VI
Uniting Science
and the Divine
Advances in Genetic
Engineering
Cannot Break Nature’s Laws
As science
advances, it has become much harder to judge what is useful and what is harmful
to society. This is why biotechnology, including genetic engineering, is the
focus of so much debate and why the birth of the first cloned sheep in England
in 1997 sparked an international controversy. Many people avoid genetically
modified foods sold in local supermarkets for fear of health risks, or they
question whether human beings have the right to tamper with nature and genes,
which are God’s creation.
Although genetic modification and cloning both use
genetic technology, they are two very different things. But
this does not
change the fact that genetic engineering directly affects the very mechanism of
life. It is therefore impossible to divorce this topic from ethics and
religion. The question being asked today is how far should we proceed with
genetic- modification technology.
From the
perspective of someone involved in genetic research, genetic modification in
itself is not bad, as it is something that has always existed. Our ancestors
developed improved plant strains because they wanted crops with characteristics
favorable for cultivation. The majority of seeds used in agriculture today no
longer resemble those of the plants from which they were derived.
The classic method
of genetic modification is crossbreeding. Some people are under the false
impression that no genetic change takes place through this method. In fact,
this conventional method of crop improvement is the epitome of genetic
modification, and improved plant hybrids produced through cross-pollination are
most definitely genetically modified.
Genetic
modification through crossbreeding, however, can only occur between related
species. Moreover, harmful genes are transferred along with beneficial genes to
the hybrid species and may even dominate. To screen out undesirable
genes while retaining desirable ones
requires generations of selective breeding, and it is only after many years
that a variety with all the desired characteristics can be produced. This same
process occurs in the world of nature without any human intervention, which
proves that genetic modification per se is not an unnatural act.
More recently, genetic mutation was
developed as an alternative to cross-pollination. In this method, plants are
bombarded with radiation or toxic chemicals to produce mutations, some of which
may have desirable traits. Although this is much faster than cross-pollination,
there is no way to control the type of mutation that takes place, and the
success rate is very low. Scientists are lucky to obtain one useful mutation
out of ten thousand or even several million.
Accordingly, those involved in genetic
modification began searching for a quicker, more accurate method. Their efforts
bore fruit with the emergence of biotechnology in the 1970s. This technology
dramatically reduced the time required to produce new strains and eliminated
the need to use related species. It was now possible to genetically modify any
kind of seed. At the same time, however, the ability to manipulate genes raised
fears that we might produce
such monsters as the Chimera, a creature
from Greek mythology with the head of a lion, the body of a goat, and the tail
of a serpent.
It is true that biotechnology enables us
to transfer human genes to mice. It is also technically possible to fuse plant
and human cells. But this certainly does not mean that these cells will produce
human-plant or human-mouse hybrids. Even if human and plant cells are combined,
the genes of one or the other will disappear during the process of cell
division. Nature is governed by strict laws. No matter how far biotechnology
advances, it will still be impossible to break those fundamental rules.
But why would we seek to transfer genes
in the first place? x As I explained in chapter 5, genetic transfer can help
identify the causes of, and possible cures for, such diseases as cancer or
diabetes and allows us to mass-produce substances that are effective in their
treatment. Biotechnology has been hailed as a scientific revolution that has
applications in a broad range of fields including agriculture, livestock
farming, medicine, drug manufacturing, and energy.
Genetic modification does not violate the
laws of nature, nor does it make the impossible possible. Rather, it makes pos-
sible what was previously highly
improbable. A word of cau- tion is necessary, however. Just as healthy foods
when eaten in excess can be harmful, this technology has its inherent risks.
What it holds for our future will depend on how it is used. At the same time,
however, it clearly has tremendous potential to help solve such problems as
disease and to contribute to fur- ther developments in biology and medicine.
In view of the
above, how should we move forward in harmony with nature’s laws while doing
our best for the good of humanity? In this chapter, I would like to share some
of my thoughts on this subject.
Feeling
the Presence of Something Great
I
am often overcome with a feeling of awe and wonder in my study of genetic
information. Who, I wonder, could possibly have written such an exquisite
blueprint for life and how did they do it? It seems impossible for information
with such complex and extensive meaning to have occurred merely by chance.
Therefore, I am forced to acknowledge it as a miracle that far exceeds human
understanding or capacity. This leads me to the conclusion that some greater
being must exist. For more than a decade I have called this “Something Great.”
