Guest guest Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 Check out this link on genetically engineered artimisin, funded by the Gates Foundation: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/13/BAGGKAAQ7H1.DTL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > > Check out this link on genetically engineered artimisin, funded by the > Gates Foundation: > > http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/13/BAGGKAAQ7H1.DTL > I think that is pretty cool. It certainly forms a focal point for further discussion. I don't think single molecules provide enough " information " to correct chronic abnormalities of complex eukaryotic cell systems (like mammals). However in some cases, they perform well as inferior medicinals. Since artemisinin is already just a drug, it doesn't really matter if one extracts it from a plant or a bacteria, IMO. Malaria is a far bigger worldwide problem than AIDs, so this sounds like a good thing. However it is the implications for this that are most intriguing when taken to a logical extreme. If one knew the genetic code of a plant, one would possess all the information necessary to code for every protein and enzyme in an herb. This process is " unlike modern biotechnology drugs such as insulin, which require the transfer of a single gene into a bacterium, it will take 12 genes from the wormwood plant to coax the chemical out of modified E. coli strains.... " This ability to use genes to " coax " production of the chemicals may someday allow the lab production of entire complexes of plant constituents in their natural proportions and associations. Though the chinese have long used microorganisms in the production of medicinals (jiang can, shen qu, for example) and the idea of a natural source processed in the " lab " by chemical means was practically invented in China, some will no doubt find this horrifying. I do not believe we have ever discussed on this list what is wrong or right with genetic engineering. And how that even matters to TCM. For one thing, we will be obsolete if the seemingly crazy dreams of futurists like Ray Kurzweil come true. But barring the immediacy of that eventuality, are there any other considerations. First question, if a bacteria produces a medicinal, it is still natural, right? This starts to break down the artifical/synthetic dichotomy. But imagine if you could " program " bacteria to produce the biochemical equivalents of specific herbs or formulas. As the article said, the cost is literally ten times less than growing plants. Since these chemicals take minutes to produce once you have right gene in the right microbe, one could conceivably create a tailored formula in hours. Of course, we will never go down this road as a field, but stay tuned for the drug companies's next moves. This type of process opens up a whole new realm of possibilities for patenting formerly " natural " substances. Hopefully, there will be some impetus to apply these methods to whole herbs or formulas and not just isolated chemicals or western medicine will remain mired in its blind reductionism (as many in our field remain mired in a sort of luddite romanticism). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 > , " " > <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: >> Check out this link on genetically engineered artimisin, funded by the >> Gates Foundation: >> >> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/13/ >> BAGGKAAQ7H1.DTL > On Dec 13, 2004, at 10:00 PM, wrote: > <snip> This type of process opens up a whole > new realm of possibilities for patenting formerly " natural " > substances. Before I read the article (looking at the subject heading) that Z'ev forwarded my thought was 'red rice yeast'. How do we make sure that CH are protected from drug makers claiming patents on naturally occurring substances? (BTW - I used to work at one of Ray Kurzweil's startups - personable interesting guy, a health nut, but his ideas are....out there) --george Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 See the following articles for a discussion of the hazards of genetic engineering - a technical discussion of all of the things that can go wrong. Most serious is the recent discovery, breaking with decades of established dogma, that a single gene does not often uniquely code for a single protein, but can result in many different proteins depending upon the intracellular environment. A protein requires lots of things besides DNA to be produced - it turns out that the endoplasmic reticulum, ribosomes, and other cell machinery can influence the proteins formed. So if one takes a gene from a fish that codes for a type of chemical " antifreeze " , and inserts it into a tomato to hopefully make it more cold-resistant, this may result in unstable and unpredictable results, since fish genes do not ordinarily find themselves inside a tomato cell, along with tomato ribosomes and endoplasmic reticulum. Normally, natural selection and evolution occur when genetic material is exchanged between closely related varieties and species, and the genes **co-evolve** with the extranuclear material like endoplasmic reticulum, ribosomes, and mitochondria. Viruses can naturally act as gene splicing machines that allow exchange between unrelated species, but intentional genetic engineering multiplies this type of exchange by orders of magnitude. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/mop1d.htm Genetic engineering hazards unveiled [brief summary] http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/REHN716.html Biotech: The Basics, Part 1 by Rachel Massey [series of 4 articles] http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/genetics/Literature/articles/Cloning/I-SIS-25yearsOn.p\ df Genetically Modified Organisms 25 Years On " The fact that one gene can give rise to multiple proteins also destroys the theoretical foundation of a multibillion-dollar industry " Talk to many alternative practitioners, and many of the ones who pay attention to nutrition and diet will comment on the dramatic increase in food sensitivities they have noticed, especially with respect to foods that have been most heavily engineered: corn, soy, wheat, peanuts Could it be because of all of the newly created proteins, some of which are allergens? I have quite a few clients who seem to benefit by shifting their diets toward specialty foods for which it is not feasible to make engineering pay off: amaranth, quinoa, buckwheat, buffalo meat, mackerel, etc. If the Chinese begin tinkering with their herbs by using modern genetic engineering, they may be creating a time bomb that could destroy their international herb business. I would hope they don't do this. There are many signs that they are exercising a lot more common sense in this regard than the American bio-tech establishment. ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org > Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:00:54 -0000 > " " < >Re: Genetically engineered artimisin > > > , " " ><zrosenbe@s...> wrote: >> >> Check out this link on genetically engineered artimisin, funded by the >> Gates Foundation: >> >> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/13/BAGGKAAQ7H1.DTL >> >I think that is pretty cool. It certainly forms a focal point for >further discussion. I don't think single molecules provide enough > " information " to correct chronic abnormalities of complex eukaryotic >cell systems (like mammals). However in some cases, they perform well >as inferior medicinals. Since artemisinin is already just a drug, it >doesn't really matter if one extracts it from a plant or a bacteria, >IMO. Malaria is a far bigger worldwide problem than AIDs, so this >sounds like a good thing. > >However it is the implications for this that are most intriguing when >taken to a logical extreme. If one knew the genetic code of a plant, >one would possess all the information necessary to code for every >protein and enzyme in an herb. This process is " unlike modern >biotechnology drugs such as insulin, which require the transfer of a >single gene into a bacterium, it will take 12 genes from the wormwood >plant to coax the chemical out of modified E. coli strains.... " This >ability to use genes to " coax " production of the chemicals may someday >allow the lab production of entire complexes of plant constituents in >their natural proportions and associations. Though the chinese have >long used microorganisms in the production of medicinals (jiang can, >shen qu, for example) and the idea of a natural source processed in >the " lab " by chemical means was practically invented in China, some >will no doubt find this horrifying. > >I do not believe we have ever discussed on this list what is wrong or >right with genetic engineering. And how that even matters to TCM. >For one thing, we will be obsolete if the seemingly crazy dreams of >futurists like Ray Kurzweil come true. But barring the immediacy of >that eventuality, are there any other considerations. First question, >if a bacteria produces a medicinal, it is still natural, right? This >starts to break down the artifical/synthetic dichotomy. But imagine if >you could " program " bacteria to produce the biochemical equivalents of > specific herbs or formulas. As the article said, the cost is >literally ten times less than growing plants. Since these chemicals >take minutes to produce once you have right gene in the right microbe, >one could conceivably create a tailored formula in hours. Of course, >we will never go down this road as a field, but stay tuned for the >drug companies's next moves. This type of process opens up a whole >new realm of possibilities for patenting formerly " natural " >substances. Hopefully, there will be some impetus to apply these >methods to whole herbs or formulas and not just isolated chemicals or >western medicine will remain mired in its blind reductionism (as many >in our field remain mired in a sort of luddite romanticism). > >Todd > > ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 I don't have too many answers, but the article on bioengineering certainly raises many questions in my mind. 1) The socio-economic ones. Raising qing hao/artemesia is a major industry for farmers in Southeast Asia. Bioengineering the drug will destroy their livelihood. . .even if it saves many lives. Why not just grow more qing hao instead of investing millions to make a 'cheap' drug? Is it just because the biotechnology companies want to control supply? 2) The 'original' malaria drug, quinine, was also made from a natural plant-based source, in this case cinchona bark. Extracting the drug led to drug resistance. Isn't it possible that malaria can become resistant to a new drug, although either plant-based or bioengineered? 3) While growing constituents in bacteria mediums can and has been done, can we really recreate the complex media of plant-based medicinals in this way? Can we combine plant-based constituents in this manner? To me, it seems like a long shot. I think biotechnology is here to stay, but like other technological advances, it will have appropriate and inappropriate applications. For a dissenting scientific view on the future of nanotechnology and biotechnology, check out Bill Joy's article on the subject, available at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html On Dec 13, 2004, at 7:00 PM, wrote: > I think that is pretty cool. It certainly forms a focal point for > further discussion. I don't think single molecules provide enough > " information " to correct chronic abnormalities of complex eukaryotic > cell systems (like mammals). However in some cases, they perform well > as inferior medicinals. Since artemisinin is already just a drug, it > doesn't really matter if one extracts it from a plant or a bacteria, > IMO. Malaria is a far bigger worldwide problem than AIDs, so this > sounds like a good thing. > > However it is the implications for this that are most intriguing when > taken to a logical extreme. If one knew the genetic code of a plant, > one would possess all the information necessary to code for every > protein and enzyme in an herb. This process is " unlike modern > biotechnology drugs such as insulin, which require the transfer of a > single gene into a bacterium, it will take 12 genes from the wormwood > plant to coax the chemical out of modified E. coli strains.... " This > ability to use genes to " coax " production of the chemicals may someday > allow the lab production of entire complexes of plant constituents in > their natural proportions and associations. Though the chinese have > long used microorganisms in the production of medicinals (jiang can, > shen qu, for example) and the idea of a natural source processed in > the " lab " by chemical means was practically invented in China, some > will no doubt find this horrifying. > > I do not believe we have ever discussed on this list what is wrong or > right with genetic engineering. And how that even matters to TCM. > For one thing, we will be obsolete if the seemingly crazy dreams of > futurists like Ray Kurzweil come true. But barring the immediacy of > that eventuality, are there any other considerations. First question, > if a bacteria produces a medicinal, it is still natural, right? This > starts to break down the artifical/synthetic dichotomy. But imagine if > you could " program " bacteria to produce the biochemical equivalents of > specific herbs or formulas. As the article said, the cost is > literally ten times less than growing plants. Since these chemicals > take minutes to produce once you have right gene in the right microbe, > one could conceivably create a tailored formula in hours. Of course, > we will never go down this road as a field, but stay tuned for the > drug companies's next moves. This type of process opens up a whole > new realm of possibilities for patenting formerly " natural " > substances. Hopefully, there will be some impetus to apply these > methods to whole herbs or formulas and not just isolated chemicals or > western medicine will remain mired in its blind reductionism (as many > in our field remain mired in a sort of luddite romanticism). > > Todd > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 The bioengineering of Chinese medicinals has already begun in research arenas. There is a company based in San Diego and Guangzhou, China that is doing research in bioengineered Chinese herbs. There was a large article in the San Diego Union-Tribune a few years ago, I'll try to dig it up. On Dec 15, 2004, at 1:20 PM, rw2 wrote: > > If the Chinese begin tinkering with their herbs by using modern > genetic engineering, they may be creating a time bomb that could > destroy their international herb business. I would hope they don't do > this. There are many signs that they are exercising a lot more common > sense in this regard than the American bio-tech establishment. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.