertilizing the egg
of a sheep, mouse, etc., with an ordinary cell taken from the mother sheep-not
with sperm from a male of the same species.
And, these scientists say, there is no reason to believe that humans
cannot also be cloned. Thus if the soul is in the sperm, which hitherto
was the only way to fertilize the egg, there is a soul in every cell of
a human being. That would add up to billions of souls in every single man
or woman. That's an absurdity at least twice confounded!
The unstated, but real, question of ethics
This article on primordial cells and ethics was written by a good science
writer doing his job. However, the real, but unstated ethical violation
running like a red thread through Times reporter Wade's story is
not about when human life begins, or about the obstacle this presents to
scientific progress.
The legal advice (mentioned at the beginning of his report) being sought
has to do with government funding of research since many university biologists
depend on government funding to finance their research.
While Wade draws no conclusions for his readers, he nonetheless provides
the facts leading to the conclusions in this article. He reports the "ethical
dilemma" of two of these university research scientists, Dr. Leonard
Guarente, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr.
James A. Thomson of the University of Wisconsin.
Both are associated with Geron, the company that has exclusive rights
to the primordial cells!
Dr. Thomson was one of two scientists who recently succeeded, for the
first time, in growing primordial human cells in a laboratory. It seems
that while it's legal for a private enterprise, in this case Geron, to experiment
on blastocysts, the earliest embryonic stage of a fertilized human egg,
Dr. Guarente, whose research is funded by a government agency, is barred
from any research in which blastocysts are destroyed even if they had been
slated to be discarded down the nearest sewer.
The "ethical" problem really boils down to costs of production
and profits and which capitalist enterprise will gain the lion's share of
the expected profit bonanza. Their dilemma is that while Dr. Thomson took
no federal funds for his research, Dr. Guarente did.
Their company, Geron Inc.-which surely exchanges information gained by
different scientists in its organization-wants Dr. Guarente to continue
to get government funding, but like his colleague, Dr. Thomson, to also
have access to working on human blastocysts.
Moreover, Geron Inc. may be worried that some zealous fundamentalist
government overseer might see the connection between the work of Geron's
two researchers and draw the obvious conclusion that the government was
indirectly subsidizing experiments with blastocysts. Now, that's a real
dilemma!
It has been reported that genetically modified organisms, like corn,
soy, and other seeds have been patented. This includes such bizarre genetic
modifications as including in the patented seeds what some have called a
"death" gene. That is, the insertion of a gene that produces only
infertile seeds. That way, the farmer has to go back to the seed
corporation to buy more seeds for the next season's crop.
As an indication of the big bucks involved in the new science of genetic
modification, the March 16 edition of The New York Times reports
that DuPont, the giant chemical company, has offered $7.7 billion for Pioneer
Hi-Bred International, the world's largest producer of genetically modified
seed corn. DuPont wants in on this giant profits bonanza.
Consortiums in race for trillions in profits
In a Times article by Nicholas Wade (March 16), we get a peek
into the billion dollar race by chemical and pharmaceutical corporate consortiums
for first prize in what could be a winner-take-all contest. This report
gives even greater insight into the substance of capitalism's "ethical
dilemma."
Wade reports that the big enchilada in this contest is which of the two
competing consortiums will be first to sequence the entire three billion
DNA units of the human genome.
Whether thewinner will or will not be entitled to patent the entire human
genome, of course, is too crazy for even wild-eyed capitalists to hope to
get away with.
Even so, there will be many patentable discoveries to be found along
the way. And one or several key patents may succeed in locking in a major
hunk of the big-profit enchilada.
One side of this contest is dominated by American and British government
agencies-including the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Energy Department,
and the British government's Wellcome Trust of London. The other contender
is Celera Corporation of Rockville, Md.
Although few details are given of the corporate forces behind Celera,
it appears to be a front for some of the major corporations interested in
gaining a lock on the big prize coming from the sequencing of the human
genome.
At the same time, we can be sure, the private enterprisers have their
hands inside the publicly financed consortium as well as in Celera corporation.
After all, they own and control both the U.S. and British capitalist states
and all its agencies.
But what makes the contest real, just the same, is that the major corporate
players hope to use Celera to protect their interests against those of their
competitors that for the moment may have more influence in the political
superstructure of the United States and Great Britain.
Too many people?
Dr. Campisi, one of the aforementioned speakers at the LA conference,
cited above, told Ms. Kolata, The Times reporter, of having given
a public lecture at her campus. Afterward, the research scientist said,
"a number of people came up to me and said: 'How dare you do this research?
The earth is already being raped by too many people, there is so much garbage,
so much pollution.'"
This tired old notion is another of the many reincarnations of the views
of Thomas Malthus, a late 18th/early 19th century English political economist
and capitalist ideologue.
Malthus is famous for the reactionary theory that the population of the
world, which increases geometrically (2-4-8-16, etc), tends to increase
faster than the food supply, which he claimed increases only arithmetically
(1-2-3-4, etc.). Thus, he argued that war, famine and disease have the virtue
of serving as natural restrictions preventing world overpopulation!
Malthus's aim was to rationalize war, hunger, and disease as nature's
(or God's) way of preventing overpopulation. But the bare facts of a thousand-fold
increase in population since Malthus, along with more than a thousand-fold
increase in agricultural production, adequately refutes the notion of a
conflict between geometric and arithmetic progression or that nature or
the great spirit is at fault.