1 once spent several days in the same
hotel with Russell L. Schweickart, and we had many opportunities to talk. An
American astronaut and a member of the Apollo 9 crew, he shared his experiences
in space. I was particularly impressed by one remark he made, the gist of which
is this: “The earth from outer space is not just beautiful; it actually seems
to be alive. Gazing down at it, I felt myself connected to that life; 1 felt
that 1 owed my existence to the earth. It was such a moving experience that 1
cannot express it in words.”
Although intellectually we may know that
the earth is alive, it is not something we usually register in our daily lives.
Schweickart was struck by this realization when looking at the earth from the
macrocosmic perspective of outer space. Similarly, I am inspired by the same
awe and wonder when I look at the microcosm, the world contained within our
genes.
The more I know about genes, the more I
am forced to acknowledge their greatness. Our genes, which are contained within
the nucleus of cells so small they are invisible, contain three billion
combinations of four chemical letters, which are perfectly paired, A with T and
C with G. This enormous volume of information is what keeps us alive—and not
just us but every living organism on earth from microorganisms to
plants,
animals, and humans. There are an estimated two million to two hundred million
species on this planet, all of which owe their lives to the same genetic code.
To me, this seems absolutely incredible, yet it is an indisputable fact. To me,
it is truly evidence of the existence of what I call “Something Great.”
After his return from outer space, Schweickart was moved to travel the
world and share the deep emotion he had experienced with as many people as
possible. I, too, am inspired by the same feeling. We cannot define exactly
what this “Something Great” is. Some refer to it as the power of Nature;
others call it God or Buddha. We are free to define it however we like. But we
must never forget that we owe our lives to the workings of this mysterious
force.
No matter how determined we are to live, if our genes stop functioning
we cannot survive for even one second. The human life span of close to a
hundred years is an immeasurable gift from Mother Nature. If someone gave you a
million dollars, you would probably be thrilled. You might be a little
concerned about taxes, but still you would feel happy. Compared with the gift
of life, however, a million dollars is nothing.
We teach our children to be grateful to their parents
through whom they are conceived and who nurture them through childhood. I think
the majority of people accept the logic in this and are thankful. But as our
parents also had parents who again had parents before them, it seems
reasonable to me that by extending this gratitude back through previous
generations we should eventually reach the parent of all life. Gratitude for
our parents should naturally lead to gratitude for those who went before us and
therefore to the origin of life. Although we cannot see it, the continuity of
life indicates that such an entity exists. Working in genetic research has
gradually made me realize how important it is to fix our gaze firmly on the
fact that we owe our lives to this existence, which transcends our own.
My
life’s work as a genetic scientist has led me to certain beliefs regarding what
happens to us after we die. Life has continuity. A parent’s genes are
transmitted to the child and the child’s to the grandchild, and so life
continues. However, it is only the continuity of genes, not of life, that can
be confirmed. Genes are not synonymous with life. They are only
the
blueprint, the design rather than the reality. If life is not found in our
genes, then where and what is it? We do not know. Once we have read the meaning
of the decoded human genome, I am sure that we will understand more, but I
expect that we will still be unable to precisely define the essence of life.
Many believe that when we die we are reincarnated. They believe that the
individual has a soul, which is manifest in the physical world when it resides
in the body. Reincarnation refers to the continuity of this soul. Although the
soul cannot be defined, according to this concept, it is eternal, and therefore
when the flesh perishes, the soul leaves the body and reappears within another.
I do not know whether or not this is true, but I do know that such
things cannot be explained at the genetic level. Genes are material, and it is
impossible to describe the soul in material terms. Just because we cannot
explain it, however, does not mean that it does not exist. As I see it, the
soul is not something of which I can be consciously aware. Generally, that of
which I am conscious is “mind,” not soul. The mind feels happiness, sadness,
and anger, but when the body dies, it cannot continue to exist. As the mind
belongs to the
conscious world, it
is inseparable from the flesh and therefore must perish with the body. The
unconscious world, on the other hand, is beyond human awareness. The soul is
connected to this realm and, through it, to the world of Something Great.
Therefore, although my soul exists, I am usually not consciously aware of it.
This is why the world of the divine has always been impossible to understand
within the context of reason and consciousness alone.
In his book The Astonishing
Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1994), Francis Crick, who along with James Watson proposed the
helical structure for DNA, concludes that genes do not have a soul. Genes
transmit the physical continuity of human beings, but the soul appears to
belong to a different dimension. Even if we decode every gene, we still will
not understand the soul. It is a subject that, perhaps fittingly, will always
be a divine mystery to us.
