sociological

It has been known since the middle of the last century that the general characteristics of living organisms are recorded as coded gene information. About thirty thousand genes in humans are molecular chains present in cell nuclei and inherited from generation to generation.

This major discovery, now widely confirmed, suggested that the characteristics of organisms were completely predetermined. Epide-la-genetique teaches us today that we need to put this vision of things into perspective, because cells have mechanisms regulating gene expression. Even more recent theories on self-organised systems suggest that other organizing emergences may also be at stake.

In fact, only 2% of DNA is estimated to be genes directly involved in protein synthesis. All the others, called rubbish DNA, are far from being inert as one imagined. These forgotten sequences seem to be involved in regulating the expression of the main genes, thus controlling the synthesis of proteins, metabolic regulation, cell differentiation (cell specialization), apoptosis (programmed cell death), the functioning of the immune system, the evolution of certain diseases including cancer, and even the destruction of foreign genetic material that would enter the body. They would even assume immune functions in plants (disposal of lymphocytes). Recent research suggests that certain sequences of this rubbish DNA would be brought by plant foods, and probably also by animal products.

The genome should therefore be represented as a constantly moving set of information between the different living species. That would explain the old saying, tell me what you eat and I’ll tell you who you are… This is a particularly serious discovery of consequences: our diet could have a much deeper influence than we imagine, if our genome is affected. To be examined more closely.

One thing is certain: the simplistic genetic of the past century, with its simplistic determinism, has definitely lived. Organisms should be able to adapt much better than thought to changes in the environment or new constraints. But be careful: it cannot be inferred that organizations would be able to adapt, both in the short and long term, to any new situations. The great question of the limits of adaptability remains, as any system, however complex and sophisticated, is limited in its ability to adapt to unforeseen demands.

The basic principle of human ecogenetics therefore applies to all human interventions. The question can be formulated as follows: Are our genetic data (and those of the living beings that make up our environment) adapted to the different productions of our intelligence?

We must ask ourselves, in the face of every artifact that constitutes our culture and way of life, whether it corresponds to our genetic potential and to those of other actors in biocenosis. If this is not the case for a given artifact, then this artifact must be called into question, asked about its origin, its raison d’être, its necessity, as well as the means to dispense with it or to replace it with an artifact compatible with the data of the different species of the ecosystem.

For further information on de-la-genetique, see for example Wikipedia article: “Genetics”