GMOs: "Unraveling the DNA Myth" by Barry Commoner

Barry Commoner challenges the foundational theory underlying genetic engineering - Francis Crick's "central dogma" - arguing that recent scientific evidence has undermined its validity and exposed the unpredictable dangers of genetically modified crops.

The Central Dogma's Core Claims: The theory posits that DNA genes have absolute control over inheritance through a linear process: DNA → RNA → protein. Each gene was thought to produce one specific protein, with genetic information flowing in only one direction and never passing from protein back to nucleic acid.

Why It Failed: The Human Genome Project (1990-2001) contradicted this theory by finding only about 30,000 human genes - far fewer than the 100,000+ predicted based on protein complexity. Humans have roughly the same number of genes as mustard weeds and only twice as many as fruit flies, which cannot account for the vast complexity differences between species.

Alternative Splicing - The Key Discovery: The article identifies alternative splicing as the "devastating" finding that disproves Crick's theory. In this process, specialized proteins called spliceosomes cut and recombine genetic material, allowing a single gene to produce multiple different proteins (sometimes thousands). One gene can generate 576 variant proteins in chickens or up to 38,016 in fruit flies. This means proteins themselves contribute genetic information - violating Crick's central premise. The author writes:

"Alternative splicing thus has a devastating impact on Crick's theory: it breaks open the hypothesized isolation of the molecular system that transfers genetic information from a single gene to a single protein. By rearranging the single gene's nucleotide sequence into a multiplicity of new messenger RNA sequences, each of them different from the unspliced original, alternative splicing can be said to generate new genetic information. Certain of the spliceosome's proteins and RNA components have an affinity for particular sites and, binding to them, form an active catalyst that cuts the messenger
RNA and then rejoins the resulting fragments. The spliceosome proteins thus
contribute to the added genetic information that alternative splicing creates. But this conclusion conflicts with Crick's second hypothesis - that proteins cannot transmit genetic information to nucleic acid (in this case, messenger RNA) - and shatters the elegant logic of Crick's interlocking duo of genetic hypotheses.

The discovery of alternative splicing also bluntly contradicts the precept that motivated the genome project. It nullifies the exclusiveness of the gene's hold on the molecular process of inheritance and disproves the notion that by counting genes one can specify the array of proteins that define the scope of human inheritance. The gene's effect on inheritance thus cannot be predicted simply from its nucleotide sequence - determination of which is on of the main purposes of the Human Genome Project."

Other Contradictory Evidence:

• DNA replication requires protein enzymes to achieve accuracy; DNA alone makes frequent errors
• Chaperone proteins are needed to properly fold nascent proteins into their active forms
• Prions (infectious proteins) can transmit genetic information from protein to protein, causing fatal brain diseases without any DNA involvement

Implications for Genetic Engineering

Commoner argues that the biotechnology industry's claims that genetic modification is "specific, precise, and predictable" rest on the now-disproven central dogma. When a bacterial gene is inserted into a crop plant:

• The alien gene may undergo alternative splicing in its new environment, producing unexpected proteins
• The plant's own genome can be scrambled (as discovered in Monsanto's genetically modified soybeans)
• The harmonious DNA-protein interactions developed over evolutionary time are disrupted

Critical Safety Concerns: The industry conducts no required testing to verify that transferred genes actually produce the expected proteins or to monitor for unintended genetic changes across generations. Billions of transgenic plants are grown annually with only "rudimentary knowledge" of their actual composition.

Where is it Found: 

The main commercial Bt crops are corn (maize), soy and cotton, both of which have been widely planted across the Americas, India, China, and other regions since the late 1990s. Bt corn is used not only for human food (in products like cornmeal, corn syrup, and snacks) but also as animal feed, silage, and bioethanol feedstock—making it a major indirect route of Bt exposure. Bt cotton contributes to environmental accumulation through plant residues and soil decomposition. In some countries, Bt eggplant (brinjal) and Bt potato have also been released, adding to the potential diversity of exposure sources. Although Bt-soybeans are not yet commercialized globally, experimental lines exist, and stacked GM crops combining Bt with herbicide-resistant traits are expanding. Beyond GM crops, Bt toxins are also found in biopesticides—spray formulations of B. thuringiensis spores and proteins used in organic and conventional farming alike. Together, these sources mean that Bt proteins are now present across agricultural soils, plant residues, animal feed, and, in trace amounts, potentially in the broader food chain.

Institutional Failures

Commoner attributes the persistence of this outdated theory to several factors:

• Institutional inertia and professional ostracism of dissenters
• Commercialization of biology creating financial incentives to maintain the status quo
• The seductive simplicity of the theory making scientists reluctant to abandon it
• Dismissal of public concerns as "irrational" despite valid scientific reasons for caution

Conclusion

The article contends that "DNA did not create life; life created DNA" - that DNA is a product of cellular processes, not their master controller. Commoner warns that artificially altering genetic systems without understanding the cell's "irreducible complexity" risks "unintended, potentially disastrous, consequences" and represents a "fundamentally irrational decision" to release this technology before we truly understand it.