One factor that
hinders our quest for understanding is the tendency to confuse the concepts of
mind and soul. Clearly distinguishing between the two—that the mind is of the
body and the soul is of Something Great—makes it easier to understand the
issue of life and death. The soul, as the source of our
existence, is
essential, but as long as we live in the physical world, so too are the mind
and the body, without which we could not exist in this world. The understanding
that both the mind and the soul are intimately related to the genetic blueprint
of life can help us discover the best way of interacting with our genes to live
up to our potential.
We Are Far
More Wonderful Than We Think
The composition of
our body is exquisite. Each person has far more ability than they could ever
imagine, but the fact that few people realize this is not so strange. Although
modern scientific developments have given us intellectual understanding of
the body’s amazing structure, it is still difficult for us to register the true
significance of this in our daily lives. It hit Schweickart for the first time
when he was gazing down at the earth from outer space. I, too, am only
beginning to catch a glimmer through my work with genes. But as most of us
never have the opportunity to encounter the microcosmic or macro- cosmic
reality, it is only natural that it is difficult to really grasp what it means.
Not everyone can travel in space, nor can I show you your genes. Instead, let
me share another story that proves we are far more wonderful than we imagine.
Have you ever heard
of a single tomato plant producing twelve thousand tomatoes? Such plants were
exhibited at the Tsukuba Science and Technology Expo in 1985. Most people
assumed that they were the product of biotechnology, but in fact they were
produced from the seeds of an ordinary tomato variety that normally would
produce only twenty or thirty tomatoes. If not biotechnology, then what was
their secret? The plants were cultivated by the hydroponic method using
sunlight and nutrient-enriched water. The only difference was that they were
grown in water rather than in soil.
Normally, soil is
essential for plant cultivation. Plants send their roots into the ground to
absorb the nutrients and moisture they need to grow. Of course, they need
sunlight and air as well, but soil has always been regarded as one of the most
important aspects of cultivation. Agronomist Shigeo Nozawa, however, thought
that the opposite was true. Believing that a plant’s inherent capacity for
growth is inhibited by the fact that its roots grow in soil, he grew the plants
in water, releasing the roots from their confinement and allowing them to
freely absorb nature’s gifts. This is known as the hydroponic method, and the
result was tomato plants that bore a
thousand times more
fruit than conventional plants. Nozawa was able to view life from the
perspective of a tomato plant. From this, we can see that even tomatoes have
potential far beyond what we imagine. If Nozawa’s philosophy helped plants
realize their potential, what would happen if we applied this philosophy to
human beings?
Although we strive
to develop our potential, we remain trapped within our perception of
limitations. If our parents or teachers say, “Couldn’t you get better grades
than that?” we are likely to answer, “That was the best I could do.” These perceived
limitations are almost always based on comparison with other people, which is
an extremely limited point of view. Still, we are convinced that they exist,
and we see our own experience and knowledge as absolute. This is a very narrow
perspective.
Nozawa explained
how he got the idea for producing giant tomatoes: “The plants we see around us
are expressing only limited potential in response to certain conditions. I
began to examine what conditions were preventing them from realizing greater
potential. I came to the conclusion that soil was one of the obstacles.” According
to conventional wisdom, soil is necessary for plant growth, but Nozawa turned
this idea upside
down. Plants may send out roots, but soil gets in their way. Water changes
frequently when in natural soil. In addition, soil obstructs the supply of
enzymes and directly exposes plants to changes in temperature. Physiological
changes are the result of chemical reactions, and obstacles such as soil
interfere with this process. Nozawa concluded that if these restrictions were
removed, the efficiency of photosynthesis would be improved and plant growth
would be accelerated. His theory was verified by a thousandfold increase in
yield in his tomato plants.
Human beings are
the same. If we remove all obstacles and provide an appropriate environment,
our potential for development is limitless. If tomatoes can achieve a thousandfold
increase in potential, then it would not be unrealistic to expect an even
greater increase in the abilities of human beings, which are more complex
organisms. I took my students to stand by Nozawa’s giant tomato plants. “If
tomatoes can do this,” I told them, “then you have even greater potential.”
Nozawa claimed that
soil inhibits plant growth. What are the factors inhibiting the development of
human potential? One that might spring to mind for many people is self-
gratification.
