^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Featured stories in this issue...

Carbon-free and Nuclear-free: A Detailed Energy Plan for the U.S.
  A new report offers a blueprint for a U.S. energy system with no
  carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and no nuclear power plants, achievable
  within 35 to 60 years. The blueprint provides a solid platform for
  climate justice activism. Has your favorite Presidential candidate
  taken a position on this report yet?
Teflon Chemicals Are Affecting Babies in the Womb
  Chemicals used in stick- and stain-resistant products are reaching
  children in the womb and may be tied to "small decreases" in the size
  and weight of newborns, two studies by Johns Hopkins University
  researchers indicate.
Study Links Autism To Pesticide Exposures
  Many scientists suspect autism may be a genetic disorder that is
  triggered by environmental influences. Now researchers are beginning
  to home in on the environmental triggers.
Arctic Ice at All-Time Low
  Arctic sea ice is disappearing at an unprecedented rate. Just last
  year the National Snow and Ice Data Center said that the Arctic was
  "right on schedule" to be completely free of ice by 2070 at the
  soonest. Now they say that day may arrive by 2030.
Marine Bird Populations Declining
  "If we have declines in the birds, it means the ecosystem that
  supports those birds is in trouble."
Decline of Bluefin Tuna Stirs Concern
  Commercial fishermen across New England who have hunted the once-
  plentiful and long-desired bluefin tuna for years say they are ready
  to give up after a four-year plunge in the population of bluefin tuna
  longer than 6 feet, the minimum size fishermen are allowed to sell.
A Challenge To Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech
  "Evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for
  virtually every official risk assessment of today's commercial biotech
  products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #921, Aug. 23, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

CARBON-FREE AND NUCLEAR-FREE: A DETAILED ENERGY PLAN FOR THE U.S.

By Peter Montague

A path-breaking new report concludes that the U.S. could develop a
sustainable energy policy -- one that is both carbon-free and nuclear-
free -- in 60 years or less.

The book-length study by Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy
and Environmental Research (IEER) in Takoma Park, Maryland offers a
detailed plan for powering the nation's economy with zero carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions and no nuclear power plants. The study
resulted from a joint project of IEER and the Nuclear Policy Research
Institute.

Such an energy policy would solve four pressing problems:

1. Global climate disruption: carbon dioxide emissions from combustion
of fossil fuels are the main human contribution to climate disruption,
which is threatening the global economy, human societies, and many of
the ecosystems upon which humans depend;

2. Disruption of marine food webs by ocean acidification, which is
occurring now as atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed into the
oceans;

3. Insecurity of oil supply. Increases in global oil consumption, and
conflicts in oil-producing regions, are making oil prices volatile and
supplies insecure;

4. Nuclear proliferation: As we know from the experience of India,
North Korea, and Pakistan, among others, the proliferation of nuclear
weapons is being enabled by the spread of nuclear power plants, which
are being promoted as a solution for carbon dioxide emissions.

The new IEER report, which will be published by RDR Books in the
fall (and on the web sooner than that), is available now in
summary, and as a special issue of IEER's newsletter, Science
for Democratic Action.

It can provide a blueprint and an agenda for climate justice
activists and for state and local officials.

The study offers seven main findings:

1. A goal of zero carbon dioxide emissions is necessary to minimize
harm related to climate change.

2. A hard cap on carbon dioxide emissions -- that is, a fixed
emissions limit that declines year by year until it reaches zero some
before the year 2060 -- would provide large carbon emitters a flexible
way to phase out CO2. However, current "carbon trading" programs
would undermine and defeat the hard cap, and so would have to be
abandoned. See related carbon trading story in Rachel's News #888.

3. A reliable U.S. electricity sector can be achieved without CO2
emissions and without nuclear power.

4. The use of nuclear power entails risks of nuclear proliferation,
terrorism, and serious accidents. It exacerbates the problem of
nuclear waste and perpetuates vulnerabilities in the nation's energy
system that can be avoided.

5. The use of available highly-efficient energy technologies, and
building designs could greatly ease the transition to a carbon-free,
nuclear-free energy system. IEER calculates that a two percent annual
increase in efficiency per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could
produce a one percent decline in energy use per year while providing
three percent annual growth in GDP. "This is well within the capacity
of available technological performance," the report concludes.

