Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Health & Wellness

Our Assumptions About What Causes Chronic Diseases Could Be Wrong

By Laura Wright, OnEarth Magazine. Posted August 9, 2007.


Discoveries about how chemicals and environmental toxins interact with our DNA and make us susceptible to disease could revolutionize our concept of illness.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This story is reprinted from OnEarth magazine and was written by Laura Wright, the senior editor. Write to her at lwright@nrdc.org.

Martha Herbert, a pediatric neurologist at Boston's Massachusetts General Hospital, studies brain images of children with autism. She was seeing patients one day a few years ago when a 3-year-old girl walked in with more than the usual cognitive and behavioral problems.

She was lactose intolerant, and foods containing gluten always seemed to upset her stomach. Autistic children suffer profoundly, and not just in their difficulty forming emotional bonds with family members, making friends, or tolerating minor deviations from their daily routines.

Herbert has seen many young children who've had a dozen or more ear infections by the time they made their way through her door, and many others -- "gut kids" -- with chronic diarrhea and other gastrointestinal problems, including severe food allergies. Such symptoms don't fit with the traditional explanation of autism as a genetic disorder rooted in the brain, and that was precisely what was on Herbert's mind that day. She's seen too many kids whose entire systems have gone haywire.

During the course of the little girl's appointment, Herbert learned that the child's father was a computer scientist -- a bioinformatist no less, someone trained to crunch biological data and pick out patterns of interest. She shared with him her belief that autism research was overly focused on examining genes that play a role in brain development and function, to the exclusion of other factors -- namely, children's susceptibility to environmental insults, such as exposure to chemicals and toxic substances.

Inspired by their conversation, Herbert left the office that day with a plan: She and the girl's father, John Russo, head of computer science at the Wentworth Institute of Technology, would cobble together a team of geneticists and bioinformatists to root through the scientific literature looking for genes that might be involved in autism without necessarily being related to brain development or the nervous system.

The group scanned databases of genes already known to respond to chemicals in the environment, selecting those that lie within sequences of DNA with suspected ties to autism. They came up with more than a hundred matches, reinforcing Herbert's belief that such chemicals interact with specific genes to make certain children susceptible to autism.

Although some diseases are inherited through a single genetic mutation -- cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia are examples -- the classic "one gene, one disease" model doesn't adequately explain the complex interplay between an individual's unique genetic code and his or her personal history of environmental exposures.

That fragile web of interactions, when pulled out of alignment, is probably what causes many chronic diseases: cancer, obesity, asthma, heart disease, autism, and Alzheimer's, to name just a few.

To unravel the underlying biological mechanisms of these seemingly intractable ailments requires that scientists understand the precise molecular dialogue that occurs between our genes and the environment -- where we live and work, what we eat, drink, breathe, and put on our skin.

Herbert's literature scan was a nod in this direction, but actually teasing out the answers in a laboratory has been well beyond her or anyone else's reach -- until now.

Consider for a moment that humans have some 30,000 genes, which interact in any number of ways with one or more of the 85,000 synthetic, commercially produced chemicals, as well as heavy metals, foods, drugs, myriad pollutants in the air and water, and anything else our bodies absorb from the environment.

The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 armed scientists with a basic road map of every gene in the human body, allowing them to probe more deeply into the ways our DNA controls who we are and why we get sick, in part by broadening our understanding of how genes respond to external factors.

In the years leading up to the project's completion, scientists began developing powerful new tools for studying our genes. One is something called a gene chip, or DNA microarray, which came about through the marriage of molecular biology and computer science. The earliest prototype was devised about a decade ago; since then these tiny devices, as well as other molecular investigative tools, have grown exponentially in their sophistication, pushing medical science toward a new frontier.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: environment, disease, genetics, illness, dna, autism

Laura Wright is Senior Editor of OnEarth magazine. Write to her at lwright@nrdc.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Just cant wait
Posted by: ArtemInox on Aug 9, 2007 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ultimately, government agencies charged with regulating chemicals and protecting our health could use this method, one aspect of a field called toxicogenomics, to wade through the thousands of untested or inadequately studied chemicals that circulate in our environment

Maybe we need a picture of a smiling agency member clearly identified with big bold acronym and a couple of little kids around said agency member.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Symbolism sells Posted by: ray burchard
» I agree, Ray! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
Expensive, but Sweet
Posted by: benzene on Aug 9, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Microarrays are cool. I'm a molecular biologist, and they're like nirvana for us. Sure, we have other ways to analyze gene expression, such as Western blots, RT-PCR, and even SC-RT-Q-RT-PCR (single-cell real-time quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain-reaction), but microarrays are by far the most efficient. Even though they currently cost something like $10K/array (compare to $100Ks a few years ago and $1K predicted soon), they are still enormously powerful and each one can generate so much data that it takes a couple of weeks of dedicated number crunching to wade through.