Everyone knows that drinking, gambling, and sexual immorality are not good for
us. But the issue is not so simple. A moderate amount of some alcoholic
beverages can be beneficial to health, and gambling in some cases can help
relieve stress. If the pleasure we seek is sex, it is infidelity, promiscuity,
and prostitution that are harmful, not sexual desire itself.
Rather than
self-gratification, the main factor inhibiting human potential is our way of
thinking. What type of thinking is harmful? Negative thinking that violates
the laws of nature. As people have many different value systems, there is not
necessarily a single uniform standard of right and wrong. Some people will see
a certain act or event as good while others will see it as bad. This
discrepancy occurs frequently in daily life. Therefore, the definition of the
“right way to live” will differ from one person to the next, and to debate the
subject will only lead to further confusion.
One immutable fact
remains: our genes and the way they function. When they are in harmony with the
laws of nature, they work to protect and nurture life and rejoice in it. Therefore,
I think that we need to look more closely at nature and strive to live in
harmony with its laws. If we can do this, then
I
think that—like the tomato plants—we will be able to tap the incredible
potential within us.
It is easy to say that we should live in
harmony with the laws of nature, but we do not know all of those laws.
Moreover, our perceptions of what living in harmony means may very well be
biased, and they will certainly differ from one person to the next. In the
past, religion taught us how we should live, but today many are alienated by
religion and have placed their faith in science instead.
Science has
made remarkable advances over the last century, and medicine appears to have
conquered many diseases, yet we still cannot cure cancer or clearly identify
the cause of hypertension. In the case of hypertension, we have made definite
advances in this field. However, although we can lower blood pressure, we still
cannot cure hypertension because we only understand a very small part of the
mechanism that causes it. The full picture remains shrouded in mystery. Likewise,
the mechanisms causing the majority of lifestyle diseases have not yet been
identified. Thus, we cannot claim that modern medicine is effectively curing
disease.
People are free to
put their faith in science if they choose, but I do not think that science
alone can solve everything. At the same time, the rift between religion and
science continues to widen, and modern people accustomed to scientific thought
are no longer convinced by religious precepts. Personally, I see both science
and religion as originating from the same source, and therefore I seek some way
to reconcile them. It is no longer possible in this modern age to accept a
religion encumbered by the traditions of a bygone era, but at the same time, we
cannot place complete faith in science.
So what can we do? I have three suggestions that I have
found helpful in my own life. They are (1) to have noble intentions, (2) to
live with an attitude of thankfulness, and (3) to think positively.
Keep Your Intentions Noble
The first proposal, to have noble intentions, is one that
has had a profound impact on my life. As I have already related, several times
in my study of renin I was fortunate to be the first to achieve certain
results. But the subjects that my research team and I chose initially appeared
impossible. Why would I become involved in studying subjects that common
sense dictated were better avoided? In
the beginning, I was driven by my pride as a scientist, ambition, and the
desire to improve myself, but this gradually changed as I began to examine
genes more closely and became aware of the exis- tence of Something Great. Yes,
it was a thrill to compete with the world’s top scientists, but my choices were
also based on my growing conviction that striving toward noble intentions would
please Something Great.
As 1 have said before, this is not an
entity 1 can rationally understand. But when I trace the long continuum of life
passed down through our genes from previous generations, it leads me to the
conclusion that there must be an original parent. Surely, even if 1 am not the
brightest of children, this parent will be pleased with my efforts to be of
service to others, however small my contribution may be. When I began to act on
this belief, events began occurring in my life which convinced me that my
intentions were acknowledged. The results of our efforts began to bear fruit in
a way which made me feel that Something Great was watching over us. Through my
experiences in studying genes 1 came to realize that if we can learn to live
with our good genes switched on, we can tap potential far beyond the ordinary.
Live with an Attitude of
Thankfulness
My second proposal is to live, with an
attitude of thankfulness. Life is full of ups and downs. Sometimes it seems
impossible to have noble intentions. What can we do to keep ourselves
enthusiastic at such times? For me, it helps to remember that we do not live by
our own strength and ingenuity alone but rather through the priceless gift conferred
on us by nature. We can be thankful just for the fact that we are alive each
day.
My study of genes has shown me that our
existence itself is a marvelous wonder. This is particularly clear when I
observe the relationship between the individual cell and the organism as a
whole. We are comprised of sixty trillion cells, which through a highly
sophisticated order make up the organs, tissues, and other parts of the body.
