That is why genetic engineering, at least in its current form, can never succeed. It is based on misconceptions that organisms are machines, and on a denial of the complexity and flexibility of the organic whole.
I wonder what Dr. Ho's opinion would be of current GE successes. Golden Rice comes to mind immediately.
To try to understand disease in terms of genes and protein interactions is worse than trying to understand how a machine works in terms of its nuts and bolts, simply because the parts of the organism, unlike those of a machine, are inseparably tangled up with one another. Mechanistic understanding in terms of interacting parts is extremely unlikely to lead to the design of better drugs.
To understand disease in terms of protein interactions is rather a reasonable approach. What causes disease? Viruses and bacteria. The disease properties of a virus or bacteria are
completely dependant on the properties of the proteins that compose it.
In fact, it is
completely impossible to design a drug without considering individual protein interactions. What will this drug do, if not interact with individual proteins? That's really the ultimate goal of drug design, to get a drug that will specifically and strongly interact with a specific protein and nothing else.
Mechanistic understanding of disease organisms as a collection of interacting parts is how drugs are made.
I wonder if Dr. Ho has ever seen a chart of the metabolic pathways. Horribly complex as they are, they are just a bunch of interacting systems. To suggest that they cannot be understood as such is preposterous.
In other words, bad science is unquestionably bad for one's health and well-being, and should be avoided at all costs. Science is, above all, fallible and negotiable, because we have the choice, to do or not to do. It should be negotiated for the public good. That is the only ethical position one can take with regard to science. Otherwise, we are in danger of turning science into the most fundamentalist of religions, that, working hand in hand with corporate interests, will surely usher in the brave new world.
The ultimate goal of a scientist is to add information to the body of knowledge commonly known as "science". I must say, I happen to fall solidly into the catgory of folks that think that there is no bad information, just bad applications.
Take, for instance, the sudden interest in atomic science during World War II. What did this lead to? A more fundamental knowledge about the world, a new source of power, and a bomb that has the potential to snuff out an entire city.
Trying to stop "bad science" is impossible. The same basic principles create aspirin and phosgene. Science creates yeast that can produce insulin. The very same science can also create fast-mutating smallpox that'll blast right through a vaccine.
To answer the question at hand, genetic engineering is a valuable tool.
But I'm not saying that I'd trust it in the hands of of Monsanto or the like. When pure profit gets involved, dangerous applications can come from the best of science.