6. Biofuels, broadly defined, could be an important part of the
solution, or could actually make the problem worse -- depending on the
choices that we make. The report points to ethanol from corn, and
biodiesel from palm oil as two examples of damaging biofuels. On the
other hand, the report says microalgae grown in a high-CO2 environment
can provide substantial energy benefits with minimal environmental
harm, delivering 5,000 to 10,000 gallons of liquid fuels per acre of
land per year.

7. Much of the reduction in CO2 emissions can be done without
increased cost (for example, efficient lighting and refrigeration).
The remainder of the CO2 reduction would likely cost $10 to $30 per
metric tonne of CO2. (A metric tonne is 1000 kilograms or 2200
pounds).

8. The transition to a zero-CO2 system can be made in a manner
compatible with local economic development in areas currently
producing fossil fuels.

If you believe, as we do, that the four problems described at
beginning of this article -- climate chaos, ocean acidification,
insecurity of oil supply, and proliferation of nuclear weapons -- are
extremely serious and need to be resolved without delay, then you will
want to study this new report from IEER carefully. The full report
will soon be available on the IEER web site.

With the publication of this new report, we all now have a firm basis
for demanding a carbon-free nuclear-free energy system for the U.S.

Has your favorite Presidential candidate taken a position on this
report yet?

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Wilmington (Del.) News Journal, Aug. 23, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

RESEARCH ADDS TO DATA ON DUPONT PRODUCTS

By Jeff Montgomery, The News Journal

Chemicals used in stick- and stain-resistant products are reaching
children in the womb and may be tied to "small decreases" in the size
and weight of newborns, two studies by Johns Hopkins University
researchers indicate.

The findings from the University's School of Public Health are the
latest in a growing wave of scientific investigations, triggered by
concern over the discovery that perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS,
and perfluorooctanoate acids, called PFOA, are present in human and
animal blood around the globe.

Both chemicals are used in or associated with production of thousands
of consumer products, from nonstick cookware to carpets, food
wrapping, clothing and electrical equipment. The DuPont Co. is a
global leader in use and development of the materials, with production
sites in Deepwater, N.J., and elsewhere around the country under close
scrutiny or targeted in lawsuits.

In the most recent Johns Hopkins study, released last week, scientists
found that PFOA and PFOS levels in umbilical cord blood were
associated with small decreases in head size and body weight in a
study of 300 samples.

"These small, but significant, differences in head circumference and
body weight provide the first evidence for a possible association
between exposures to PFOS and PFOA and fetal growth," wrote Benjamin
Apelberg, lead author of the study and a research associate in the
Bloomberg School of Public Health's Department of Epidemiology.

A recent study of newborns in Denmark found similar results for PFOA,
but not PFOS, said Lynn R. Goldman, a study co-author.

"It's very unfortunate, because one of the most cherished members of
any family is a newborn," said Harry Dietzler, an attorney who
represented residents in a class-action lawsuit focused on drinking
water contamination by a DuPont plant that uses C8, or PFOA. DuPont
settled the case with an agreement that included hundreds of millions
of dollars for health studies and monitoring.

There are no known health effects from PFOA, and "this study does not
change our position," said Dupont spokesman Dan Turner.

The Johns Hopkins researchers acknowledged possible limitations on the
conclusions that could be drawn from the study.

Another study published by the American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine found links between PFOA and PFOS in the blood
and levels of cholesterol and some liver enzymes.

An EPA advisory panel has tentatively labeled PFOA a "probable"
cancer-causing agent.

Still to come are findings based on health screenings from tens of
thousands of West Virginia and Ohio residents, produced as part of a
class-action lawsuit settlement against DuPont.

Meanwhile, New Jersey recently directed DuPont to study groundwater
contamination around its Chambers Works Plant, near the foot of the
Delaware Memorial Bridge in Deepwater, N.J.

"This stuff needs to be banned now," said Tracy Carluccio, with the
Delaware Riverkeeper Network conservation group. "The Johns Hopkins
report is very troubling."

Contact Jeff Montgomery at 678-4277 or jmontgomery@delawareonline.com.

Copyright 2007, The News Journal.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: The Bakersfield Californian (pg. B1), Jul. 31, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

STUDY ON AUTISM IN VALLEY WORRYING

By Lisa Schencker, Californian Staff Writer

Expectant mothers who lived near Central Valley fields sprayed with
certain types of pesticides during the mid- to late 1990s were six
times more likely to have children with autism spectrum disorders,
according to a California Department of Public Health study published
Monday.