Just look at a liver cell, for example. Only those genes necessary for it to
function as an individual cell are switched on, yet at the same time, it forms
part of the liver. This is like an employee working in a company. The employee
carries out a specific job for that company but at the same time is not
subordinate. The employee has an individual life of his or her own. A cell is
the same. On the one hand, it may function as a liver cell, but on
the other, it has its own individuality and
functions within the organ autonomously and selectively.
Let’s examine this
relationship from the perspective of the kidney. The kidney plays an important
role in regulating liquids and salt. In an adult, it circulates one hundred and
fifty liters of blood per day from the main artery. As the blood vessels approach
the center of the kidney, they become thinner. A blood-filtering mechanism
located at the tip of each blood vessel filters out waste such as urine and
absorbs necessary elements. The enzyme renin, which I have been studying, is
found in certain kidney cells. Thus, although the kidney is an independent
organ, it is comprised of individual cells with different functions, including
blood vessels of various sizes ' and filtering mechanisms, and these combine to
form the kidney, working together to perform a vital function within the human
body. If we look at the individual cells comprising it, we find that while they
faithfully carry out their duties for the kidney, each cell also efficiently
and independently performs such functions as cell maintenance and repair,
which are related solely to the individual cell. If each cell in a blood vessel
did not work autonomously, for example, the blood vessel’s lattice-like
pattern could not be constantly repaired. Yet
when cells combine
to form a blood vessel, they regulate their speed of cell division and.their
shape with that of other cells. While the cell forms just one part, it is
furnished with the characteristics of the whole. This is true not only for the
relationship between cells and the kidney but also for that between people and
society, people and the earth, or people and the universe. We are all a part of
the universe. We live within the order of nature on this planet, yet at the
same time, we are participating in the creation of that order. We are participating
fully just by living.
The Darwinian
theory of evolution has dominated modern society. According to this theory, we
evolved through natural selection and mutation and only the fittest survived.
Survival of the fittest was assumed to be a law of nature, a law whereby only
the victors could enjoy life. Life was viewed as a constant competition, and
where there is competition there will always be some who win and some who lose.
This means that roughly half the human race will be winners and the remaining
half will inevitably be losers who should be screened out.
In the 1960s,
however, Boston University biologist Lynn Margulis proposed a different theory
of evolution. Known as
the Endosymbiotic
Theory, it is based on the idea that life evolved through mutual cooperation
rather than through survival of the fittest. This theory explains the process
of evolution in detail beginning with the first living creatures, which were
single-cell organisms without a nucleus such as in the E. coli bacteria.
The union of several simple cells or cell parts that worked together to make a
new type of cell achieved evolution to the next level—cells with a nucleus.
Although this
theory focuses on the cellular level, there is an interesting parallel at the
human level. In the prevailing Darwinian view, humanity passed through various
stages in evolution from apes to primitive man by following the “law of the
jungle.” However, according to an archaeologist who stud- x ied
150-million-year-old remains of anthropoid apes found at Lake Turkana in Kenya,
there is evidence that the apes shared food and helped each other but no
evidence of the strong oppressing the weak or of conflicts among them. If we
are to believe Darwinian theory, we evolved through a process of conflict. Yet
more recent theories suggest that symbiotic cooperation may have been more
like it. Research about the way in which genes function also indicates that the
latter theories are more compatible with the laws of nature.
When I look at
life in this way, it seems only natural to thank Something Great for the bounty
of being alive. Each human being, just by being born, becomes a participant in
life. Regardless of the results, there is value just in being here. I
personally think that this is something to be thankful for. Although some
people may disagree, this attitude can make life much more fun. To live with
gratitude is to be thankful to be alive. Living with an attitude of
thankfulness allows us to appreciate and enjoy each day, regardless of whether
or not anything special happens.
Keep Your
Thoughts Positive
My
third suggestion—which I believe is the most important—is to think positively.
Life does not always unfold according to our wishes. We get sick, make
mistakes, or suffer a broken heart. In my case, I frequently face setbacks such
as being beaten at research, and I am often confronted with situations that
seem impossible. But no matter how bad a situa- tion appears, it is important
to see it in a positive rather than a negative light. In fact, it is during
times of hardship when everything seems to go wrong that we particularly need a
posi' tive attitude. This means developing the ability to discern
meaning even in the
most terrible hardship, to see the things that happen to us as a message or a
gift. If you think this is impossible, just remember that Something Great, the
parent of all parents, would never harm us—because we are its children. This
does not mean that we never experience tragedies but rather that we should look
for the lesson or goodness which comes from unfortunate events. This perspective
can help us to accept whatever comes our way and to see crisis as an
opportunity. I make this suggestion on the basis of fact. As I have explained,
positive thinking can turn on our genes, stimulating our brain and body to
produce beneficial hormones. From my own experience, I feel certain that this
is true.
