> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Fitch
>
> >> It should be noted, however, that *even in this sense* DNA contains no
> >> information.
> >
> >Sure it does. Each DNA strand pair consists of a succession
> >of _bases_, of which there are four, which code for a number
> >of proteins and probably also contain control markers ("stop
> >here", "da capo", etc.)
>
> Okay, you got me. But this still has no relevance to the patenting of
> genes. The information in genes is supposed to describe phenotypic
> characteristics. Instead it describes the sequence of molecules in a chain
> of amino acids (whose ability to fold into proteins is unrelated to DNA).
> What the body does with its proteins is not determined by genes, and
> biologists know this. DNA just gets the ball rolling, and depending on the
> hill, you don't know where that thing is going. That's why genetic
> engineering is so problematic. You transfer a gene associated with a
> particular characteristic from one species to another, and you might get the
> desired result, but more than likely you'll get some totally surprising
> effect. The desired trait is simply not encoded in the gene. For all
> intents and purposes, biotech firms are patenting gibberish.
You could equally argue that since programs do not encode computer behaviour, but are rather interpreted by the computing machinery, they do not contain information (after all, try transferring a computer program from one kind of computer to another).
I'm all for arguing against 'genetic determinism' as a sound way of understanding biology, but you're bending the stick to the point of ridiculousness. No amount of proclaiming is going to stop companies milking the hell out of the genome, patented or not (BTW. for those who are applauding the fact that the human genome is being released without patent, don't forget that SNPs, the most common type of variation in the genome, are still being patented, at least in the US).
An example: PPL Therapeutics is famous for, amongst other things, helping to create Dolly the sheep (which they did with a Scottish BBSRC unit - i.e. a government funded research centre). They proceeded to clone piglets on their own, and intend to work towards lines of pigs whose organs will be compatible with humans. They intend to do this through knocking out certain genes, and inserting various human genes in the pig genome. Note - this is all privately funded research, and all proprietary. This is just one example of fundamental, and potentially quite dangerous (how many pig diseases do *you* want to introduce in the human population?) research happening entirely outside the reach of (even the informed) public gaze.
Current genetic engineering might be a shot in the dark, but it certainly isn't unfeasable - which is why tons of money is being thrown down that alley. Capital is not a conspiracy - people only invest money (in the long term) where there is hope of a return. We might not understand the workings of the cellular machinery sufficiently (I think we don't), but genes are going to be a commercialised money spinner pretty damn soon now.
Peter -- Peter van Heusden <pvh at egenetics.com> NOTE: I do not speak for my employer, Electric Genetics "Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that he will shake off the chain and pluck the living flower." - Karl Marx, 1844