The study found that mothers who lived near places with the pesticides
endosulfan and dicofol during their first trimesters were more likely
to have children with autism spectrum disorders than mothers who did
not live near the chemicals. That doesn't necessarily mean the
pesticides caused the autism, but some experts say the results of the
study warrant a closer look at a possible connection.

"We're just kind of indicating there's a ray of hope that we may have
found an association," said California Department of Public Health
Director Dr. Mark Horton.

People with autism spectrum disorders, which are developmental
disorders, generally have problems communicating and interpreting the
world around them to varying degrees. No one knows exactly what causes
the disorders, and there's no known cure.

The disorders affect about one out of every 150 U.S. children.

This latest study, which was published on the Web site of the
Environmental Health Perspectives journal Monday, urges further study
of pesticides and autism. Experts say it's the first study of its
kind.

"The jury is really still out as to what's going on," said Rudy Rull,
a research scientist with the Northern California Cancer Center who
studies pesticides and birth defects. "It's something to think about
as another possibility."

The study looked at 465 children with autism spectrum disorders born
during 1996 to 1998 in 19 Central Valley counties and compared them
with 6,975 other children born during the same period.

It found that among 29 women living within 500 meters of the most
heavily sprayed areas during their first trimesters, eight children
had autism spectrum disorders, a rate six times higher than in the
control group.

Kern County ranked fifth in the state in 2005 in terms of the number
of pounds of the two pesticides used, according to the Pesticide
Action Network.

Kern County Department of Agriculture/Measurement Standards Assistant
Director Louie Cervantes declined to comment on the study Monday.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation spokesman Glenn Brank
said the department will be taking a closer look at the pesticides.

"We're going to be working very closely with the state department of
public health," Brank said. "The implications of this study certainly
are of great concern to us although you can note from the report
itself there is a lot more research that needs to be done before any
firm conclusions can be drawn."

Brank said the study results probably won't affect the state's
agricultural industry too much because farmers are already using less
of the two pesticides.

In 2005, California farmers used 83,000 pounds of endosulfin compared
with 154,000 pounds of endosulfin in 2004. In 2005, California farmers
used 102,000 pounds of dicofol compared with 198,000 pounds in 2004,
Brank said.

He said the two chemicals combined make up less than 1 percent of
total pesticide use in the state.

Though the study raises questions about a link between pesticides and
autism, many are considering the results cautiously. Over the years,
many have come forward with guesses about what causes autism, and this
might be just one more until scientists can gather more evidence, said
Kern Autism Network Vice President Carl Twisselman.

Twisselman said pesticides, for example, couldn't explain his
grandson's autism spectrum disorder. Many think the disorders are
caused by a combination of factors, both environmental and/or genetic.

"I just don't think you could act on a study of that nature until it
was a long-term thing," Twisselman said. "At this point I wouldn't
make any changes in my life or my children's lives or in where I live
on the basis of a study like that."

Pablo Rodriguez, a member of the study's advisory group and director
of the Dolores Huerta Community Organizing Institute, said he hopes
this study is only the beginning of the discussion.

"It's important for the people of the Central Valley to advocate for
continued study, more information and access to that information so we
can make the best decisions to sustain agriculture," Rodriguez said.
"We need more information to make the best possible decisions for our
communities."

lschencker@bakersfield.com

Copyright, 2007, The Bakersfield Californian

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: National Geographic News, Aug. 20, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

ARCTIC ICE AT ALL-TIME LOW

By John Roach for National Geographic News

There is less sea ice in the Arctic than ever before recorded, thanks
in part to a warm, sunny summer, a climate scientist said today. And
the melting season isn't even over.

On Sunday the sea ice extent was measured at 1.93 million square miles
(5.01 million square kilometers).

"It's continuing to go down at a rapid pace," said Mark Serreze, a
senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder,
Colorado.

The previous minimum record -- set on September 21, 2005 -- was 2.05
million square miles (5.32 million square kilometers).

By the end of this summer, scientists at the center say, Arctic sea
ice may drop below 1.74 million square miles (4.5 million square
kilometers).