There are two sides
to everything: front and back, night and day, strength and weakness. No matter
how one-sided something appears, no matter how final it looks, there is always
room for choice. Take the disease AIDS, for example. Some people take the
fatalistic view that AIDS is divine punishment for sexual immorality. Looked
at in the broader sense, there are very few periods in human history in which
sexual immorality was absent, and when it was, people were usually suffering
from much worse disasters or misfortunes such as
famine, war, or plague. These were dark
times in which cub ture stagnated and people were under a dark cloud. If sexual
immorality is not a product of the modern age, then I think it is somewhat
illogical to blame AIDS on this alone. Instead, I propose a different
perspective.
AIDS is completely different from any
other disease we have known. The AIDS virus does not directly kill the person
who has it; rather, it destroys the body’s natural defense mech' anism. Because
it attacks and destroys the stronghold of the immune system, the patient
contracts and dies from diseases that others would not catch or that are not
normally fatal.
The human body comes equipped with an
impressive defense system. The world is full of bacteria, and although we
cannot see them, we are constantly bombarded by disease' carrying germs. They
enter our body in droves. If any survive once inside and multiply until they
reach a certain number, we get sick. Usually, however, our immune system kicks
in to destroy them before this can happen. This system has an amazing arsenal
of antibodies that can destroy millions of germs entering the body at one time.
Antibodies usually fight germs one on
one, which means that our bodies have enough antibodies to individually attack
and destroy every
one of the germs. Of course, this could not be done without our genes. Every
gene has the instructions for combating millions of germs. But how do they know
how to respond when there is no telling what kind of germ will enter the body?
Do they already have all the information for every type of germ? This question
puzzled scientists in the field of immunology for many years. The Japanese
Nobel Prize laureate Susumu Tonegawa, who works in the United States, made a
major contribution to solving it. The mechanism functions like this: genetic
information is divided into parts that can be combined in any way necessary to
make antibodies which respond to specific germs. Although there are a limited
variety of components, millions of antibodies can be made v through
different combinations to protect the body against invasion by most types of
germs.
It was through the
emergence of AIDS that we learned what a marvelous system protects us from
disease. Even in the face of an illness like this, we should not despair. Rather,
we should take the positive attitude that it can be cured. In fact, many cases
exist in which a patient’s mental attitude during treatment affected the onset
of AIDS. Although positive thinking may seem difficult, negative thinking could
very well
be
detrimental to your genes. A positive attitude is the most important factor in
influencing.our genes, no matter how negative the situation.
Genes Are
Both Bold and Tenacious
Just as I said, everything has two sides,
and genes also have two sides that enable them to fulfill two important yet
contradictory jobs. One job is to transmit genetic information accurately
from parent to child. To do this, genetic information must remain stable. Like
the family precepts that successfully carry a family business through several
generations, the genetic information transmitted to our descendants must be
constant. The other job is the daily maintenance of the cell as an individual
organism. The external world surrounding it, however, is always in a state of
flux. It is impossible to adapt to changes in the natural world if the organism
remains absolutely immutable. Thus, there are times when genetic recombination
may be necessary.
Genes fulfill
these two conflicting roles beautifully by forming a double-helix structure. To
put it simply, this structure results in a substantial amount of “wasted”
space inside the DNA, making it possible for our genes to easily maintain
an unchanging
stability and at the same time to make drastic changes should the need arise.
Our genes can deftly use the on/off mechanism to respond as needed to external
stimuli.
Genes teach us a
valuable lesson from this characteristic: the need to be both bold and
tenacious. Being bold means being able to break through conventional methods
and customs when necessary. In my case, I had to make bold decisions countless
times during my study of renin. For example, when deciphering the genetic code,
I took the drastic step of introducing genetic engineering, which was just
emerging, because it was clear that we could not possibly succeed using conventional
methods. This technology had almost never been used in this field, but because
I dared to try it, we were the first to decode human renin. If I had vacillated
because there was no precedent or because I was an amateur in the field, I and
the other members of the group would have lost a precious opportunity to
develop as scientists. Taking bold steps like these resembles what happens at
the cellular level when genes radically recombine in response to changes in
the environment.
