Which of our genes make us human?" An article with this title appeared
last fall in Science (Gibbons, 1998). The article reports that
there is hardly any difference between the DNA from humans and chimpanzees.
Approximately 98.5% of the DNA is the same. A photo of a chimp standing
upright accompanies the article, with this caption: "Chimpanzees may adopt
the occasional two-legged pose, but they differ dramatically from humans
in anatomy and behavior." Given the similarity of humans and chimps at
the DNA level, and the manifold differences at the biological and behavioral
levels, we might conclude that DNA has little to do with the essential
differences between human and chimp.
But the author of the article comes to a very different conclusion.
This means that a very small portion of human DNA is responsible
for the traits that make us human, and that a handful of genes somehow
confer everything from an upright gait to the ability to recite poetry
and compose music.
This statement reveals the conviction that DNA is the basic cause of all
biological and psychological phenomena: organisms are bundles of myriad
separate traits that are determined by genes. It follows from this postulate
that all differences between organisms can only stem from differences in
DNA. The 1.5% of "unique" human DNAwhich may include only about fifty
functional genesmust be the cause of everything human. Humanness is
seen to be genetically modified "chimpness." Conversely, if scientists knew
these "human" genes, they might be able to "convert a default-mode great
ape into a human," as New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade
put it (October 20, 1998).
Since its advent twenty-five years ago, genetic engineering of organisms
has developed into a paradise for the quantitatively oriented, combinatorial
intellect. DNA from any organism can be transferred into any other organism.
There are no perceived boundaries; everything appears to have become interchangeable.
True, the technical prowess still lags behind the vision of "anything
goes," and in any given experiment there is only about a one percent success
rate. But this fact is looked upon as a technical problem to be overcome
on the path toward the creation of organisms as custom-made, fine-tuned
At the gateway to the temple of modern science stands written: banish
all qualities, pursue quantity. Galileo, Descartes, and Locke furthered
this cause by stating that qualities do not actually exist. Qualities
are deemed subjective epiphenomena of reality, which is thought to be
quantitative. This conception became the underlying ideology of science:
qualities are subjective and there is, therefore, no science of qualities;
science pursues the quantitative, because that is the nature of reality.
But as the holistic thinker and neurologist Kurt Goldstein points out:
Biological knowledge is not advanced by simply adding more
and more individual facts. The facts which are gradually included in the
"whole" as parts can never be evaluated merely quantitatively, in such
a way that the more parts we are able to determine the firmer our knowledge
becomes. In biology every fact always has a qualitative significance.
(Goldstein, 1971, p. 30)
Goethe and a Qualitative Approach
One example of the striving toward a science that encompasses the qualitative
took place in a controversy at the end of the 18th century. By that time
comparative anatomists had discovered that humans and mammals have essentially
the same anatomical structure. Finally it came down literally to one bone
of contention: the premaxilla. The premaxilla (which is actually a pair
of bones, also called the premaxillary bones) forms the outermost (distal)
part of the snout of the upper jaw in mammals (see figure 1). When anatomists
investigated the human skull, they didn't find the premaxillary bones. Looking
at the human skull from the front, the premaxillary bones "should" have
been between the two upper jaw bones. Instead, the anatomists saw only the
suture where the two upper jaw bones meet.
Figure 1. Skulls of the white-tailed deer, mountain lion, and human
being. In the human being the premaxillary bones (p) are visible
only when the skull is viewed from below (basal view). m: maxilla
(upper jaw bone); n: nasal bone; p: premaxillary bones.
Several well-known anatomists declared in their treatises that the human
being has no premaxillary bones, thereby distinguishing us from animals.
Most of the scientists of those pre-Darwinian times were steeped in the
Judeo-Christian tradition and carried the deeply-felt conviction that
there were essential differences between the human being and animals.
But their scientific studies were showing more and more similarities.
The premaxilla was evidently felt to be the last bastion separating humanity
from "the lower beasts."
The poet and scientist J.W. von Goethe rejected this view that the concept
of humanness could hinge upon a single bone. With vehemence he set out
to find the premaxilla, and he succeeded (Goethe, 1988, p. 111ff). He
had to look more carefully than his contemporaries had done, since the
premaxillary bones can usually only be seen when you look behind the incisors
at the upper palate (where you put your tongue when you say "tea"). There
Goethe saw, in some skulls, two little bones that lie between the
upper jaw bones (see figure 1). These are the premaxillary bones. Goethe
soon discovered that others had made the same observation long before
him. But their studies had been ignored, forgotten or overlooked.
You may have difficulty appreciating Goethe's enthusiasm for the discovery
of this bonean enthusiasm he expresses in letters to his friends
Herder and Knebel (quoted in Schad, 1985, my translations):
(To Herder:) I have foundneither gold nor silver, but
it gives me the greatest joythe premaxilla of the human being....
It is like the keystone to the human being; it's not missing; it's there!
The discovery of the premaxilla supported Goethe's view that what distinguishes
the human being from animals does not lie "in any given particular." For
Goethe the presence of the premaxilla did not make the human being into
a "mere" animal, nor would its absence have guaranteed a distinction between
human and animal. What was important was not that the bone was present,
but how, "since the agreement within the whole makes each creature
what it is." He saw that the premaxillaif viewed with an eye directed
toward understanding the whole organismcould reveal humanness, just
like any other bone. This insight was the source of his deepest joy.
(To Knebel:) The difference between the human being and animals is
not to be found in any given particular....The agreement within the
whole makes each creature what it is, and the human being is a human
being just as much through the form and nature of the upper jaw as through
the form and nature of the last two bones of the little toe.
The Whole and the Part
Can we see how a single bone is related to the organism as a whole? Long-legged,
long-necked hooved mammals like the deer also have elongated skulls and
the premaxillary bones are long and slender (see figure 1). The same is
true for the other bones of the front part of the skull: the nasal bone,
upper jaw (maxilla) and the lower jaw (mandible) are all long and taper
toward a point. Just as the front (distal) part of the skull is elongated
so is the distal part of the limb: the foot and toe bones are especially
long. The deer stands on the tip of its two hoofed toes and the heel is
halfway between the ground and the torso. This part of the leg is mainly
tendon and bone, while the shorter upper leg bones are surrounded by muscle.
Similarly, the rear part of the skull and jaw are embedded in muscle, while
the snout is bony.
By contrast, the mountain lion has a much more compact skull, which
is mirrored in the shorter and broader premaxillary bones (see figure
1). The mountain lionas is typical for the cat family as a wholealso
has a more compact body than a deer. Its neck and legs are relatively
short and muscular. It stands not on the tips of its four toes, but on
the first toe joint. Just as the mountain lion latches onto and penetrates
through the skin of its prey with its claws, so does it pierce and tear
flesh with its sharp and pointed canine and cheek teeth. Clearly, head
and limb fit together.
What about in the human being? Goethe realized that the way the individual
bonesincluding the premaxillary bonesare formed in the human
being is an expression of our upright posture (cf. Schad, 1985). In the
human skull the facial and jaw bones do not protrude forward. Developmentally
this fact is expressed in the rapid closing of the upper jaw bones that
grow over the premaxillary bones, which themselves remain undeveloped.
Being short and round allows the skull to balance on the vertical spine.
In the four-legged mammal, the brain case remains small and sits behind
the protruding face and jaw, reflecting the animal's overall horizontal
orientation. By contrast, the human skull has a large brain case, which
rises above the face and jaw, mirroring the vertical orientation of the
whole human body. The fact that we have no snout is related to our ability
to speak and also express our emotions and thoughts through facial expression.
The large cranial vault is an expression of the inwardness out of which
we can act.
In contrast to the deer or mountain lion, in the human being the femurthe
body-near, proximal part of the legis the longest bone in the leg
(and in the whole body) while the feet and toes are short; the heel rests
on the ground. Mirroring this relation in the head, the brain case, as
the part of the skull closest to the body axis, expands, while the facial
cranium remains small. Now we can see how justified Goethe was in writing:
"A human being is a human being just as much through the form and nature
of the upper jaw as through the form and nature of the last two bones
of the little toe."
All of our anatomical, as well as our mental and spiritual capacities
can be seen in relation to the upright posture. Goethe's friend Herder
recognized this connection clearly, and expressed it precisely and beautifully:
Because the human being has to learn all things, because it
is our instinct and calling to learn everything like our upright gait,
we learn to walk by falling and come often to truth only through error.
The animal is carried forward securely in its four-legged gait; the more
strongly expressed proportions of its senses and drives are its guides.
The human being has the advantage of a king to look to far horizons, upright
and with head held high. Of course, we also see much darkly and falsely.
We forget our steps only to be reminded when stumbling on what a narrow
basis the whole head and heart edifice of our concepts and judgments rests....
The human being is the first to be set free in creation. We stand upright.
The balance of good and evil, of false and true hangs in us. We can search,
we shall choose. Just as nature gave us an overviewing eye to guide our
gait, so also do we have the power not only to place the weights, butif
I may put it this wayto be the weights on the balance. (Herder,
1982, p. 65)
Herder's description can give you an impression of how far it is possible
to go in relating seemingly mundane biological facts to the inner nature
of humanity. When we see how each aspect of a being tells us something about
it as a whole, we are no longer thinking quantitatively. The part is not
an isolated "thing." It is a revelation and realization of a larger context.
As Hegel might have phrased it: the part of an organism goes beyond itself
to become what it is essentially, namely, a member of a whole. When we begin
to see the same tendencies, the same gestures in different parts, the whole
begins to speak. What speaks is not a quantity, not a thing, but a qualitythat
of the specific wholeness of human or chimp. Nothing is interchangeable.
The chimp is through and through chimp. The human is through and through
human. In order to adequately grasp the inherent nature of a living being,
we must think qualitatively. This is what organisms tell us.
This understanding is direly lacking in a genocentric view that hopes
to discover the difference between human and chimp in fifty genes. It
is not only lack of insight, but hype to give 1.5% of the genome credit
for human biologylet alone credit for the ability to recite poetry
and compose music. The secretthe "cause"of humanness or chimpness
is not to be discovered in our genes, although some day it may be possible
to discover how genes themselves relate to the integral nature of a being.
The prowess of genetic engineers arises from their ability to ignore the
organism as an integrated, interactive being, while gaining a knowledge
of isolated substances and small-scale biochemical processes. When scientists
think of an organism as a genetic mechanism, then there is every reason
to try to exchange parts in order to "improve" the mechanism's function.
The ideal of genetic engineering is to create and control the smoothly functioning,
predictable bioreactorthe plant that is resistant to pests and herbicides,
the farm animal that produces meat or pharmaceutical substances with maximal
efficiency, the human being genetically vaccinated against an array of infectious
For example, if larger, faster-growing pigs are desired, why not implant
growth hormone DNA from, say, cattle into pigs? Government, university,
and industry scientists have been working on this task for more than a
decade (Pursel, 1998). There are now transgenic pigs that produce large
amounts of bovine growth hormone. These pigs grow faster, utilize feed
more effectively, and have less carcass fat than their normal cousins.
This is more than the researchers had hoped to achieve, since they didn't
expect the pigs to produce leaner pork. But these are not the only changes
that take place. The pigs are also very susceptible to stress, have a
high incidence of gastric ulcers, dermatitis, arthritis, lameness, and
renal disease, and the boars often lack libido. Because of these (and
other) "side-effects," such transgenic pigs have not yet become marketable.
This example is not an isolated case. Genetic engineering experiments
often produce unexpected, negative results. Once we learn to see organisms
as the integrated beings they are, where every part and process is related
to every other part and process, then we begin to expect such unexpected
results. They are not "accidents," even if they cannot be foreseen. The
transgenic organism reacts as a whole to the foreign substance (DNA).
Sometimes the reactions are subtle, often they are crass and harmful.
For example, in addition to the changes described above the transgenic
pigs stop the secretion of their own porcine growth hormone, partially
balancing out the effects of the genetic manipulation (Pursel et al.,
When genetic knowledge and the technology are re-introduced into the
arena of life, they enter a realm where context is everything. If there
is one thing we can be sure about, it's that unexpected problems will
arise. That's the most certain prognosis. This fact makes the blatant
undervaluation of the way transgenic crops will affect other organisms
and the environment as a whole especially insidious. Many crops (soybeans,
corn, potatoes, cotton, and so on) are being genetically modified to become
resistant to herbicides and pests. In 1998 about thirty percent of all
soybeans planted in the USA were genetically engineered for either pesticide
or herbicide resistance. Recently scientists genetically engineered a
weed (Arabidopsis, the workhorse of plant genetics) to become herbicide
resistant. Completely unexpectedly, many of the transgenic plants changed
their reproductive behavior (Bergelson et al., 1998). Normally Arabidopsis
is self-fertilizing, but after the genetic manipulation many of them started
to cross-pollinate. The researchers have no idea why this happened and
how it is related to their manipulation. But they do recognize that such
an unexpected result should give us pause to stop and think about transgenic
crops. Soybeans, for example, are normally self-fertilizing. If anything
comparable happened to them, then the herbicide resistance could spread
via pollen to plants that are not genetically engineered. Imagine the
predicament of the organic farmer whose neighbor plants transgenic soybeans.
Of course no one knows whether soybeans will change in this way, but
at least there should be concern. Most ecologists are urging more stringent
practices and better oversight of transgenic crops. But the USDA has actually
reduced the oversight of field trials and commercialization of
transgenic crops, playing into the hands of the large biotech companies
that produce the seeds as well as the herbicides.
The producers of transgenic organisms, and very often government agencies
as well, would like to capture us in their vision of complete control,
and to have us believe that laboratory experiments and clearly circumscribed
field tests "prove" the efficacy and safety of their products. But neither
genetic thinking, nor the techniques themselves are adapted to the complexity
of life; they are maximally effective only under maximally controlled
conditions. Life is not about isolation; it is about interpenetration
and mutual dependence.
The tendency within science and genetic technology is not to change
the approach, but to find ways to increase control when problems arise,
counteracting the problems already created by using more of the same kind
of methods. It might be possible, for example, to build stalls to support
arthritic, lamed pigs that can hardly walk and carry their body weight.
Or couldn't transgenic pollen be modified to self-destruct when it reaches
the air? (But what if a few don't?) Precisely such "solutions" show the
grotesque nature of viewing and treating organisms as objects to be manipulated
and completely controlled. This approach can only lead to the creation
and perpetuation of more unhealthy conditions.
The Need for Qualitative Understanding
The quantitative approach can continue to feed our desire, and increase
our ability, to control aspects of life. But it is also starkly reflected
in the mirror of unhealthy side-effects and the continual race to solve
problems we have caused with solutions that cause more of the same kind
of problems. Following this path, organisms will increasingly come to reflect
our disregard for the integrity of living processes. Organisms are resilient,
but can they withstand indefinitely the onslaught of manipulation based
on combinatorial, mechanistic thought?
A shift to a qualitative approach in science can help lead us beyond
this dilemma. This shift is radical and difficult, since it entails cutting
through hype and sacrificing our will to power. But we can leave behind
the desire to control, striving instead to acknowledge and understand
the integrity of our fellow creatures. When we begin to see organisms
as qualitative wholes in which even a seemingly insignificant bone carries
the signature of the whole, then the organism starts to come alive for
us. We establish a relation from being to being. The more our understanding
becomes centered in the other, the more we can develop ways of action
that take the integrity of that being into account. How else is responsible
As long as scientists view organisms as mechanisms in a world separate
from them, there is no real question of responsibility. Ethical considerations
in this case are after-the-fact and viewed as being outside the scientific
process. For this reason they are also usually ineffective. Only when
we incorporate the qualitative into the scientific processwhen our
way of viewing consciously includes the other being from the outsetcan
we begin to heal this split. Responsibility involves an inner relation
to the world that is bracketed out of a quantitative approach.
Although genetic engineering is clearly a proof of the efficacy of modern
science, its results show just as clearly the necessity to change our
ways of viewing and treating life. It is as though transgenic plants and
animals were shouting at us to stop viewing and treating them like inanimate
objects that can be modified according to our wishes and desires, and
to earnestly begin to acknowledge, understand, and deal with them as the
beings they are.
Craig Holdrege is founder of The Nature Institute and author of Genetics
and the Manipulation of Life: The Forgotten Factor of Context. A lengthened
version of this essay was presented at a conference on "Goethean Science
in Holistic Perspective," Teachers College, Columbia University, May 20-22,
Bergelson , J. et al. ( 1998). Promiscuity in
Transgenic Plants. Nature 395:25.
Gibbons, A. (1998). Which of Our Genes Makes Us
Human? Science 281:1432-1434.
Goethe, J. (1988). Scientific Studies, edited
by D. Miller. New York: Suhrkamp.
Goldstein, K. (1971). Human Nature. New York:
Goldstein, K. (1995). The Organism. New York:
Herder, J. (1982). Ideen zur Philosophie der
Geschichte der Menschheit, vierter Band. Berlin: Aufbauverlag.
Pursel, V. (1998). Modification of Production Traits,
in Animal Breeding - Technology for the 21st Century, edited by
A. Clark. Netherlands: Harwood Acad. Publ.
Pursel, V. et al. (1987). Progress on Gene Transfer
in Farm Animals. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathy 17:303-312.
Schad, W. (1985). Stauphaenomene am menschlichen
Knochenbau, in Goetheanistische Naturwissenschaft, Bd. 4 Anthropologie,
pp. 9-29, edited by W. Schad. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben.
Simmel, M. (1968). The Reach of the Mind (Essays
in Memory of Kurt Goldstein). New York: Springer Verlag.
Original source: In Context (Spring, 1999, pp.11-15); copyright
1999 by The Nature Institute