It's important to answer similarly reactionary and baseless notions by
today's capitalist rationalizers, since there are many well-meaning people
blaming scientific and technological progress-especially idealistic youth
concerned with the accelerating pollution of the planet who are being sucked
in by the today's whipping boy for the crimes of capitalism.
Today's neo-Malthusians blame scientists and legitimate scientific and
technological progress for the crimes against nature and humanity, and in
so doing, deflect attention from the capitalist source of this accelerating
threat to life on this planet.
It wasn't that long ago that scientists like Dr. Jonas Salk still put
human need above profit.
He refused to demand a monetary reward for his discovery of a vaccine
that prevents poliomyelitis. He saw to it that his vaccine would be available
virtually free of charge to children and their parents.
Dr. Salk, like many other medical scientists before him, would not contemplate
putting a price tag on his discovery that had abolished the panic that engulfed
parents everywhere in every summer's polio season.
But that was before the practice of medicine and medical science was
transformed into big business controlled by giant insurance companies, banks,
and chemical and pharmaceutical corporations.
Dr. Salk, however, got his reward anyway; a far better and more fulfilling
reward, the satisfaction of helping his fellow human beings and the respect
that consequently came his way. Even more important, he-like the many Louis
Pasteurs before him-set an example for others to follow as did so many of
those who preceded him.
But world capitalism is now in its final stages of degeneration. Capitalism
long ago began transforming love, honor, friendship, and loyalty into commodities.
Now, in the capitalist world, these human virtues are bought and sold
at a handsome profit by those who have cornered the market, so to speak,
in these commodities. Now the human genome is in the process of becoming
a commodity as well.
The solidarity of homo sapiens-the cooperation and fraternity, and the
uniquely human capacity for compassion extending even to other species-has
been gradually eroded by the profit system for centuries and has now entered
a period of explosive disintegration.
The highest ethic of capitalism-every man for himself-will, if unchecked
in the only way possible, by world socialist revolution, end in the destruction
of our species.
Spirit of human solidarity-alive in Cuba
Cuba, a poor island nation of 11 million people, although besieged, beleaguered,
blockaded, starved, and isolated from the world community of nations by
American imperialism, is providing a sharp contrast between science in the
capitalist world and in socialist Cuba.
Despite the awesomely difficult conditions imposed on it, this small
country has managed to honor the ties that bind human beings together. The
solidarity of the revolutionary government of Cuba with its people is what
enables this David to stand up to the world's most ruthless and powerful
Goliath, only 90 miles from its shores.
But Cuba has also set another example in the sphere of medical science
that is the subject of this article:
In a report titled, "Cuban Medicine Leaps Into the Future,"
appearing in the March 18 San Francisco Chronicle, the author, Barry
Brown, tells the following remarkable story of a small miracle accomplished
by Cuban science. It is a science devoted to meeting the needs of Cuba's
people, not to the blind pursuit of profit.
The author writes:
"A Cuban-developed cancer vaccine now undergoing clinical trials
in Canada could prove to be a medical boon for people all over the world-except
Americans, who would not be able to buy the drug in the United States because
of laws barring trade with Cuba."
Brown's report is based largely on what David Allen, CEO of a small Toronto-based
medical company, told him about what he saw in Cuba.
Allen had struck a deal with Cuba to market its leading-edge pharmaceutical
products. His company is currently organizing the clinical trials necessary
before distributing the vaccine around the world.Such clinical tests have
already been successfully concluded in Cuba, but must now be verified in
Canadian tests before distribution outside Cuba.
"We were amazed, astonished and surprised," Allen told the
Chronicle, reporter. "We were amazed at the level of science
and surprised because we didn't expect it."
The reporter continues: "What Allen found was a well-integrated
research and product development community, run by scientists, [not
profit-driven private enterprise] with the goal of developing marketable
medicines. ... They have a small nation with not many resources, so they
have used the brains and the talent of their people."
The reporter goes on to take note of American imperialism's relentless
efforts to harm Cuba, albeit in guarded language: "But sources at the
U.S. State and Treasury Departments say these therapies-even if they turn
out to be 'miracle drugs'-could not be legally sold in the United States
without a special license, a development that is not currently on the horizon."
Meanwhile, the author reports on further measures taken by the American
government to block Cuba's efforts to market the product of its science
for the benefit of the Cuban economy hamstrung by U.S. imperialism.
He reports how the U.S. Treasury Department is "in discussions"
with the London-based pharmaceutical giant Smith Kline Beacham over its
plans to market another Cuban-developed vaccine for meningitis B.
The Chronicle reporter's clear implication is that the U.S. government
is trying to pressure Smith Kline Beacham from distributing the meningitis
B vaccine.
The contrast between the morality of American and Cuban science is clear.
The American way is to subordinate the product of modern science in both
the U.S. and Cuba-as well as wherever in the world its tentacles can reach-to
profits and to the political aims of American capitalism, at whatever harm
results to human needs.
In Cuba, the simple, unadorned truth is that the morality of Cuba's socialist
government is based on what is in the interests of Cuba's people.
This is a morality in harmony with the interests of the peoples of the
entire world. And that's a pretty big difference in "ethics"!
Socialist Action /April 1999 |