As for tenacity, I
do not mean clinging to conventional methods and being resistant to change but
rather following through on your heart’s desire. In my case, for example, I
have
a tenacious attachment to the study of
renin. I have not changed the topic of my research for over twenty years. But 1
have changed the level at which I studied it, beginning with molecules and then
progressing to the cell and from the cell to the organism. This tenacity
enabled me to boldly introduce the latest technology from genetic engineering
to embryological engineering. I have also stuck tenaciously to my original
conviction that our research must succeed because of the useful contributions
it will make.
Genes likewise are tenacious in their
commitment to transmitting genetic information to subsequent generations. This
is what drives them to work so hard to maintain the cell and to proliferate,
even to the extent of a gene sacrificing itself to survive as a whole. In other
words, tenacity can actually generate flexibility and the willingness to
drastically change methods in order to achieve an objective.
People have a tendency to think that when
there are two options, they must choose one over the other. But genes, the
blueprint of all life, are not made this way. Some sections of a gene known as exons
are encoded with specific instructions while other sections known as introns
do not encode any instructions and appear to be wasted space. Yet genetic
information contains far more introns than exons. Thus,
rather than selecting one option and rejecting another, nature chooses
symbiotic coexistence. In the same way, boldness and tenacity are both
necessary. We have much to learn from this characteristic of our genes that is
relevant to both society and our way of life.
Everything That Happens to Us Is
Necessary
We often talk about
good luck and bad and worry about whether luck is on our side. We also
frequently speak of coincidence or chance. We use these expressions to
describe the incomprehensible—things that we cannot control. I believe,
however, that everything which happens to us is necessary, - both the good and
the bad, and this belief is based on experiences that date back to my childhood.
When I was growing up, Japan was very poor and my family
was particularly poor. My parents could not buy me toys, and when I was in high
school they could not afford to send me on a particular school trip. My grandfather
had died many years earlier, and my grandmother, who lived with us, was the
head of the family. She had a habit of saying, “Our savings are in heaven.” My
mother said the same thing: “I know you feel
bad about the school trip, but don’t
worry. We’ve deposited that trip in heaven’s account. In the future, I’m sure
you’ll be able to travel all over the world.” They assured me that whatever I
did to help others would be returned a thousandfold and that it did not matter
whether it happened in my own lifetime or in that of my children or
grandchildren, because my life was connected to those of successive
generations. As I was still a child, this explanation failed to satisfy me, and
I often wished that they would set aside some savings for me here and now, not
just in heaven. In retrospect, however, I can see that my mother’s words came
true. I traveled to America to study when it was still very difficult for
Japanese to go abroad, and I have been overseas many times since that time.
By “depositing our savings in heaven,”
they meant that money should be used not just for oneself but also for the
betterment of the world. We do not always get to see the results of our
actions. Doing good deeds often requires sacrifice. It is the part we sacrifice
that we have deposited in heaven’s bank, and it is returned in the future to
you or to others as a natural outcome. It is like planting a tree that will not
bear fruit until you are dead, but you do it because you know that other generations
will enjoy it, and the joy in that knowledge is your
reward along with
the fruits of trees planted by your ancestors which you are now enjoying. Or
think of a farmer sowing seeds. Farmers prepare the land for the spring sowing
before winter by spreading plenty of manure and tilling the earth. If you want
a bountiful harvest, you have to prepare for it, and if you fail to do so, you
will not have any yield the next year. Life is the same. No matter how
difficult, it is necessary to prepare the ground before sowing your seeds.
Why did my
grandmother do this? I think she was inspired by an awareness of Something
Great and the belief that if you continuously strive to do the right thing, you
will be blessed. Although some people may doubt this, I do not, because I have
experienced the truth of it myself. No goal can ■ be
achieved without spending time and sometimes seemingly unrequited effort in
preparation. If we become discouraged during this process, it is because we lack
conviction. Conversely, if we have unswerving faith in the outcome, we will
never give up. To persevere is the greatest secret of success. It is not easy,
however, to have confidence. We may think we have it only to find it shaken
later. To prevent this, we must fix our sights not on the immediate future but
on the larger perspective, believing that nothing is impossible. To have
unshakable
faith, we need to take pride in what we have achieved so far.
Maintaining
the Balance of Nature’s Laws
In a previous section, I introduced the
high-yield hyponica tomato plant as evidence of the tremendous potential latent
within plants and, likewise, humans. Yet this example brings up another
question: Why doesn’t this phenomenon occur in tomatoes that grow naturally?
