Mae-Wan Ho

Mae-Wan Ho (b. 12 November 1941, Hong Kong; UK citizen) is a geneticist [1][2][3] known for her critical views on genetic engineering and neo-Darwinism.[4][5] She has authored or co-authored a number of publications, including 10 books, such as The Rainbow and the Worm, the Physics of Organisms (1993, 1998), Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare? (1998, 1999), Living with the Fluid Genome (2003) and Living Rainbow H2O (2012).

Ho has been criticized for embracing pseudoscience.[6][7][8]

Biography

Ho received a Ph. D. in Biochemistry in 1967 from Hong Kong University, was Postdoctoral Fellow in Biochemical Genetics, University of California, San Diego, from 1968 to 1972, Senior Research Fellow in Queen Elizabeth College, Lecturer in Genetics (from 1976) and Reader in Biology (from 1985) in the Open University, and since retiring in June 2000 Visiting Professor of Biophysics in Catania University, Sicily.[2][4][3]

Institute of Science in Society

Ho is a co-founder and director of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS), an interest group that campaigns against what it sees as unethical uses of biotechnology.[9] The group published about climate change, GMOs, homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, and water memory.

In reviewing the organisation, David Colquhoun accused the ISIS of promoting pseudoscience and specifically criticised Ho's understanding of homeopathy.[7]

The institute is on the Quackwatch list of questionable organizations.[10]

Genetic engineering

Ho has expressed concerns about the spread of altered genes through horizontal gene transfer and that the experimental alteration of genetic structures may be out of control. One of her concerns is that the antibiotic resistant gene that was isolated from bacteria and used in some GM crops might cross back from plants by horizontal gene transfer to different species of bacteria, because "If this happened it would leave us unable to treat major illnesses like meningitis and E coli."[11] Her views were published in an opinion article based on a review of others' research.[12] The arguments and conclusions of this article were heavily criticized by prominent plant scientists,[13] and the claims of the article criticized in detail in a response that was published in the same journal.[14] A review on the topic published in 2008 in the Annual Review of Plant Biology stated that "These speculations have been extensively rebutted by the scientific community".[15]

Ho, together with Joe Cummins of the University of Western Ontario, has argued that a sterility gene engineered into a crop could be transferred to other crops or wild relatives and that "This could severely compromise the agronomic performance of conventional crops and cause wild relatives to go extinct". They argued that this process could also produce genetic instabilities, which might be "leading to catastrophic breakdown", and stated that there are no data to assure that this has not happened or cannot happen.[16] This concern contrasts with the reason why these sterile plants were developed, which was to prevent the transfer of genes to the environment by preventing any plants that are bred with or that receive these genes from reproducing.[17] Indeed, any gene that caused sterility when transferred to a new species would be eliminated by natural selection and could not spread.[18]

Ho has also argued that bacteria could acquire the bacterial gene barnase from transgenic plants. This gene kills any cell that expresses it and lacks barstar, the specific inhibitor of barnase activity. In an article entitled Chronicle of An Ecological Disaster Foretold, which was published in an ISIS newsletter, Ho speculated that if a bacterium acquired the barnase gene and survived, this could make the bacteria a more dangerous pathogen.[19]

Evolution

Ho has claimed that evolution is pluralistic and non-Darwinian because there are many mechanisms that can produce variation in phenotypes independently of natural selection. Ho has advocated a form of Lamarckian evolution. She has been criticized by the scientific community for setting up straw man arguments in her criticism of natural selection and supporting discredited evolutionary theories.[20][21][22][23][24][25]

The paleontologist Philip Gingerich has noted that Ho's evolutionary ideas are based on vitalistic thinking.[26]