Bruno Tremblay is an assistant professor of ocean and atmospheric
sciences at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, who is planning a
research cruise to the Russian Arctic in September.

In preparation for the trip, he has been observing updated maps of the
sea ice extent, which show the quickly melting ice.

"I never thought it would go that low that fast," Tremblay said.
"There's still a month of melting in front of us, and we're already
past the record of 2005."

Tipping Point?

Sea ice -- frozen, floating seawater -- melts and refreezes with the
seasons, but some of the ice persists year-round in the Arctic.

The current rate of sea ice melt is much faster than predicted by
computer models of the global climate system.

Just last year the National Snow and Ice Data Center's Serreze said
that the Arctic was "right on schedule" to be completely free of ice
by 2070 at the soonest. He now thinks that day may arrive by 2030.

"There's talk of a tipping point, where we thin the ice down
sufficiently so that at some point large parts of it can't survive the
summer melt season anymore, so we see this very rapid decline in ice
cover," he said.

"It's quite conceivable that that tipping point we talk about has
already been reached."

Particularly warm and sunny weather in the Arctic this summer has
helped speed up the pace of the melt, Serreze said. But the sea ice
decline is part of a decades' long trend.

In the dark days of the winter, some sea ice grows back. Overall,
however, the ice pack has thinned.

"It's really a reflection of what's been happening over the past 30
years -- this general pattern of warming, this general pattern of
thinner and thinner ice, which makes it more vulnerable," he said.

Climate Surprise

The loss of sea ice is already having well documented impacts on the
Arctic environment, such as shrinking polar bear habitat.

In addition, the melting sea ice will affect atmospheric circulation
and precipitation patterns, Serreze said.

"Think of the Arctic as sort of the refrigerator of the Northern
Hemisphere climate system. By losing that sea ice, we are greatly
altering the efficiency of that refrigerator," he said.

Since different parts of the climate system are integrated, what
happens in the Arctic will affect what happens elsewhere on the
planet.

However, the climate models disagree on the nature of the potential
impacts.

"That's the concern. It's the things that we don't know, it's the
climate surprises in store," Serreze said.

If "we lose that sea ice, could we get a climate surprise because of
that -- a climate surprise that is difficult to deal with, like shifts
in precipitation?"

Copyright 1996-2007 National Geographic Society

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: New York Times, Aug. 21, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

MARINE BIRD POPULATIONS DECLINING

By The Associated Press

Bellingham, Wash. (AP) -- Marine bird populations in northern Puget
Sound have seen significant declines since the late 1970s, according
to a Western Washington University study.

The four-year study included a census of 80 north Puget Sound marine
bird species -- those that live in the water, not just the shores.
Students gathered data from about 150 sites between Tsawwassen,
British Columbia, and Whidbey Island.

John Bower, a professor of field biology at Western, says he's still
working on the final report but that early results point to steep
declines in a number of key species.

Among them: the common murre, a long-billed black and white seabird,
whose population has declined 93 percent since the 1970s census; and
the Western grebe, a long-necked black and white seabird, which has
seen its numbers drop 81 percent.

Other birds in decline include the brant, a coastal goose common on
Padilla Bay, and the scoter, a sea duck that's a popular catch for
hunters.

Bower's study compares the latest numbers with data collected between
1978 and 1979, when the construction of oil refineries in the region
prompted the federal government to document marine species in the area
that could be harmed by an oil spill.

"It was perfectly normal to go out to the bay and see several thousand
Western grebes on the shores," Bower said. But the recent study found
a one-day average of 10 Western grebes on Padilla Bay and 436 on
Bellingham Bay, Bower said. Now "they just aren't around," he said.

The study seems to confirm earlier results from bird counts by the
state Department of Fish and Wildlife, but this time the birds were
counted from the ground, not in the air.

David Nysewander, a Fish and Wildlife project leader who assesses
marine birds on Puget Sound, said he wasn't surprised by the study
results, but he says a lack of money prevents his department from
doing much about it.

Bower said water pollution, eel grass destruction, global warming and
habitat loss could all be factors in the bird decline, but he doesn't
have the research to back that up.

In addition to government restrictions on shoreline development, he
said individuals can do a lot to help the birds by limiting pollution
and not allowing their dogs to disturb birds when walking on beaches.

By protecting the region's marine birds, Bower said, the public will
be protecting the whole Puget Sound.

