------------------------------------------
-- EZ A SZÁM CSAK TEXT FORMÁBAN LÉTEZIK --
------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 23:33:11 EST
Subject: *** FORUM *** #187

Tartalomjegyzek:
----------------

Felado    : 72600.3046@compuserve.com
Temakor   : Re: a genmanipulalasrol

 
 
===============================================
Felado    : 72600.3046@compuserve.com
Beerkezett: Wed Apr  3 19:10:11 EST 1991
Temakor   : Re: a genmanipulalasrol
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

KEVORKIAN:  You've  got  to  see  what  humans  are and how they behave.
Prohibition proved you can't legislate morality.  We've legislated  against
commercialization  of  organs  without  any  real insight into the problem.
We've rammed it through, but wait until the demand increases over time.  We
will have a black market in organs.  You're not going to solve the  problem
with all this moralizing.  You've  got to discover a motivation  for people
to donate.  It isn't going to  be education or implied consent or  required
request.  They aren't going to do it.  It's been proven!  There's only  one
thing that motivates humanity.  Self-interest.  Profit.  Tell me I'm wrong.

MAY: You're wrong.

ANDREWS: Dr.  Kevorkian, self-interest takes many forms.  Some say  that
altruism is a kind of self-interest.   You give to others so that  you will
have good feelings  about yourself, a  sense that you  are noble and  above
others.

KEVORKIAN: You know, these old arguments aren't going to solve anything.

KIMBRELL: You  have the  oldest argument  of them  all, and  that's your
problem.  You adhere to a theology that began to develop 400 years ago that
believes the natural world is devoid of any sacred meaning, that it is just
a  collection  of  resources  to  be  consumed.   That's not some essential
"truth"--it's the theology of the marketplace, the faith for those who have
no faith.  Its  God is the  aptly named "invisible  hand" and its  greatest
good is  efficiency--a term  borrowed from  the lexicon  of the machine, on
which the market system  is based.  Now, if  I told you I  had two children
and treated  them "efficiently"  or that  I had  a friend  or a  pet and  I
treated him or it "efficiently", wouldn't you properly think I was mad?  No
one treats anything they care  about based on efficiency.  We  have applied
this kind of thinking to nature, and now we seek to apply it to our bodies.
We can look at the destruction of the  earth as a model of what we will  do
to ourselves.
   Kerekasztal vita arrol, hogyan valik az emberi test a biotechnologia
   nyersanyagava. Sacred or For Sale ?--Harper's Magazine, October 1990


   Posfai Janosnak szeretnem megkoszonni Barry Commoner cikkeben  (Bringing
up Biotechnology, Science for the People, March/April 1987) talalt tenybeli
hibak  kijavitasat.   Nem  vagyok  szakember,  ezert ezeknek jogossagat nem
tudom  megitelni,   igy  meghajlok   Posfai  Janos   szakvelemenye   elott,
leszamitva azokat  az eseteket,  ahol B.C.  87-es szakmai  allitasai ma mar
elavultak, de akkor ezt nem  lehetett elore tudni, valamint azt  az esetet,
ahol  ugy  erzem  nem  szakmai  ervrol  van szo, hanem ertekiteletrol.  Igy
laikus  letemre  nem  is  folytatnam  a  vitat,  ha  Commoner cikke szakmai
reszletekrol  szolt  volna.   Commoner  azonban  cikkeben nem foglalkozik a
genetikaval mint  egyetemi kutatassal,  ill. annak  letjogosultsagaval, sem
annak etikai  kerdeseivel; O  csak ezen tudomany eredmenyeinek  egy ujonnan
felfuto  iparagban,  a  biotechnologiaban  valo alkalmazasanak a tarsadalmi
kerdeseirol, ill. azoknak elhallgatasarol ir.

   Cikkenek lenyeget 3 pontban tudnam osszefoglalni:
1. A kozpenzen folytatott kutatasok eredmenyeit maganvallalatok hasznaljak
fel maganprofit keresesere a szelesebb tarsadalmi nyilvanossag tudta es
jovahagyasa nelkul.
2. A biotechnologia eljovendo kornyezeti artalmait nem ismerjuk es ez azzal
a veszellyel jarhat mint amit pl. a vegyipar hozott magaval.
3. A profitra dolgozo maganvallalatok rendszere a biotechnologiaban hasonlo
veszelyeket rejt magaban mint a vegyipare: vannak valos tarsadalmi
szuksegletek, amiket nem elegit ki, mert nincs benne nagy penz; illetve uj
termekeket hoz letre, amikre nics valos tarsadalmi igeny, csak profitot
lehet rajta csinalni.