Publications

References

  1. ↑ Polly Curtis, "Exploitation on the agenda at ethics forum", The Guardian, February 22, 2002. Reprint. Accessed 2008-06-09.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Independent Science Panel CURRICULUM VITAE of Mae-Wan Ho
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Chardon LL Public Hearing October 26 2000 on behalf of Burnham Group
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Davidson College Dr. Mae-Wan Ho bio
  5. ↑ Tim Gardam, Director of programmes, Channel 4, "Seeds of discontent at C4", The Guardian, March 18 2000. Reprint. Accessed 2008-06-09.
  6. ↑ "Mae-Wan Ho". Retrieved 2014-04-24.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Colquhoun, David (19 July 2006). "Institute of Science in Society: beware!". DC's Improbable Science. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
  8. ↑ "Mae-Wan Ho and Suzan Mazur: the blind leading the blind about evolution". Retrieved 2014-04-24.
  9. ↑ ISIS Report 2000
  10. ↑ Barrett, Stephen. "Questionable Organizations: An Overview". Quackwatch. Retrieved 14 October 2013.
  11. ↑ Antony Barnett, "GM genes 'jump species barrier', GM food: special report", The Guardian, May 28 2000. Reprint. Accessed 2008-06-09.
  12. ↑ Ho, M.W.; Ryan, A.; Cummins, J. (1999). "Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter-A Recipe for Disaster?" (PDF). Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 11 (4): 194–197. doi:10.3402/mehd.v11i4.7918. Retrieved 2008-06-10.
  13. ↑ "Scientists avert new GMO crisis - Nature Biotechnology". Nature. Retrieved 2008-06-10.
  14. ↑ Hull, R.; Covey, S.N.; Dale, P. (2000). "Genetically modified plants and the 35S promoter: assessing the risks and enhancing the debate". Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 12 (1): 1–5. doi:10.1080/089106000435527. Retrieved 2008-06-10.
  15. ↑ Lemaux PG (2008). "Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part I)". Annu Rev Plant Biol 59: 771–812. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840. PMID 18284373.
  16. ↑ Donald MacLeod, "Who's listening? Will public opinion on genetically modified crops make any difference to the government?", The Guardian, May 19 2003. Reprint. Accessed 2008-06-09.
  17. ↑ Daniell H (June 2002). "Molecular strategies for gene containment in transgenic crops". Nat. Biotechnol. 20 (6): 581–6. doi:10.1038/nbt0602-581. PMC 3471138. PMID 12042861.
  18. ↑ Lee D, Natesan E (March 2006). "Evaluating genetic containment strategies for transgenic plants". Trends Biotechnol. 24 (3): 109–14. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.01.006. PMID 16460821.
  19. ↑ Chronicle of An Ecological Disaster Foretold
  20. ↑ J. Futuyma, Douglas. (1984). Neo-Darwinism in Disfavor. Science. New Series, Vol. 226, No. 4674. pp. 532-533.
  21. ↑ Ghiselin, Michael. (1985). Evolutionary Theory: Paths into the Future by J. W. Pollard; Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm by Mae-Wan Ho; Peter T. Saunders. American Scientist. Vol. 73, No. 6. p. 584.
  22. ↑ Stebbins, G. Ledyard. (1985). A New Approach to Research on Evolution?. BioScience. Vol. 35, No. 8. pp. 514-516.
  23. ↑ Felsenstein, Joseph. (1986). Waiting for Post-Neo-Darwin. Evolution. Vol. 40, No. 4. pp. 883-889.
  24. ↑ Wake, Marvalee H.(1986). Beyond Neo-Darwinism. An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm by Mae-Wan Ho; Peter T. Saunders. American Zoologist. Vol. 26, No. 1 (1986), pp. 289-290.
  25. ↑ Pagel, Mark. (1989). Evolutionary Processes and Metaphors by Mae-Wan Ho; Sidney W. Fox. Man. New Series, Vol. 24, No. 4. pp. 689-690.
  26. ↑ Gingerich, Philip D. (1989). New Vitalism in Evolution: Evolutionary Processes and Metaphors M.-W. Ho S. W. Fox. BioScience 39: 195-196.

External links