"If we have declines in the birds, it means the ecosystem that
supports those birds is in trouble," he added.

Information from: Skagit Valley Herald.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Boston Globe, Aug. 13, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

DECLINE OF BLUEFIN TUNA STIRS CONCERN

Fishermen worried about livelihood

By Claire Cummings, Globe Correspondent

Even in the good years, Jeff Tutein's job as a harpooner has never
been easy. Perched above the ocean on the bow of a 31-foot lobster
boat, Tutein aims at Atlantic bluefin tuna in the waters off Cape Cod,
then heaves a 12-foot-long spear at a giant fish swimming as far as 25
feet away. He describes a typical voyage as 12 hours of boredom
punctuated by moments of utter chaos.

Tutein used to catch 25 fish per year. But now the giant bluefin tuna
are few and far between, and sometimes he scans the water from his
boat, the Jeanne Maria, for hours on a perfect fishing day -- light
winds, calm sea conditions, and sunlight -- and returns to his home in
Rockport without a single fish.

"It's hard to see a future in the ocean now," said Tutein, 51. "In
fishing, there's so many different factors involved, and they're all
out of a fisherman's hand."

Commercial fishermen across New England who have hunted the once-
plentiful and long-desired bluefin tuna for years echo Tutein's
frustration. They say they are ready to give up after a four-year
plunge in the population of bluefin tuna longer than 6 feet, the
minimum size fishermen are allowed to sell.

Between 1995 and 2003, they brought in around 5,000 bluefin a year in
the waters between Maine and Rhode Island. But since then, fishermen
have observed far fewer of the giant fish, and the catch has declined
as well. New England fishermen landed just 565 bluefin tuna in 2006.

Michael Genovese, 53, of Cape May, N.J., is a third generation
fisherman and Gloucester native. For years, he sailed New England
waters in a purse seine boat, a vessel designed to catch hundreds of
the giant fish in its 4,000-foot-long net. This method was once so
effective that only five of the boats are allowed to operate in the
Atlantic in a season. As recently as 2001, Genovese would leave New
Jersey in July and would not return until November, scooping up
hundreds of fish throughout the voyage.

Last season, his boat, the White Dove Too, was the only one to catch
any tuna, taking in just 10 bluefin the entire season. This year, he
has put the vessel up for sale.

"My partners decided they don't want to put any more money in the
fishery," he said. "Traditions are going by the wayside. Life is
changing."

The demand for bluefin, a renowned Japanese delicacy, grows each year,
especially in the United States, where sushi has become mainstream
fare. Scientists do not have all the answers, but some have come up
with theories for the declining population here: overfishing in the
Mediterranean Sea, changing water temperatures that have caused the
herring that form the staple of the bluefin's diet to migrate out of
the region, or the bluefin's migration to Canada.

"It's shocking, and it has a huge economic impact on coastal
communities," said Molly Lutcavage, director of the Large Pelagics
Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. "And then there's
the cultural significance. We appear to have lost already our entire
bluefin fishery, which has been around for a long time."

Fishermen say the bluefin are a unique species with incredible
strength, capable of bursts of speed. The largest weigh more than
1,500 pounds and exceed 10 feet in length.

Tuna make up less than 10 percent of marine life caught worldwide but
has the highest value, especially in Japan, according to the Bluefin
Tuna Program, which Lutcavage oversees at UNH. The meat can sell for
as much as $50 dollars per pound.

Atlantic bluefin tuna caught in New England waters totaled 88 percent
of the US catch in 2002 and was worth $14.3 million, according to the
program. Smaller bluefin tuna are thriving in local waters. But the
fishermen cannot legally sell them, because of international rules
requiring them to allow the fish to grow to their full size.
Researchers are studying juvenile tuna populations to discern whether
they are being caught in distant waters -- the tuna can migrate across
oceans during their lifetimes -- before they fully mature.

The commercial bluefin industry is regulated by the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Founded in 1969,
the commission researches and monitors tuna stock and sets quotas for
each participating nation. For 25 years, the catch limit in the United
States and Canada has been much stricter than in the eastern Atlantic
and the Mediterranean. Scientists on both sides of the ocean are
beginning to question the restrictions in place and whether
overfishing, which they conclude is occurring in the Mediterranean, is
depleting the tuna source here.