   Ugy erzem Posfai Janos korrekcioi igazabol nem cafoljak ezeket a
meglatasokat. Hogy ezek mennyiben ervenyesek, ahhoz csinaltam egy kis
sajtoszemlet az elmult ket ev eziranyu irasaibol.

>Szabadalmaztatni lehet genetikai manipulaciokkal letrehozott
>organizmusokat.
>A szabadalom  targyanak valami ujdonsagnak kell lennie. Buta lenne az, aki
>termekerol azt allitana, hogy nem uj. Az elso szabadalmaztatott organizmus
>a Harvard egy egere volt. (Az egerrol keszitett szep muszaki rajzot is
>mellekeltek a kerelemhez, ahogy az eloirt.) Egy rakot okozo human gent
>ultettek bele, hogy az emberi betegseg gyogyitasaval allaton
>kiserletezhessenek.

   Az organizmusok szabadalmaztatasarol tobbek kozott a Society c.
folyoiratban jelent meg egy cikk (Public Responses to genetic engineering,
Nov-Dec '89), amelyben a kerdes politikai, intezmenyes es moralis oldalait
feszegetik, es Commonerehez hasonlo kerdesek merulnek fel:
   What will be the effect of patenting on the research agenda and on the
patterns of communication among scientists? Is it right that biotechnology
companies will profit by building on a base of publicly funded research?
Will academic scientists, in dealing closely with industry, be
appropriately accountable for their work? Who should be making decisions
about a technology with complex economic and moral implications?

   Teny, hogy a legkevesebb panaszt a biotechnologiarol az emberi betegseg
gyogyitasaval kapcsolatban talaltam. Ez nem kis mertekben annak
koszonheto, hogy olyan emberek hatasara, mint Barry Commoner, vagy feltucat
felugyeleti szerv (FDA, NIH, OSHA, EPA, stb.) komolyan veszi feladatat.

Commoner irja:
>>Everyone agrees that the most important use of genetic engineering would
>>be  to  produce  vaccines,  particularly  for  malaria.
Posfai Janos valasza:
>Aligha! A malaria sulyos ugyan, de ritkan halalos. A mersekelt egovon nem
>terjed, evi ezer megbetegedes (ebbol ot eset halalos) fordul pl. elo az
>USA-ban, 99%-ban kulfoldrol hazaterok a megbetegedok. A tropusokon lakok
>nagy resze szuletesetol rezisztens a betegseggel szemben. A kinin vagy
>primakin emberben hatasos gyogyszere a fertozesnek, a szunyogok irtasa
>hatasos modja a jarvanyok megelozosenek.
   Ez szerintem egy mersekelt egovi ertekitelet.
Wall Street Journal, July 25 '90:
   The World Health Organization called for the "urgent acceleration" of
research into anti-malarial drugs and vaccines. WHO said its appeal
followed the recent discovery that malarial parasites had developed
resistance to the antimalarial drug mefloquine at the Thai-Cambodian
border. ...WHO estimates that there are 110 million new malaria cases a
year but that about 270 million people may be carrying the malaria
parasite; FROM ONE MILLION TO TWO MILLION PEOPLE DIE EACH YEAR FROM MALARIA
AND ITS COMPLICATIONS.

Science, January 26 '90:
   Vaccination is the most cost-effective and efficient method of
prevention of certain infectious diseases. A vaccine probably could not
completely prevent transmission--the mathematics of malaria show that it
would have to reach more than 99 percent of the population in order to do
that--but if a single inoculation could prevent disease, then the single
greatest tropical scourge would have been conquered. ...A vaccine remains
the likeliest way of preventing entire populations from having a severe
attack of malaria.

Washington Post, March 28 '90:
   Almost 500 million people worldwide are infected with tropical diseases,
and the prospects for controlling major global killers such as malaria and
schistosomiasis are worsening, according to a WHO report released
yesterday.
   Tropical diseases cause about half of the world's illness but receive
only about 3 percent of its medical research funds, said Tore Godal,
director of the WHO's special program for research and training in tropical
diseases. He said DRUG COMPANIES HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO BRIDGE THE GAP
BECAUSE THEY DOUBT THAT NEW TREATMENTS WILL BE PROFITABLE.

Technology Review, August-Sept '89:
   ...large biotechnology companies are developing pharmaceuticals such as
the heart drug tPA for affluent markets. But according to Buttel (rural
sociologist, Cornell University), these firms are less interested in
developing drugs to treat malaria--a disease suffered largely by poor
people in poor countries.
   Nekem legalabbis nem ugy tunik, hogy Commoner valotlant allitott volna.

   A sajtobol itelve legtobb problema a biotechnologianak a mezogazdasagban
torteno alkalmazasabol ered.

Technology Review, August-Sept '89:
   Corn that repels insects, tomatoes that stay firm on the vine--the age
of the super vegetable is coming. But as the commercial use of genetically
engineered seeds approaches, some researchers warn that altered plants
could upset the agricultural ecosystem. Would crops designed to resist
droughts, disease, insects, or herbicides pass those traits to weedy
relatives nearby? The result could be super weeds.
Vagyis olyan gyomok, amik pl. befogadhatjak a termesbe ultetett gyomirtonak
ellenallo gent es maguk is ellenallova valnak a gyomirtoval szemben.
Kovetkezeskeppen kemiailag meg veszelyesebb gyomirtok lennenek csak
hatasosak. Egyeb variaciokra, es az alkalmazas elotti tovabbi okologiai
kutatasok szuksegessegere hivja fel a figyelmet a BioScience 1990 juniusi
cikke is.

Organic Gardening, January, 1989
   Frostban is a bioengineered bacterium created by AGS for the purpose of
slowing the process of frost formation. AGS made headlines after one of its
experiments was discovered to have been insufficiently contained,
potentially permitting the bioengineered bacterium to escape into the
environment. After AGS received government approval for field-testing
strawberry plants treated with the frost-retarding bacterium, local
governments were most reluctant to give their approval, and the strawberry
patch eventually planted was vandalized.
   The lack of popular support for bioengineering has a lot to do with the
absence of a significant public discussion on the objectives that
bioengineers should pursue.
   Another example. Biotech engineers are trying to put nitrogen-fixing
genes into some common plants, such as corn. If successful, they would
create corn that wouldn't need nitrogen fertilizer. It would take its own
nitrogen from the air, just as legumes do. Seed of that special corn could
be sold at very high prices to farmers and gardeners. But today many
farmers are learning how to seed legumes right in the corn rows,
accomplishing much the same goal. There are dozens of ways to get free
nitrogen from the air into grains and vegetable plants without waiting for
bioteched seeds to be available at a possible cost of 50 cents each.
   What bothers me is that so many of the state universities are still
failing to take interest in low-input, regenerative and organic methods
that could quickly pay big economic and ecological benefits. The same goals
that biotechnology is aiming to achieve by the year 2000 could be
accomplished in a few years if the universities would stop being dazzled by
high tech and work on the simple, low-cost methods that could work today.
   ...The biotech gene jockeys know almost nothing about what people need
or want. They are experts in things that are possible to do in the
laboratory. Therefore, their craft springs from the lab, not from the
wishes of people to have more freedom in their lives and take more pleasure
from their food. Is necessity really the mother of all these biotech
inventions? Not by a long shot!

   Talan a legnagyobb port a Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) verte fel. Ez egy
olyan genetikusan eloallitott anyag, amely tehenekbe beoltva a tejtermelest
20 szazalekkal is megnovelheti. A BGH-ban a Monsanto, American Cyanamid,
Eli Lilly es az Upjohn korporaciok erdekeltek. Fuggetlen szakertok vitatjak
a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allitasat, hogy a hormonnak nem
lennenek masodlagos hatasai a tejet fogyaszto emberekre. A tehenekre sem
tesz tul jo hatast  a BGH:
   Syndicated columnist Jack Anderson says he obtained copies of the
confidential documents showing some cows that received BGH injections "lost
weight, suffered lower fertility rates or anemia, or came down with
mastitis (inflammation of the mammary glands)." In some cases, Anderson
wrote, Monsanto researchers refused to count cows that got mastitis. --Just
Say Moo - Now They Want to Drug the Cows, The Progressive, November, '89.

A legsulyosabb kovetkezmeny azonban gazdasagi lenne:

