ECOLOGICAL MATTERS RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT

As humans, beset by problems arising from our inability to communicate with other humans, we
may feel that ecological relationships are relatively unimportant. However, any careful look at
what can be regarded as an extension of metabolic cycles into the biosphere should convince us
of the significance of this aspect of biochemistry.

Recall that the original development of eukaryotic creatures may have started with a symbiotic
relationship between two prokaryotes and that symbiosis between algae and non-photosynthetic
organisms may have led to development of higher plants. Associations between species are still
important today. For example, the bacteria in the protozoa of the digestive tract of ruminant
animals are essential to production of meat. Our own bodies play host to bacteria, fungi, and
other organisms with whom we have to try to maintain friendly relations. We depend upon
antibiotics produced by bacteria or by fungi to fight our bacterial infections. Plants provide both
essential nutrients and oxygen. Our environment has been created in large part by other living
forms that coexist with us and which are subject to ecological checks and balances. It is therefore
important that we learn more about the effects of one group of organisms on another and also
about the effects of human activities on plants and animals of all degrees of complexity. This
includes the poorly understood world of soil microorganisms. The consequences of
environmental pollution, of depletion of atmospheric ozone or other alterations that affect the
radiant energy reaching us, and of the availability to humans of excessive amounts of energy
must all be considered. Just as a steady state within cells is often essential to the life of
organisms, maintenance of a steady state in the chemical cycles of the biosphere may also be a
necessity.

Biochemists and molecular biologists are being called upon to play an increasing role in
medicine, agriculture, and industry. As such, they must be prepared to help in the making of
decisions that may affect the future of life on earth. Biochemical approaches will be required to
cope with many important problems. Among these are the long-term effects of the growing
number of synthetic compounds in the environment, problems of antibiotic resistance, and
effects of bioengineering of plants, fishes, and other organisms in the biosphere.
1
Despite attempts to ignore it, we cannot avoid facing the war problem. The possibility of
virtually total destruction of the more complex forms of life by genetic damage from radiation is
real. That we have lived with nuclear weapons as long as we have is encouraging but continuing
threats to use them as a last resort may bring eventual castastrophe. A race to put weapons into
space might result in having computers decide to fight a war in which all people could be
destroyed, but one computer might win! Perhaps biochemists, who understand the technical
problems of radiation damage and mutation, have a special obligation to point out the hazard to
others.

Just as threatening is the possibility of biochemical warfare, e.g., the use of artificial viruses.
Biological weapons have been little used because of their lack of discrimination between friend
and foe. However, our increasing knowledge of molecular biology makes possible insidious
attacks on a population of unvaccinated persons. Since biochemical work does not require
elaborate facilities, the development of biological weapons can be carried on by small groups in
a clandestine manner. The recent assembly of a viable polio virus from oligonucleotides
purchased from a commercial supplier emphasizes the ease with which virus warfare might be
launched. Finding a way to protect ourselves may be more difficult.

Should we really worry about such matters? Since biochemistry is unable to ascribe any
purpose to life, shouldn’t we scientists stick to science? Science is amoral, isn’t it? And
besides, won’t society do just what it wants to regardless of our opinions?

Questions like these will always be with us, but most of the best scientists in the world seem to
act with a great deal of responsibility. Not only do they want the pleasure and excitement of
discovery and recognition for their work, but also they want a world for their children and
grandchildren. They tend to feel compassion for other human beings. Many of them will give as
a principal motivation for becoming biochemists the desire to contribute to the understanding of
living things for the purpose of improving health, medical care, nutrition, etc. Most of them
would not like to see the evolution of human beings ended through a disaster with nuclear or
biological weapons or by irreversible pollution of land and sea. It will be a strange irony if we

2
use our marvelous inquisitive, ingenous, inventive, and compassionate brains, the pinnacle of
biological evolution, to destroy our environment and ourselves.

At a conference in Berkeley in 1971, Joshua Lederberg, discoverer of genetic recombination in

bacteria, talked about these matters. Lederberg asked if fairness and objectivity are possible
outside the laboratory. He thought so. He pointed out that the nations of the world agreed to stop
production of biological weapons and that genuine steps had been taken to decrease some of the
hazards facing us. Nevertheless, progress is slow. Some insist on inspection for violation of
agreements. But how can one inspect thoroughly enough? Lederberg suggested that the only
possible form of control is now evolving. It must come from scientists themselves who must step
out of their roles as “pure” scientists and accept the responsibility of preventing foolish uses of
new biological discoveries. It may seem impossible that there could be a scientific community
which could be counted on always to act in a responsible way, but it may be the only way that
the human beings can survive for long on this planet. Lederberg believes it possible (and so
should we!!!!!).

If this unit ( SBC 213) has helped to bring to the

students some awareness of the knowledge and power
of molecular biology, I hope that these final words may
lead them to heed the advice of Professor Lederberg. I
sincerely hope that all the young people now studying
biochemistry and modern biology will commit
themselves to using the fantastic new knowledge
available to us for the betterment of mankind and to
proceeding with caution and responsibility as they
move into positions of influence in the scientific
community.