"The sad part is you don't see any young recruits, and you can't blame
them," said Bob Campbell, 51, who grades and processes tuna for Yankee
Fisherman's Cooperative in Seabrook, N.H. "We all hold hope that it's
a cyclical thing, that the cycle will be broken at some point in time
and these fish will come back in here and there will be a decent
fishery again."

Scientists like Lutcavage hope they can figure out what has driven the
giants away, but the issue is complex because the fish have varied
migratory patterns, she said. Researchers are currently monitoring
them with pop-up satellite tags but have relocated their studies to
Canada, where a larger population of bluefin tuna now lives. But New
England fishermen are not allowed to fish there.

The view from above mirrors what fishermen on the water describe, said
George Purmont, 62, of Little Compton, R.I, a pilot who spots tuna for
the three remaining purse seine boats.

Purmont, who has been flying since 1972, said he did not spot a single
school of adult tuna last season. "You would go to these historic
places and you wouldn't see anything," he said. "People's greed and
lack of responsibility have led to the decline and on the verge of the
demise of these giant and magnificent fish."

Although Purmont's livelihood is in jeopardy, he said he will not give
up like the other fishermen. The industry, he said, has an obligation
to help researchers study tuna and possibly slow the stock's
depletion. "You can't really just back out and say I can't afford to
do it now," he said. "You still have to make every effort you can, not
just for you but for the resource."

Claire Cummings can be reached at ccummings@globe.com

Copyright Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: New York Times, Jul. 1, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

A CHALLENGE TO GENE THEORY, A TOUGHER LOOK AT BIOTECH

By Denise Caruso

The $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple
with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on
which it was founded.

Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that
challenge the traditional view of how genes function. The exhaustive
four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human
Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80
organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found
that the human genome might not be a "tidy collection of independent
genes" after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single
function, such as a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease.

Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact
and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet
fully understood. According to the institute, these findings will
challenge scientists "to rethink some long-held views about what genes
are and what they do."

Biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other
organisms. But in the world of science, discoveries often do not
become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans.
With that link now in place, the report is likely to have
repercussions far beyond the laboratory. The presumption that genes
operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the
first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and
regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is
built.

Innovation begets risk, almost by definition. When something is truly
new, only so much can be predicted about how it will play out.
Proponents of a discovery often see and believe only in the benefits
it will deliver. But when it comes to innovations in food and
medicine, belief can be dangerous. Often, new information is
discovered that invalidates the principles -- thus the claims of
benefit and, sometimes, safety -- on which proponents have built their
products.

For example, antibiotics were once considered miracle drugs that, for
the first time in history, greatly reduced the probability that people
would die from common bacterial infections. But doctors did not yet
know that the genetic material responsible for conferring antibiotic
resistance moves easily between different species of bacteria.
Overprescribing antibiotics for virtually every ailment has given rise
to "superbugs" that are now virtually unkillable.

The principle that gave rise to the biotech industry promised benefits
that were equally compelling. Known as the Central Dogma of molecular
biology, it stated that each gene in living organisms, from humans to
bacteria, carries the information needed to construct one protein.
Proteins are the cogs and the motors that drive the function of cells
and, ultimately, organisms. In the 1960s, scientists discovered that a
gene that produces one type of protein in one organism would produce a
remarkably similar protein in another. The similarity between the
insulin produced by humans and by pigs is what once made pig insulin a
life-saving treatment for diabetics.

The scientists who invented recombinant DNA in 1973 built their
innovation on this mechanistic, "one gene, one protein" principle.
Because donor genes could be associated with specific functions, with
discrete properties and clear boundaries, scientists then believed
that a gene from any organism could fit neatly and predictably into a
larger design -- one that products and companies could be built around,
and that could be protected by intellectual-property laws.
This presumption, now disputed, is what one molecular biologist calls
"the industrial gene."

"The industrial gene is one that can be defined, owned, tracked,
proven acceptably safe, proven to have uniform effect, sold and
recalled," said Jack Heinemann, a professor of molecular biology in
the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury in
New Zealand and director of its Center for Integrated Research in
Biosafety.

In the United States, the Patent and Trademark Office allows genes to
be patented on the basis of this uniform effect or function. In fact,
it defines a gene in these terms, as an ordered sequence of DNA "that
encodes a specific functional product."