Personally, I think that it is due to the principle of “self-restraint.”
For each specific environment, nature has
determined an appropriate number. If one species of animal exceeds a certain
number, the population will always begin to decline. All living creatures
maintain the appropriate number for survival in that environment.
This phenomenon
is also found in genes. According to some scientists, certain genes are
egotistic, pursuing only their own profit, which for a gene is survival and
proliferation, while others are altruistic, urging cells toward self-sacrifice
and death. What causes this seeming contradiction between survival and death?
Once again, it is the principle of selfrestraint. If genes continued to
proliferate and never died, it
would result in a
disastrous explosion in numbers. Living organisms must eat to survive, but if
there are too many, there will not be enough food. Nor will there be enough
space to accommodate them all. Therefore, our genes are programmed to maintain
an appropriate scale, and death is an essential part of this process. As living
things must die, we need both egotistic and altruistic genes. This is the
mechanism that maintains balance for the entire planet.
In contrast, a look
at human behavior suggests that we lost the art of self-restraint as history
advanced toward the modern age. We have depleted oil and gas reserves to the
point of exhaustion, stripped lands of their forests without any regard for
their ecosystems, and applied toxic agrochemicals in pursuit of ever-greater
yields. Such actions, which can only be described as human arrogance, are
becoming increasingly conspicuous. As I pointed out earlier, we need
unshakable confidence, but if we are not careful, this can lead to arrogance. When
that danger rears its head, I suggest that we should recall the altruistic side
of our genetic makeup and practice selfrestraint, an attitude in agreement
with the laws of nature.
Perhaps tomato
plants in nature do not bear twelve thousand tomatoes because there is no need
or because there is
some reason that
they should not. Biotechnology has tremendous potential, but if we are to use
that technology effectively, self-restraint is essential. This is true not only
for biotechnology but for all branches of science. It is important to refrain
from violating the laws of nature by destruction of the natural environment or
by altering the form of living creatures, even if technology makes it possible.
After laying its
eggs, a certain type of moth with protective coloring flies about until it
exhausts all its energy and dies. To us this seems like suicide, but by doing
so, it robs predators of the opportunity to learn how to spot other moths of
the same species. Another type of moth that is poisonous remains motionless
after laying its eggs, making it easy prey for predators. It is believed that
by doing so, they teach predators that they are not tasty and in that way they
protect their young. Although these adult moths could live longer if they chose,
they sacrifice their lives for the future of their species. They consider no
other alternative.
We humans could
learn much from this obedience to the laws of nature. If we do not, we will
jeopardize the future of the human race, for we can never hope to transcend
nature’s laws, no matter how hard we may try.
In the past, I
found it hard to grasp what people meant when they talked about a being or
force that transcends humankind. Some call it God and others call it Buddha.
But while studying genes, which are only one part of its creation, I sensed its
existence and was profoundly moved. True selfrestraint is born from the
knowledge of the existence of Something Great, and awareness of it can help us
grow tremendously as human beings.
There are many
things that we still do not understand about life. My dream is to continue
exploring the essence of life not only from the scientific point of view but
also from a spiritual and religious perspective.
Other Books from
Beyond Words Publishing, Inc.
Little Wave and Old Swell
A Fable of Life
and Its Passing
Author: Jim Ballard
$16.95, hardcover
In this
simple and engaging parable, author Jim Ballard recounts a journey across the
sea made by young and impetuous Little Wave and his sagacious teacher, Old
Swell. Their metaphorical adventures point readers and listeners alike towards
the age-old questions: Where did 1 come from? What is the nature of life?
What happens when I die? Inspired by the teaching of Paramahansa Yogananda—bestselling
author of Autobiography of a Yogi—Little Wave and Old Swell is an ideal
gift book that includes original oil paintings by Catherine M. Elliott and a
foreword by Kenneth Blanchard, business guru and bestselling author of The
One Minute Manager.
Your
Inner Pharmacy
Taking Back Our
Wellness
Author: Dr. Robert Blaich
$19.95, hardcover
The healthcare landscape has changed.
The new landscape requires that we create an awareness of health, healthy
lifestyles, and the availability of true healthcare so that each serves to promote
the vital functions and maintenance of our bodies. Your Inner Pharmacy
bridges this divide between traditional and alternative medicines. Dr. Robert
Blaich shows how to create a commonsense health plan—a program of weekly
health-promoting activities,
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario