Open AccessThis article is
- freely available
The New Genetics and Natural versus Artificial Genetic Modification
Institute of Science in Society, 29 Tytherton Road, London N19 4PZ, UK
Received: 2 August 2013; in revised form: 9 October 2013 / Accepted: 10 October 2013 / Published: 4 November 2013
Abstract: The original rationale and impetus for artificial genetic modification was the “central dogma” of molecular biology that assumed DNA carries all the instructions for making an organism, which are transmitted via RNA to protein to biological function in linear causal chains. This is contrary to the reality of the “fluid genome” that has emerged since the mid-1970s. In order to survive, the organism needs to engage in natural genetic modification in real time, an exquisitely precise molecular dance of life with RNA and DNA responding to and participating in “downstream” biological functions. Artificial genetic modification, in contrast, is crude, imprecise, and interferes with the natural process. It drives natural systems towards maximum biosemiotic entropy as the perturbations are propagated and amplified through the complex cascades of interactions between subsystems that are essential for health and longevity.
Keywords: central dogma; fluid genome; circular causation; biosemiotics
Citations to this Article
Cite This Article
MDPI and ACS Style
Ho, M.-W. The New Genetics and Natural versus Artificial Genetic Modification. Entropy 2013, 15, 4748-4781.
Ho M-W. The New Genetics and Natural versus Artificial Genetic Modification. Entropy. 2013; 15(11):4748-4781.
Ho, Mae-Wan. 2013. "The New Genetics and Natural versus Artificial Genetic Modification." Entropy 15, no. 11: 4748-4781.