In 2005, a study showed that more than 4,000 human genes had already
been patented in the United States alone. And this is but a small
fraction of the total number of patented plant, animal and microbial
genes.

In the context of the consortium's findings, this definition now
raises some fundamental questions about the defensibility of those
patents.

If genes are only one component of how a genome functions, for
example, will infringement claims be subject to dispute when another
crucial component of the network is claimed by someone else? Might
owners of gene patents also find themselves liable for unintended
collateral damage caused by the network effects of the genes they own?
And, just as important, will these not-yet-understood components of
gene function tarnish the appeal of the market for biotech investors,
who prefer their intellectual property claims to be unambiguous and
indisputable?

While no one has yet challenged the legal basis for gene patents, the
biotech industry itself has long since acknowledged the science behind
the question.

"The genome is enormously complex, and the only thing we can say about
it with certainty is how much more we have left to learn," wrote
Barbara A. Caulfield, executive vice president and general counsel at
the biotech pioneer Affymetrix, in a 2002 article on Law.com called
"Why We Hate Gene Patents."

"We're learning that many diseases are caused not by the action of
single genes, but by the interplay among multiple genes," Ms.
Caulfield said. She noted that just before she wrote her article,
"scientists announced that they had decoded the genetic structures of
one of the most virulent forms of malaria and that it may involve
interactions among as many as 500 genes."

Even more important than patent laws are safety issues raised by the
consortium's findings. Evidence of a networked genome shatters the
scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of
today's commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops
to pharmaceuticals.

"The real worry for us has always been that the commercial agenda for
biotech may be premature, based on what we have long known was an
incomplete understanding of genetics," said Professor Heinemann, who
writes and teaches extensively on biosafety issues.

"Because gene patents and the genetic engineering process itself are
both defined in terms of genes acting independently," he said,
"regulators may be unaware of the potential impacts arising from these
network effects."

Yet to date, every attempt to challenge safety claims for biotech
products has been categorically dismissed, or derided as unscientific.
A 2004 round table on the safety of biotech food, sponsored by the Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, provided a typical example:
"Both theory and experience confirm the extraordinary predictability
and safety of gene-splicing technology and its products," said Dr.
Henry I. Miller, a fellow at the Hoover Institution who represented
the pro-biotech position. Dr. Miller was the founding director of the
Office of Biotechnology at the Food and Drug Administration, and
presided over the approval of the first biotech food in 1992.
Now that the consortium's findings have cast the validity of that
theory into question, it may be time for the biotech industry to re-
examine the more subtle effects of its products, and to share what it
knows about them with regulators and other scientists.

This is not the first time it has been asked to do so. A 2004
editorial in the journal Nature Genetics beseeched academic and
corporate researchers to start releasing their proprietary data to
reviewers, so it might receive the kind of scrutiny required of
credible science.

ACCORDING to Professor Heinemann, many biotech companies already
conduct detailed genetic studies of their products that profile the
expression of proteins and other elements. But they are not required
to report most of this data to regulators, so they do not. Thus vast
stores of important research information sit idle.

"Something that is front and center in the biosafety community in New
Zealand now is whether companies should be required to submit their
gene-profiling data for hazard identification," Professor Heinemann
said. With no such reporting requirements, companies and regulators
alike will continue to "blind themselves to network effects," he said.
The Nature Genetics editorial, titled "Good Citizenship, or Good
Business?," presented its argument as a choice for the industry to
make. Given the significance of these new findings, it is a
distinction without a difference.

==============

Denise Caruso is executive director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute,
which studies collaborative problem-solving. E-mail:
dcaruso@nytimes.com.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

  Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &
  Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are
  often considered separately or not at all.

  The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining  
  because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who
  bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human
  health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the
  rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among
  workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,
  intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and
  therefore ruled by the few.  

  In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, "Who
  gets to decide?" And, "How do the few control the many, and what
  might be done about it?"

  As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,
  please Email them to us at dhn@rachel.org.
  
  Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as
  necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the
  subject.

  Editors:
  Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
  Tim Montague   -   tim@rachel.org
  
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

  To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy
  & Health News send any Email to: rachel-subscribe@pplist.net.

  In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that
  you want to subscribe.

  To unsubscribe, send any Email to: rachel-unsubscribe@pplist.net.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::