Something I, as a scientist, want to ask in forum:
Should everyday, nonscientific people have a say in how the funding for medical research is distributed? Or is the current system of a few agencies deciding research priorities and doling out the money afterwards adequate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» another request for Carte Blanche Posted by: ray burchard
» Carte Blanche? Posted by: LeaderofMen
» Presumption Posted by: benzene
» Good question Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: xpensive, but Sweet Posted by: DaBear
» Esoteric-ness Posted by: benzene
» RE: Esoterica Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Esoteric-ness Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Esoteric-ness Posted by: ray burchard
» RE: soteric-ness Posted by: benzene
» Academia's funding paradox Posted by: ray burchard
» Post Script: Posted by: ray burchard
» RE: xpensive, but Sweet Posted by: sheena2u
» Wow... nice question... Posted by: Bearzerker
Lots of hot air
Posted by: snowhound on Aug 9, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While scientists waste money on trying to figure out how mercury and other various metals and chemicals affect the fetus and young children, the drug companies and food industry will continue to buy off our governement and allow the mass poisoning of our children. Vaccinations that supposedly protect our kids from terrible diseases like the chicken pox, our loaded with toxic preservatives, which include MSG, Thimerisol, Alumninum..and so forth. GMO foods make up about 70% of all processed foods. A sensible society would have done all this research before these toxins would be allowed to be introduced in the first place. This article is a bunch of hot air. It doesn't take a biologists to realize that when you pump multiple vaccines loaded with preservatives into a baby, that immune suppression and neuorological damage will occur in the most suceptible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Agree With The Term "Autisms"
Posted by: rgoalierob on Aug 9, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Pediatric Therapist, working with patients who are mostly poor and from immigrant families, I am alarmed at the number of children that I see on the Autism Spectrum.
I have hypothesized that it was heavy metal exposure via immunizations, that has been causing Autisms. Children from Mexico seem to be disproportionately affected.
Another area of genotoxinomics that interests me is the exposure of civilians and soldiers to Depleted Uranium.
I doubt the Bush Administation is very interested in looking into either of these problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Testing
Posted by: magistre on Aug 9, 2007 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All said is fine but perhaps we should start by testing those "chemicals" that we think are safe?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Testing Posted by: benzene
» RE: Testing Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: Testing Posted by: earthedit
Darwin will prevail
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Aug 9, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The variety of toxins--and even medical responses thereto--will both affect the survivability and reproductive ability of certain genotypes, one over another. Whether or not humans learn to live within the parameters of the natural world and natural substances, there will be a persistent, long-lasting, kindling effect that will outpace efforts to even fully identify it.

Then again, with the arrival of the oil peak and the inevitable reduction of industry, civilization, and the accompanying toxins, the poisoning will have its own curve and will eventually taper off--many generations in the future. Then it will be a matter of how altered genotypes function, as it was and remains.

Effects and assaults on all species of life continues. It's pretty much a crapshoot how it will all turn out, silver bullet, gene therapy, stem-cell research or no. We're affected far beyond addressing much more than overt symptoms.

What kind of human could survive Parchman Farm? A human that could withstand blistering heat, insects, bad water, bad food, disease, brutal treatment, constant backbreaking work, and no medical care. Some men actually did survive it. Their genes persisted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not a terrible treatment of the subject.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 9, 2007 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The notion that advances in industrial technologies that allow the useful concentrations of substances humans evolved in relative isolation from (or in quantities vastly insignificant as compared to some chemicals, in some places now) might adversely affect our health isn't a new idea.

The presentation of the emerging research to quantify and qualify these effects was well done with this article. I did find one key aspect somewhat glossed over: usually chemicals either act sterically or in a chaotropic manner on DNA in non-specific fashions. In other words, from my understanding, chemicals rarely "target genes", they usually alter the folding or behavior proteins that influence whether or not that gene gets turned on or turned off.

Otherwise, a dandy read and very approachable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What do you think industrial-petrochemical PR targets?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 9, 2007 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Themes of the petrochemical industry:

All diseases are due to genetic causes....except those that are due to personal lifestyle choices.

Our products are safe and harmless when used according to instructions.

These are the people who know control the US government. The head of the EPA is refusing to challenge BP's wasterwater permit, as just one example. BP is one of the biggest polluters ofthe great lakes, and they have an atrocious safety and pollution record. See Did BP Purposefully Allow its Alaska Pipeline to Corrode in Order to Shut it Down and Boost Oil Prices?

The same thing is going on in public universities, as well - it's far, far easier to get funding for the inherited genetic causes of diseases than to get funding for environmental causes of disease.

For the details and background, see Bill Moyer's Trade Secrets

You know, it'd be far easier to figure this out than this article indicates. All you have to do is to get the US population to regularly get tested for environmental contaminants (see the Bill Moyers report).

Then, compare that to various diseases and health problems. If you suddenly find that everyone with zero sperm counts has a high body load of dioxin or PCBs, then you've made a good statistical linkage.

Not only this, such a screening program would help people who have no idea of what they are being exposed to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Breat Cancer and Toxins
Posted by: DCBeltway on Aug 9, 2007 2:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The number of women developing Breast Cancer keeps increasing year by year and its one in eight women who is diagnosed with the disease. I believe this strongly correlates with the rise in environmental toxins and polutants! Interestingly enough alot of companies that manufacture items that create toxins give to the Komen Center and other organizations doing Breast Cancer Research. See this article here:
http://tinyurl.com/yowlh7

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unfathamable Overly Complex Science Will Fail
Posted by: drricklippin on Aug 9, 2007 7:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Laura Wright says

"Consider for a moment that humans have some 30,000 genes, which interact in any number of ways with one or more of the 85,000 synthetic, commercially produced chemicals, as well as heavy metals, foods, drugs, myriad pollutants in the air and water, and anything else our bodies absorb from the environment." I'll add ETS=Environmental Tobacco Smoke alone contains over 4000 chemicals/combustion products.

These statements lead me to conclude that the science proposed here is so complex so as to render it unfathamable hence not worthy of allocating $ trying to disentangle the hopelessly complex?

I call it "Reductionism' Last Hurrah" (Lippin -1985)

At best we can apply Venter's "probabilistic statistics"

I AM for cleaning up the environment but not chemical by chemical.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ever Hear of Neurodiversity?
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Aug 9, 2007 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Autism is not a disease or a collection of diseases. It is an atypical neurology-- another way of being in and interacting with the world, and as someone on the autistic spectrum myself, I'm disgusted that Alternet has chosen to accept the construction of it as a disease.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We do it to ourselves Posted by: ray burchard
Attitude changes needed, too.
Posted by: sweet_byrd on Aug 10, 2007 5:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As one who lives with several chronic conditions, I have to observe that modern medicine -- though it is improving -- is remarkably bad at describing, comprehending or treating any condition that arises from a number of subtle causes or interactions. Doctors (in my experience) are extremely uncomfortable with anything that isn't definitively proved via a blood test, bone scan or other diagnostic that comes with a friendly summary print-out from the lab. For the advances described in this article to take hold in a meaningful fashion, the medical profession and practice of medicine are going to have to change as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

President Institute of Pest Management
Posted by: springpondbver on Aug 11, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How to kill pests without killing yourself or the earth......

There are about 50 to 60 million insect species on earth - we have named only about 1 million and there are only about 1 thousand pest species - already over 50% of these thousand pests are already resistant to our volatile, dangerous, synthetic pesticide POISONS. We accidentally lose about 25,000 to 100,000 species of insects, plants and animals every year due to "man's footprint". But, after poisoning the entire world and contaminating every living thing for over 60 years with these dangerous and ineffective pesticide POISONS we have not even controlled much less eliminated even one pest species and every year we use/misuse more and more pesticide POISONS to try to "keep up"! Even with all of this expensive pollution - we lose more and more crops and lives to these thousand pests every year.

We are losing the war against these thousand pests mainly because we insist on using only synthetic pesticide POISONS and fertilizers There has been a severe "knowledge drought" - a worldwide decline in agricultural R&D, especially in production research and safe, more effective pest control since the advent of synthetic pesticide POISONS and fertilizers. Today we are like lemmings running to the sea insisting that is the "right way". The greatest challenge facing humanity this century is the necessity for us to double our global food production with less land, less water, less nutrients, less science, frequent droughts, more and more contamination and ever-increasing pest damage.

National Poison Prevention Week, March 18-24,2007 was created to highlight the dangers of poisoning and how to prevent it. One study shows that about 70,000 children in the USA were involved in common household pesticide-related (acute) poisonings or exposures in 2004. It is estimated that 300,000 farm workers suffer acute pesticide poisoning each year in the United States - No one is checking chronic contamination.

In order to try to help "stem the tide", I have just finished re-writing my IPM encyclopedia entitled: THE BEST CONTROL II, that contains over 2,800 safe and far more effective alternatives to pesticide POISONS. This latest copyrighted work is about 1,800 pages in length and is now being updated at my new website at http://www.stephentvedten.com/ .

This new website at http://www.stephentvedten.com/ has been basically updated; all we have left to update is Chapter 39 and to renumber the pages. All of these copyrighted items are free for you to read and/or download. There is simply no need to POISON yourself or your family or to have any pest problems.

Stephen L. Tvedten
2530 Hayes Street
Marne, Michigan 49435
1-616-677-1261
"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." --Victor Hugo

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We must stop poisoning ourselves and our planet
Posted by: sheena2u on Aug 13, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The toxic substances we now have on our planet are not things our bodies are prepared to deal with.

We have sufficient knowledge today to avoid many of the problems we are facing such as epidemic asthma, epidemic cancer, cardiac disease, birth defects, Alzheimer's, and diabetes to a great degree. Modern medicine has not been sufficiently responsible in educating people to avoid illness. Large corporations must do more to protect our planet. People also must take responsibility and demand sustainable practices on a global level.

We have already greatly poisoned the planet. Many of our waters are unsafe. Our air is often unsafe to breathe. Our soils are becoming depleted of nutrients and over fertilized. Fertilizer and human waste pour into our oceans and many of our beaches and shores are not safe. Wildlife and our forests and oceans are in great peril. We must work harder to protect our oceans and our forests. We must do more to save the arctic ice caps and glaciers. We must end the wars now, and find a way to live in peace with one another before it is too late.

We must learn to live in harmony with nature. We have to stop living in a 19th century frame of mind, and as if we can continue to use coal and burn fossil fuels, pollute, wage war, tear down forests, etc. We must demand renewable energy and organic products. We must demand the immediate end to coal plants and coal mines, and stop cooking our planet. We must impeach and disempower those corrupt politicians who are leading us to certain destruction and ruin!

We must look ahead and stop thinking in terms of greed and denial and try to live sustainably, responsibly, and with common sense. Then the people, and the planet will have a chance to begin to heal and live. Otherwise our species and our earth is doomed to suffering, disaster, and complete destruction. We have to act now or all the civilizations of the earth will soon collapse.

We must think in terms of the value of our natural resources, our health, and our quality of living. We must not let big corporate interests, and the politicians they own, continue to oppress and exploit the people for short term gain. We must wake up and demand clean natural resources, honest government, and our right to live free of avoidable suffering and disease due to toxic overload.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Heavy Metals
Posted by: gellero on Aug 13, 2007 11:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hg and Pb can cause toxicity....and we don't know what amount is safe. But FYI these are easily removed from your body by Chelation Therapy. Also, Fluoridated water, foisted on the public by the 'progressives' of half a century ago (over the objections of 'conservatives') probably has a cumulative toxic effect. There's plenty of info out there for those who care to know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

homeopath
Posted by: homeopath on Aug 14, 2007 2:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all the science talk there is no 'average Joe outrage' at the criminals in the mega food industry. ( Except a mention by 'snowhound'.) Eating poisons every day -and paying for the privilege - should pretty quickly result in toxic accumulations of major magnitude, ain't that obvious?

How about class actions against those mega corporations' CEOs supported by those scientists who have not lost their human connection to the outside of their playhouses?

I fear that even the 'organic food' way-out is under attack from the same corporations by attempts at watering down the real and meaningful content of such LOCAL farming regimen.

Pharmaceutical corps and the AMA/CMA doctors should equally be charged with criminal actions, of course. But, like the mega food corps, they have the gall and the bucks to win so far in this unfree system called 'free enterprise'. I can't wait for the day when people finally understand what has been done to them for so long. Remember Homeopathy... Another shocking story.

Health begins with clean, naturally produced food.
With the vicious, intentional GMO invasions having already forever polluted much of what could be good for us, Monsanto-scientists and the like have a huge responsibility
for the suffering of millions of people from deseases linked to toxic food.

I suggest it is high time to get after these people and their corporate masters. We are all affected.
I am certainly having less and less access to 'clean' food.
And I am outraged at the greedballs who are doing this to me and the rest of the world!

Let's put the combined power of highly 'educated', still caring scientists to work, by creating honest public dialogue( with simple language) on human compassionate grounds, with the aim of ensuring a safe ( and tasty) food production for us all. Check out Poland for good work in that regard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ganymede
Posted by: threepenny on Aug 14, 2007 5:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was surprised that Alternet would publish such a technical, overly verbose article about autism and environmental health. It's been obvious for some time that heavy metal poisoning is a major culprit in the autism/alzheimer epidemic and that some people are much more susceptible than others. Your focus should be on looking at what the pharmaceutical/ chemical industry along with the food industry is doing to help cause this tragedy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ganymede Posted by: unity1
finaly some sense
Posted by: unity1 on Aug 14, 2007 8:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well its only taken a few hundred years for scients and doctors/researches to start at least looking in the right direction DNA is pivotal - no mention at all in this article about the heavy metals in vaccinations and the high and rising connection between them and autism though - better late than never though

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]