   Do we really need more milk from fewer cows? The world already is awash
in milk and especially milk fat. We have a long term supply of cheese in
storage. Europe is struggling under its famous "butter mountain."
...The average dairy farmer in Vermont can expect to suffer an annual loss
of more than $3,500 if BGH is introduced into the state's herds, according
to University of Vermont agricultural economist Rick Wackernagel. That would
make the losses large enough to wipe out hundreds of the state's farms. BGH
and products like it could eventually make it possible for only 50,000
commercial farms--one-tenth of the present number--to produce most of the
nation's food. Smaller farms and the communities that support them would be
the first casualties.
   Frances Moore Lappe, founder of Food First and author of Diet for a
Small Planet, sees the BGH issue as just the latest attempt to keep farmers
dependent on big-money technologies whose long-term effects--like poisons
from pesticides--are unknown at their inception. "Our entire agricultural
system has put farmers on a treadmill where they have to produce more and
more to stay even," she says. "It's simply a distraction from the issue of
how to reorganize agriculture so that it's sustainable in every sense of
that word. If the technologies end up consolidating more control, then you
can produce more hunger at the same time you produce more food."
   Kis csoda hat, hogy a tejtermelo farmerek elkezdtek szervezkedni, de
szovivojukbol itelve nem tul optimistak:
   "Companies like Eli Lilly and Upjohn will clean up on this stuff if it
gets approved. If cows get sick, they'll just make more money selling
antibiotics to the farmers. They just can't lose."
   A korporaciok valoban nem adtak fel a harcot, hisz pl. Monsanto
szamitasai szerint a BGH evi 500 millio dollar bevetelt hozna:
   The corporations' strategy is to rely on surrogates--mostly scientists
and the FDA--to win the battle for public confidence. They have also
saturated officials of the American Medical Association with propaganda in
favor of BGH and are launching a massive advertising campaign to win public
confidence.
   One of their tactics is to avoid any reference to genetic engineering,
according to an analyst quoted in The Wall Street Journal. That's why the
industry insists on using the more scientific--and sanitized--term Bovine
Somatatropin, or BST, rather than BGH.
   The FDA is holding steadfast to its position that BGH milk is safe. It's
not the first time the agency has insisted that a radical new chemical is
benign: Such pesticides as DDT, symthetic hormones, and chemical additives
now known for their high risks were all once touted as threat-free.

   Az egyetemek es  a fiatal ipar  viszonya sem problemamentes,  amirol ket
konyv is szamot ad: Robert  Teitelman, Gene Dreams: Wall Street,  Academia,
and  the  Rise  of  Biotechnology  (Basic  Books), valamint: Martin Kenney,
Biotechnology: The University-Industrial  Complex (Yale University  Press).
Az utobbi ismertetojebol:
   The developments that Kenney decries--such as the setting of academic
research agendas by investors, the inhibition of free flow of information
and reagents for pecuniary motives, and the investigators' conflicts of
interest when they simultaneously received equity interest, consulting
fees, and research grants for projects for which they may also be receiving
federal funding--all arise from the intrusion of commercial values into the
university. As the author points out, similar problems have arisen before,
when areas of knowledge became part of the production process. However, the
rapid rise of biotechnology in the context of an officially condoned
erosion of academic values, has cut deeper into the ethos of the university
than previous technological advances. Why has the entire scientific
discipline of molecular biology proved so amenable to commercialization, so
that in the words of one scientist cited in this book "there isn't a
walking biochemist who doesn't have a piece of some company in which he is
a consultant" [p.91]?

   Meg folytathatnam a peldakat, azt hiszem azonban talan ennyi szemezgetes
is  eleg  (es  az etikai   problemakat  meg meg sem emlitettem) ahhoz, hogy
kitunjek, hogy  a biotechnologia  nem annyira  sima ugy,  mint ahogy  azt a
"gene  jockey"-k  lattatni  szeretnek  a  nagykozonseggel, es hogy Commoner
fenti  harom  allitasa  nem  teljesen  alaptalan.   Ez  a kemeny kritika es
gyanakvas a biotechnologiaval szemben  ebben az orszagban persze  az elmult
40-50   ev   tapasztalatait   is   magaban   suriti:   tul  sok technologia
(atomeromuvek, petrokemia, stb.) nem valtotta be a hozzafuzott es a tudosok
es  korporaciok  altal  nagydobra  vert  remenyeket,  ill.  utobb derult ki
veszelyes  voltuk;  mindez  a  lakossagban  vedekezo reflexet alakitott ki.
Ennek szerintem egyik pozitiv kovetkezmenye volt annak a felismerese,  hogy
azert,  mert  egy  tudosnak/szakertonek  szakmailag  igaza  van,  abbol nem
kovetkezik automatikusan, hogy politikailag/tarsadalmilag is igaza van.  Jo
lenne, ha tevednek abban a velemenyemben, hogy mi meg nem tartunk itt, sot,
szeretjuk   a   szaktekintelyt   elfetisizalgatni,   es   ebben  van valami
guzsbakoto es antidemokratikus.

Leirer Laszlo

P.S. "Sorry for the long letter but I didn't have the time to write a
shorter one.":-)